Search Results

Purpose: To analyze the relationship between movement velocity and relative load (%1RM) in the pull-up exercise (PU) and to determine the pattern of repetition-velocity loss during a single set to failure in pulling one’s own body mass. Methods: Fifty-two men (age = 26.5 ± 3.9 y, body mass = 74.3 ± 7.2 kg) performed a first evaluation (T1) consisting of an 1-repetition-maximum test (1RM) and a test of maximum number of repetitions to failure pulling one’s own body mass (MNR) in the PU exercise. Thirty-nine subjects performed both tests on a second occasion (T2) following 12 wk of training. Results: The authors observed a strong relationship between mean propulsive velocity (MPV) and %1RM (r = −.96). Mean velocity attained with 1RM load (V_1RM) was 0.20 ± 0.05 m·s⁻¹, and it influenced the MPV attained with each %1RM. Although 1RM increased by 3.4% from T1 to T2, the relationship between MPV and %1RM, and V_1RM, remained stable. The authors also confirmed stability in the V_1RM regardless of individual relative strength. The authors found a strong relationship between percentage of velocity loss and percentage of performed repetitions (R ² = .88), which remained stable despite a 15% increase in MNR. Conclusions: Monitoring repetition velocity allows estimation of the %1RM used as soon as the first repetition with a given load is performed, and the number of repetitions remaining in reserve when a given percentage of velocity loss is achieved during a PU exercise set.

Purpose: This study aimed to analyze the response to 4 concurrent training interventions differing in the training sequence and in the velocity loss (VL) threshold during strength training (20% vs 40%) on following endurance and strength performance. Methods: A randomized crossover research design was used. Sixteen trained men performed 4 training interventions consisting of endurance training (ET) followed by resistance training (RT), with 20% and 40% VL, respectively (ET + RT20 and ET + RT40), and RT with 20% and 40% VL, respectively, followed by ET (RT20 + ET and RT40 + ET). The ET consisted of running for 10 minutes at 90% of maximal aerobic velocity. The RT consisted of 3 squat sets with 60% of 1-repetition maximum. A 5-minute rest was given between exercises. The oxygen uptake throughout the ET and repetition velocity during RT were recorded. The blood lactate concentration, vertical jump, and squat velocity were measured at preexercise and after the endurance and strength exercises. Results: The RT40 + ET protocol showed an impaired running time along with higher ventilatory equivalents compared with those protocols that performed the ET without previous fatigue. No significant differences were observed in the repetitions per set performed for a given VL threshold, regardless of the exercise sequence. The protocols consisting of 40%VL induced greater reductions in jump height and squat velocity, along with elevated blood lactate concentration. Conclusions: A high VL magnitude (40%VL) induced higher metabolic and mechanical stress, as well as greater residual fatigue, on the following ET performance.

Purpose: This study analyzed the effects of 3 training interventions: 1 isolated endurance training (ET) and 2 concurrent training (CT), which differed in the velocity loss (VL) magnitude allowed during the resistance training (RT) set: 15% (VL15) versus 45%, on strength and endurance running performance. Methods: A total of 33 resistance- and endurance-trained men were randomly allocated into 3 groups: VL15, VL 45%, and ET. ET was similar across all groups. The CT groups differed in the VL allowed during the RT set. Before and after the 8-week training program the following tests were performed: (1) running sprints, (2) vertical jump, (3) progressive loading test in the squat exercise, and (4) incremental treadmill running test up to maximal oxygen uptake. Results: Significant differences (P < .001) in RT volume (approximately 401 vs 177 total repetitions for VL 45% and VL15, respectively) were observed. Significant “group” × “time” interactions were observed for vertical jump and all strength-related variables: the CT groups attained significantly greater gains than ET. Moreover, a significant “group” × “time” interaction (P = .03) was noted for velocity at maximal oxygen uptake. Although all groups showed increases in velocity at maximal oxygen uptake, the VL15 group achieved greater gains than the ET group. Conclusions: CT interventions experienced greater strength gains than the ET group. Although all groups improved their endurance performance, the VL15 intervention resulted in greater gains than the ET approach. Therefore, moderate VL thresholds in RT performed during CT could be a good strategy for concurrently maximizing strength and endurance development.