Effects of Four Different Velocity-Based Training Programming Models on Strength Gains and Physical Performance

Riscart-López, J, Rendeiro-Pinho, G, Mil-Homens, P, Costa, RS-d, Loturco, I, Pareja-Blanco, F, and León-Prados, JA. Effects of Four different velocity-based training programming models on strength gains and physical performance. J Strength Cond Res 35(3): 596-603, 2021-The aim of this study was to c...

Celý popis

Uložené v:
Podrobná bibliografia
Vydané v:Journal of strength and conditioning research Ročník 35; číslo 3; s. 596
Hlavní autori: Riscart-López, Javier, Rendeiro-Pinho, Gonçalo, Mil-Homens, Pedro, Soares-daCosta, Rodrigo, Loturco, Irineu, Pareja-Blanco, Fernando, León-Prados, Juan A
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:English
Vydavateľské údaje: United States 01.03.2021
Predmet:
Adolescent
Adult
Athletic Performance
Exercise Test
Humans
Male
Muscle Strength
Physical Functional Performance
Posture
Resistance Training
Young Adult
ISSN:1064-8011, 1533-4287, 1533-4287
On-line prístup:Zistit podrobnosti o prístupe
Tagy: Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
Popis
Shrnutí:Riscart-López, J, Rendeiro-Pinho, G, Mil-Homens, P, Costa, RS-d, Loturco, I, Pareja-Blanco, F, and León-Prados, JA. Effects of Four different velocity-based training programming models on strength gains and physical performance. J Strength Cond Res 35(3): 596-603, 2021-The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 4 velocity-based training (VBT) programming models (linear programming [LP], undulating programming [UP], reverse programming [RP], and constant programming [CP]) on the physical performance of moderately strength-trained men. Forty-three young (age: 22.9 ± 4.8 years; body mass [BM]: 71.7 ± 7.6; full squat [SQ] relative strength 1.32 ± 0.29) subjects were randomly assigned to LP (gradually increase training intensity and decrease volume), UP (volume and intensity increase or decrease repeatedly), RP (gradually increases volume and decrease intensity), and CP (maintains constant volume and intensity) groups and followed an 8-week VBT intervention using the SQ exercise and monitoring movement velocity for every repetition. All groups trained with similar relative average intensity (67.5% 1 repetition maximum [1RM]), magnitude of velocity loss within the set (20%), number of sets (3), and interset recoveries (4 minutes) throughout the training program. Pre-training and post-training measurements included predicted SQ (1RM), average velocity attained for all loads common to pre-tests and post-tests (AV), average velocity for those loads that were moved faster (AV > 1) and slower (AV < 1) than 1 m·s-1 at pre-tests, countermovement jump height (CMJ), and 20-m sprint time (T20). No significant group × time interactions were observed for any of the variables analyzed. All groups obtained similar increases (shown in effect size values) in 1RM strength (LP: 0.88; UP: 0.54; RP: 0.62; CP: 0.51), velocity-load-related variables (LP: 0.74-4.15; UP: 0.46-5.04; RP: 0.36-3.71; CP: 0.74-3.23), CMJ height (LP: 0.35; UP: 0.53; RP: 0.49; CP: 0.34), and sprint performance (LP: 0.34; UP: 0.35; RP: 0.32; CP: 0.30). These results suggest that different VBT programming models induced similar physical performance gains in moderately strength-trained subjects.
Bibliografia:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
ISSN:1064-8011
1533-4287
1533-4287
DOI:10.1519/JSC.0000000000003934