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 Performance
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $24.95

Student 1 year online subscription

USD  $112.00

1 year online subscription

USD  $149.00

Student 2 year online subscription

USD  $213.00

2 year online subscription

USD  $284.00

Purpose: 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.

Banyard (hbanyard@swin.edu.au) is corresponding author.
  • 1.

    Baechle TR, Earle RW. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human kinetics; 2008.

  • 2.

    Mann JB, Ivey PA, Sayers SP. Velocity-based training in football. Strength Cond J. 2015;37(6):5257. doi:

  • 3.

    Helms ER, Byrnes R, Cooke D, et al. RPE vs percentage 1RM loading in periodized programs matched for sets and repetitions. Front Physiol. 2018;9:247. PubMed ID: 29628895 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Banyard HG, Tufano JJ, Delgado J, Thompson S, Nosaka K. Comparison of velocity-based training and traditional 1RM-percent-based prescription on acute kinetic and kinematic variables. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018;14(2):128. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Weakley JJS, Wilson KM, Till K, et al. Show me, tell me, encourage me: the effect of different forms of feedback on resistance training performance [published online ahead of print October 4, 2018]. J Strength Cond Res. doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Weakley JJS, Wilson KM, Till K, et al. Visual feedback attenuates mean concentric barbell velocity loss, and improves motivation, competitiveness, and perceived workload in male adolescent athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33(9):24202425. PubMed ID: 28704314 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Wilson KM, de Joux N, Head J, Helton W, Dang J, Weakley JJS. Presenting objective visual performance feedback over multiple sets of resistance exercise improves motivation, competitiveness, and performance. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 2018;62(1):13061310. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Weakley J, Till K, Sampson J, et al. The effects of augmented feedback on sprint, jump, and strength adaptations in rugby union players after a 4-week training program. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019;14(9):12051211. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Conceição F, Fernandes J, Lewis M, Gonzaléz-Badillo JJ, Jimenéz-Reyes P. Movement velocity as a measure of exercise intensity in three lower limb exercises. J Sports Sci. 2015;34(12):10991106. doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    García-Ramos A, Barboza-González P, Ulloa-Díaz D, et al. Reliability and validity of different methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. J Sports Sci. 2019;37(19):22052212. doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    García-Ramos A, Pestaña-Melero FL, Pérez-Castilla A, Rojas FJ, Gregory Haff G. Mean velocity vs mean propulsive velocity vs peak velocity: which variable determines bench press relative load with higher reliability? J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(5):12731279. doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Banyard HG, Nosaka K, Vernon A, Haff GG. The reliability of individualized load-velocity profiles. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018;13(6):763769. PubMed ID: 29140148 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    González-Badillo JJ, Sánchez-Medina L. Movement velocity as a measure of loading intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports Med. 2010;31(5):347352. doi:

  • 14.

    Dorrell HF, Smith MF, Gee TI. Comparison of velocity-based and traditional percentage-based loading methods on maximal strength and power adaptations. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(1):4653. PubMed ID: 30946276 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Orange ST, Metcalfe JW, Robinson A, Applegarth MJ, Liefeith A. Effects of in-season velocity-versus percentage-based training in academy rugby league players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019;15(4):554561. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Balsalobre-Fernández CA, García-Ramos A, Jiménez-Reyes P. Load–velocity profiling in the military press exercise: effects of gender and training. Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2018;13(5):743750. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Appleby B, Banyard HG, Cormie P, Cormack SJ, Newton RU. Validity and reliability of methods to determine barbell displacement in heavy back squats: implications for velocity based training [published online ahead of print August 8, 2018]. J Strength Cond Res. doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Banyard HG, Nosaka K, Sato K, Haff GG. Validity of various methods for determining velocity, force and power in the back squat. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(9):11701176. PubMed ID: 28182500 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Banyard HG, Nosaka K, Haff GG. Reliability and validity of the load–velocity relationship to predict the 1RM back squat. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(7):18971904. PubMed ID: 27669192 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Gaudion SL, Doma K, Sinclair W, Banyard HG, Woods CT. Identifying the physical fitness, anthropometric and athletic movement qualities discriminant of developmental level in elite junior Australian football: implications for the development of talent. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(7):18301839. PubMed ID: 27787473 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Stewart PF, Turner AN, Miller SC. Reliability, factorial validity, and interrelationships of five commonly used change of direction speed tests. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2014;24(3):500506. PubMed ID: 23176602 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Robertson RJ, Goss FL, Rutkowski J, et al. Concurrent validation of the OMNI perceived exertion scale for resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(2):333341. PubMed ID: 12569225 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Hopkins WG. Spreadsheets for analysis of validity and reliability by linear regression. Sportscience. 2015;14:4957.

  • 24.

    Lakens D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol. 2013;4:863. PubMed ID: 24324449 doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Hopkins WG, Marshall S, Batterham A, Hanin J. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(1):313. PubMed ID: 19092709 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Hopkins WG. A spreadsheet for deriving a confidence interval, mechanistic inference, and clinical inference from a P value. Sportscience. 2007;11:1620.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Padulo J, Mignogna P, Mignardi S, Tonni F, D’Ottavio S. Effect of different pushing speeds on bench press. Int J Sports Med. 2012;33(5):376380. PubMed ID: 22318559 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Sale DG, Martin JE, Moroz DE. Hypertrophy without increased isometric strength after weight training. Eur J Appl Physiol. 1992;64(1):5155. doi:

  • 29.

    Randell AD, Cronin JB, Keogh JWL, Gill ND, Pederson MC. Effect of instantaneous performance feedback during 6 weeks of velocity-based resistance training on sport-specific performance tests. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(1):8793. PubMed ID: 21157389 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    Day ML, Mcguigan MR, Brice G, Foster C. Monitoring exercise intensity during resistance training using the session RPE scale. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(12):353358. PubMed ID: 15142026

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    Pareja-Blanco F, Alcazar J, Sánchez-Valdepeñas J, et al. Velocity loss as a critical variable determining the adaptations to strength training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020;52(8):17521762. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    Pareja-Blanco F, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Sánchez-Medina L, et al. Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance, strength gains and muscle adaptations. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017;27(7):724735. PubMed ID: 27038416 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 858 858 412
Full Text Views 62 62 34
PDF Downloads 52 52 32