Superior Changes in Jump, Sprint, and Change-of-Direction Performance but Not Maximal Strength Following 6 Weeks of Velocity-Based Training Compared With 1-Repetition-Maximum Percentage-Based Training
in International Journal of Sports Physiology and PerformancePurpose: To compare the effects of velocity-based training (VBT) and 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) percentage-based training (PBT) on changes in strength, loaded countermovement jump (CMJ), and sprint performance. Methods: A total of 24 resistance-trained males performed 6 weeks of full-depth free-weight back squats 3 times per week in a daily undulating format, with groups matched for sets and repetitions. The PBT group lifted with fixed relative loads varying from 59% to 85% of preintervention 1RM. The VBT group aimed for a sessional target velocity that was prescribed from pretraining individualized load–velocity profiles. Thus, real-time velocity feedback dictated the VBT set-by-set training load adjustments. Pretraining and posttraining assessments included the 1RM, peak velocity for CMJ at 30%1RM (PV-CMJ), 20-m sprint (including 5 and 10 m), and 505 change-of-direction test (COD). Results: The VBT group maintained faster (effect size [ES] = 1.25) training repetitions with less perceived difficulty (ES = 0.72) compared with the PBT group. The VBT group had likely to very likely improvements in the COD (ES = −1.20 to −1.27), 5-m sprint (ES = −1.17), 10-m sprint (ES = −0.93), 1RM (ES = 0.89), and PV-CMJ (ES = 0.79). The PBT group had almost certain improvements in the 1RM (ES = 1.41) and possibly beneficial improvements in the COD (ES = −0.86). Very likely favorable between-groups effects were observed for VBT compared to PBT in the PV-CMJ (ES = 1.81), 5-m sprint (ES = 1.35), and 20-m sprint (ES = 1.27); likely favorable between-groups effects were observed in the 10-m sprint (ES = 1.24) and nondominant-leg COD (ES = 0.96), whereas the dominant-leg COD (ES = 0.67) was possibly favorable. PBT had small (ES = 0.57), but unclear differences for 1RM improvement compared to VBT. Conclusions: Both training methods improved 1RM and COD times, but PBT may be slightly favorable for stronger individuals focusing on maximal strength, whereas VBT was more beneficial for PV-CMJ, sprint, and COD improvements.
Banyard and Wu are with the Dept of Health Science and Biostatistics, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Banyard and Nosaka are with the Centre for Exercise and Sports Science Research (CESSR), School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA, Australia. Tufano is with the Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. Weakley is with the School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, and Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Centre, Inst for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom. Jukic is with the Sport Performance Research Inst New Zealand (SPRINZ), Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
© 2021 Human Kinetics