Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to quantify the potential variability in the volume of work completed after reaching different velocity loss (VL) thresholds and determine the effects of sex, training status and history, as well as psychological traits on the reliability and magnitude of the amount of work completed after reaching different VL thresholds using different loads in the back-squat exercise.

Methods

Forty-six resistance-trained people (15 females and 31 males; 18 to 40 years of age) with a wide range of strength levels, training experience, and different training practices were recruited and performed a one-repetition maximum (1RM) test, and two repetitions to failure (RTF) tests 72 h apart. RTF tests were performed with 70, 80, and 90% of 1RM with 10 min of rest between sets. The Bland–Altman analysis for multiple observations per participant and equivalence tests were used to quantify the variability in the volume of work completed after reaching different VL thresholds, whereas linear and generalised mixed-effects models were used to examine the effects of different moderators on the stability and magnitude of the amount of work completed after reaching different VL thresholds.

Results

The findings of the present study question the utility of using VL thresholds to prescribe resistance training (RT) volume as the agreement in the amount of work completed across two consecutive testing sessions was not acceptable. Regardless of the load used, females completed more repetitions than males across VL thresholds, while males performed repetitions at higher velocities. In addition, individuals with higher levels of emotional stability also tended to perform more repetitions across VL thresholds. Finally, sex, choice of load, strength levels and training practices, as well as emotional stability affected the linearity of the repetition–velocity relationship and when sets terminated.

Conclusion

Using the same VL thresholds for all individuals, while assuming generalisability of the stimuli applied, would likely lead to variable acute physiological responses to RT and divergent neuromuscular adaptations over long term. Therefore, VL monitoring practices could be improved by considering sex, training status, history, and psychological traits of individuals due to their effects on the variability in responses to different VL thresholds.

Key Points

This study comprehensively examined the stability and magnitude of work completed across velocity loss thresholds during resistance training with free-weights while also exploring the effects of several factors potentially influencing the use of velocity loss thresholds in practice.

Velocity loss thresholds cannot be used to reliably control the amount of work completed during resistance training, but rather as a general variable quantifying the amount of fatigue experienced by an individual.

Velocity loss thresholds should be highly individualised when used in practice since load, sex, training status, history, and personality traits can all influence, at least to some extent, the variability in responses to different velocity loss thresholds.

Details

Title
One Velocity Loss Threshold Does Not Fit All: Consideration of Sex, Training Status, History, and Personality Traits When Monitoring and Controlling Fatigue During Resistance Training
Author
Jukic, Ivan 1   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Prnjak, Katarina 2   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; McGuigan, Michael R. 3   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Helms, Eric R. 3 

 Auckland University of Technology, Sport Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Auckland, New Zealand (GRID:grid.252547.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 0705 7067); Auckland University of Technology, School of Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Auckland, New Zealand (GRID:grid.252547.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 0705 7067) 
 Western Sydney University, School of Medicine, Sydney, Australia (GRID:grid.1029.a) (ISNI:0000 0000 9939 5719) 
 Auckland University of Technology, Sport Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Auckland, New Zealand (GRID:grid.252547.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 0705 7067) 
Pages
80
Publication year
2023
Publication date
Dec 2023
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V.
ISSN
21991170
e-ISSN
21989761
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
ProQuest document ID
2861033402
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2023. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.