devices, it is now possible to provide instantaneous feedback during training for numerous variables, such as movement velocity. Accordingly, recent literature has explored the use of immediate feedback employing velocity-based training (VBT) methods to objectively manipulate resistance-training loads
Harry G. Banyard, James J. Tufano, Jose Delgado, Steve W. Thompson and Kazunori Nosaka
Samuel T. Orange, James W. Metcalfe, Ashley Robinson, Mark J. Applegarth and Andreas Liefeith
, prescribing loads based on percentage 1-RM can lead to a suboptimal training stimulus. The recent development of portable kinematic devices has enabled practitioners to obtain instantaneous measurements of barbell velocity. 9 As a result, velocity-based training (VBT) has become a popular method of
Amador García-Ramos, Alejandro Torrejón, Belén Feriche, Antonio J. Morales-Artacho, Alejandro Pérez-Castilla, Paulino Padial and Guy Gregory Haff
volume are the 2 main variables influencing neuromuscular adaptations. 4 , 5 Therefore, a common concern of strength and conditioning professionals is to find methods to optimize the intensity and volume of training sessions. In this regard, velocity-based training has emerged as a method of objectively
Jonathon Weakley, Carlos Ramirez-Lopez, Shaun McLaren, Nick Dalton-Barron, Dan Weaving, Ben Jones, Kevin Till and Harry Banyard
Velocity-based training (VBT) is a contemporary method of resistance training that accounts for fluctuations in physical characteristics and daily readiness. 1 , 2 In addition, implementing VBT can enable practitioners to accurately prescribe velocity loss thresholds (eg, a 10% velocity loss
Harry G. Banyard, Kazunori Nosaka, Alex D. Vernon and G. Gregory Haff
was to employ velocity-based training methods, his or her own individualized LVP should be obtained. In addition, if the movement velocity is outside the range of the SDD (Table 1 ), a coach could modify the training load to achieve the requisite velocity from the LVP. However, further research is
Amador García-Ramos, Guy Gregory Haff, Francisco Luis Pestaña-Melero, Alejandro Pérez-Castilla, Francisco Javier Rojas, Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández and Slobodan Jaric
Cond . 2014 ; 22 : 58 – 69 . 13. Mann J , Ivey P , Sayers S . Velocity-based training in football . Strength Cond J . 2015 ; 37 : 52 – 57 . doi:10.1519/SSC.0000000000000177 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000177 14. Conceição F , Fernandes J , Lewis M , Gonzaléz-Badillo JJ , Jimenéz
Harry G. Banyard, Ken Nosaka, Kimitake Sato and G. Gregory Haff
To examine the validity of 2 kinematic systems for assessing mean velocity (MV), peak velocity (PV), mean force (MF), peak force (PF), mean power (MP), and peak power (PP) during the full-depth free-weight back squat performed with maximal concentric effort.
Ten strength-trained men (26.1 ± 3.0 y, 1.81 ± 0.07 m, 82.0 ± 10.6 kg) performed three 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) trials on 3 separate days, encompassing lifts performed at 6 relative intensities including 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 90%, and 100% of 1RM. Each repetition was simultaneously recorded by a PUSH band and commercial linear position transducer (LPT) (GymAware [GYM]) and compared with measurements collected by a laboratory-based testing device consisting of 4 LPTs and a force plate.
Trials 2 and 3 were used for validity analyses. Combining all 120 repetitions indicated that the GYM was highly valid for assessing all criterion variables while the PUSH was only highly valid for estimations of PF (r = .94, CV = 5.4%, ES = 0.28, SEE = 135.5 N). At each relative intensity, the GYM was highly valid for assessing all criterion variables except for PP at 20% (ES = 0.81) and 40% (ES = 0.67) of 1RM. Moreover, the PUSH was only able to accurately estimate PF across all relative intensities (r = .92–.98, CV = 4.0–8.3%, ES = 0.04–0.26, SEE = 79.8–213.1 N).
PUSH accuracy for determining MV, PV, MF, MP, and PP across all 6 relative intensities was questionable for the back squat, yet the GYM was highly valid at assessing all criterion variables, with some caution given to estimations of MP and PP performed at lighter loads.
Irineu Loturco, Timothy Suchomel, Chris Bishop, Ronaldo Kobal, Lucas A. Pereira and Michael R. McGuigan
Purpose: To identify the bar velocities that optimize power output in the barbell hip thrust exercise. Methods: A total of 40 athletes from 2 sports disciplines (30 track-and-field sprinters and jumpers and 10 rugby union players) participated in this study. Maximum bar-power outputs and their respective bar velocities were assessed in the barbell hip thrust exercise. Athletes were divided, using a median split analysis, into 2 groups according to their bar-power outputs in the barbell hip thrust exercise (“higher” and “lower” power groups). The magnitude-based inferences method was used to analyze the differences between groups in the power and velocity outcomes. To assess the precision of the bar velocities for determining the maximum power values, the coefficient of variation (CV%) was also calculated. Results: Athletes achieved the maximum power outputs at a mean velocity, mean propulsive velocity, and peak velocity of 0.92 (0.04) m·s−1 (CV: 4.1%), 1.02 (0.05) m·s−1 (CV: 4.4%), and 1.72 (0.14) m·s−1 (CV: 8.4%), respectively. No meaningful differences were observed in the optimum bar velocities between higher and lower power groups. Conclusions: Independent of the athletes’ power output and bar-velocity variable, the optimum power loads frequently occur at very close bar velocities.
Amador García-Ramos, Francisco Luis Pestaña-Melero, Alejandro Pérez-Castilla, Francisco Javier Rojas and Guy Gregory Haff
Velocity-based training has recently received a lot of attention as a potential method for objectively monitoring and prescribing resistance-training programs. 1 , 2 The popularity of velocity-based training has increased in response to the proliferation of linear position transducer devices 3
of strength training in that course was Professor Juan José González-Badillo, former coach of the Spanish national weightlifting team, who idealized the basis of velocity-based training (VBT) in the late 1970s. Because of this, we always trained following the VBT principles to avoid unnecessary