Purpose: Prescribing resistance training using velocity loss thresholds can enhance exercise quality by mitigating neuromuscular fatigue. As little is known regarding performance during these protocols, we aimed to assess the effects of 10%, 20%, and 30% velocity loss thresholds on kinetic, kinematic, and repetition characteristics in the free-weight back squat. Methods: Using a randomized crossover design, 16 resistance-trained men were recruited to complete 5 sets of the barbell back squat. Lifting load corresponded to a mean concentric velocity (MV) of ∼0.70 m·s−1 (115  kg). Repetitions were performed until a 10%, 20%, or 30% MV loss was attained. Results: Set MV and power output were substantially higher in the 10% protocol (0.66 m·s−1 and 1341 W, respectively), followed by the 20% (0.62 m·s−1 and 1246 W) and 30% protocols (0.59 m·s−1 and 1179 W). There were no substantial changes in MV (−0.01 to −0.02 m·s−1) or power output (−14 to −55 W) across the 5 sets for all protocols, and individual differences in these changes were typically trivial to small. Mean set repetitions were substantially higher in the 30% protocol (7.8), followed by the 20% (6.4) and 10% protocols (4.2). There were small to moderate reductions in repetitions across the 5 sets during all protocols (−39%, −31%, −19%, respectively), and individual differences in these changes were small to very large. Conclusions: Velocity training prescription maintains kinetic and kinematic output across multiple sets of the back squat, with repetition ranges being highly variable. Our findings, therefore, challenge traditional resistance training paradigms (repetition based) and add support to a velocity-based approach.
Jonathon Weakley, Carlos Ramirez-Lopez, Shaun McLaren, Nick Dalton-Barron, Dan Weaving, Ben Jones, Kevin Till and Harry Banyard
Jonathon J.S. Weakley, Dale B. Read, Hugh H.K. Fullagar, Carlos Ramirez-Lopez, Ben Jones, Cloe Cummins and John A. Sampson
Purpose: To investigate whether providing global positioning system feedback to players between bouts of small-sided games (SSGs) can alter locomotor, physiological, and perceptual responses. Methods: Using a reverse counterbalanced design, 20 male university rugby players received either feedback or no feedback during “off-side” touch rugby SSGs. Eight 5v5, 6 × 4-minute SSGs were played over 4 d. Teams were assigned to a feedback or no-feedback condition (control) each day, with feedback provided during the 2-min between-bouts rest interval. Locomotor, heart rate, and differential rating of perceived exertion of breathlessness and leg-muscle exertion were measured and analyzed using a linear mixed model. Outcomes were reported using effect sizes (ES) and 90% confidence intervals (CI), and then interpreted via magnitude-based decisions. Results: Very likely trivial to unclear differences at all time points were observed in heart rate and differential rating of perceived exertion measures. Possibly to very likely trivial effects were observed between conditions, including total distance (ES = 0.15; 90 CI, −0.03 to 0.34), high-speed distance (ES = −0.07; 90 CI, −0.27 to 0.13), and maximal sprint speed (ES = 0.11; 90% CI, −0.11 to 0.34). All within-bout comparisons showed very likely to unclear differences, apart from possible increases in low-speed distance in bout 2 (ES = 0.23; 90% CI, 0.01 to 0.46) and maximal sprint speed in bout 4 (ES = 0.21; 90% CI, −0.04 to 0.45). Conclusions: In this study, verbal feedback did not alter locomotor, physiological, or perceptual responses in rugby players during SSGs. This may be due to contextual factors (eg, opposition) or the type (ie, distance) or low frequency of feedback provided.