TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of the Effects of Velocity-Based Training Methods and Traditional 1RM-Percent-Based Training Prescription on Acute Kinetic and Kinematic Variables. AU - Banyard,Harry G, AU - Tufano,James J, AU - Delgado,Jose, AU - Thompson,Steve W, AU - Nosaka,Kazunori, Y1 - 2019/01/09/ PY - 2018/8/7/pubmed PY - 2019/5/9/medline PY - 2018/8/7/entrez KW - back squat KW - load monitoring KW - load–velocity relationship KW - resistance training KW - training volume SP - 246 EP - 255 JF - International journal of sports physiology and performance JO - Int J Sports Physiol Perform VL - 14 IS - 2 N2 - PURPOSE: To compare kinetic and kinematic data from 3 different velocity-based training sessions and a 1-repetition-maximum (1RM)-percent-based training (PBT) session using full-depth, free-weight back squats with maximal concentric effort. METHODS: Fifteen strength-trained men performed 4 randomized resistance-training sessions 96 h apart: PBT session involved 5 sets of 5 repetitions using 80% 1RM; load-velocity profile (LVP) session contained 5 sets of 5 repetitions with a load that could be adjusted to achieve a target velocity established from an individualized LVP equation at 80% 1RM; fixed sets 20% velocity loss threshold (FSVL20) session consisted of 5 sets at 80% 1RM, but sets were terminated once the mean velocity (MV) dropped below 20% of the threshold velocity or when 5 repetitions were completed per set; and variable sets 20% velocity loss threshold session comprised 25 repetitions in total, but participants performed as many repetitions in a set as possible until the 20% velocity loss threshold was exceeded. RESULTS: When averaged across all repetitions, MV and peak velocity (PV) were significantly (P < .05) faster during the LVP (MV effect size [ES] = 1.05; PV ES = 1.12) and FSVL20 (MV ES = 0.81; PV ES = 0.98) sessions compared with PBT. Mean time under tension (TUT) and concentric TUT were significantly less during the LVP sessions compared with PBT. The FSVL20 sessions had significantly less repetitions, total TUT, and concentric TUT than PBT. No significant differences were found for all other measurements between any of the sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Velocity-based training permits faster velocities and avoids additional unnecessary mechanical stress but maintains similar measures of force and power output compared with strength-oriented PBT in a single training session. SN - 1555-0273 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/30080424/Comparison_of_the_Effects_of_Velocity_Based_Training_Methods_and_Traditional_1RM_Percent_Based_Training_Prescription_on_Acute_Kinetic_and_Kinematic_Variables_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -