Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the time course of recovery following four different resistance exercise protocols in terms of loading magnitude (60% vs. 80% 1RM—one-repetition maximum) and velocity loss in the set (20% vs. 40%). Seventeen males performed four different protocols in full squat exercise, which were as follows: (1) 60% 1RM with a velocity loss of 20% (60-20), (2) 60% 1RM with a velocity loss of 40% (60-40), (3) 80% 1RM with a velocity loss of 20% (80-20), and (4) 80% 1RM with a velocity loss of 40% (80-40). Movement velocity against the load that elicited a 1 m·s−1 velocity at baseline measurements (V1-load), countermovement jump (CMJ) height, and sprint time at 20 m (T20) were assessed at Pre, Post, 6 h-Post, 24 h-Post, and 48 h-Post. Impairments in V1-load were significantly higher for 60-40 than other protocols at Post (p < 0.05). The 60-20 and 80-40 protocols exhibited significant performance impairments for V1-load at 6 h-Post and 24 h-Post, respectively (p < 0.05). CMJ height remained decreased for 60-20 and 60-40 until 24 h-Post (p < 0.001–0.05). Regarding T20, the 80-40 protocol resulted in higher performance than 60-40 at 24 h-Post and the 80-20 protocol induced a greater performance than 60-40 protocol at 48 h-Post (p < 0.05). A higher velocity loss during the set (40%) and a lower relative load (60% 1RM) resulted in greater fatigue and slower rate of recovery than lower velocity loss (20%) and higher relative load (80% 1RM).
Highlights
Among the main resistance exercise variables that can be manipulated to configure mechanical stimulus, it appears that exercise intensity and volume are among the most critical factors in determining the type and extent of the resulting neuromuscular adaptations [1,2]
Matched the aforementioned expected target velocity losses. Both 60-20 and 80-20 achieved significantly lower MeanLoss-V than 60-40 and 80-40 protocols (Table 1). Both the slowest velocity measured in the three sets (Slowest-V) and the mean velocity during the training session (Mean-V) were lower in 80-40 compared to the other resistance exercise protocols (REPs) (Table 1)
Significant differences with 80-20 protocol: 82 p < 0.05. This is the first study that has analyzed the time course of recovery from different levels of effort in each exercise set using a velocity-based training (VBT) approach; it followed distinct velocity losses during the set
Summary
Among the main resistance exercise variables that can be manipulated to configure mechanical stimulus, it appears that exercise intensity and volume are among the most critical factors in determining the type and extent of the resulting neuromuscular adaptations [1,2] The interaction between these two training variables produces what is termed ‘level of effort’, which is defined as the actual number of repetitions performed in a set in relation to the maximum number that can be completed [3]. These limitations led researchers and coaches to seek a solution that allows a better definition and quantification of the level of effort involved during RT. A new approach, known as velocity-based training (VBT), has emerged, using movement velocity for objectively quantifying and dosing RT programs [3,6,7]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
