VELOCITY BASED TRAININGMike Young, PhD @mikeyoung

The Outline

The OutlineTraining Theory Primer

The OutlineTraining Theory Primer

Intensity in the Weight Room

The OutlineTraining Theory Primer

Benefits of Traditional Methods

Intensity in the Weight Room

The OutlineTraining Theory Primer

Benefits of Traditional Methods

Intensity in the Weight Room

Drawbacks of Traditional Methods

The OutlineTraining Theory Primer

Benefits of Traditional Methods

Velocity Based Training

Intensity in the Weight Room

Drawbacks of Traditional Methods

The OutlineTraining Theory Primer

Benefits of Traditional Methods

Velocity Based Training

Intensity in the Weight Room

Drawbacks of Traditional Methods

Applications

The OutlineTraining Theory Primer

Benefits of Traditional Methods

Velocity Based Training

Intensity in the Weight Room

Drawbacks of Traditional Methods

ApplicationsLogistics

TRAINING THEORY PRIMER

➤ Volume and intensity are most critical elements of training ➤ Manipulation of volume and intensity is the key to developing a successful

training plan ➤ Volume is relatively simple ➤ Intensity can be more complex and harder to track

INTENSITY IN THE WEIGHT ROOM

➤ Primarily load based ➤ 1RM for major lifts ➤ Percentage based methods ➤ RPE?

BENEFITS OF TRADITIONAL METHODOLOGY

➤ Easy to track ➤ Logistically simple ➤ No additional equipment ➤ Load as a correlate for

intensity works great at near-maximal loads

➤ Excellent for developing maximal strength

DRAWBACKS OF TRADITIONAL METHODOLOGY

➤ Load on the bar is being used as a correlate for force output

➤ Load may not be the best indicator of force output

➤ No way to accurately assess movement velocity or power output

Maximum strength is

important but power is

what wins games

THE SOLUTION: VELOCITY

BASED TRAINING

VBT is not new but for the first time there are multiple options, many of which are available at relatively low cost.

VALID

VALID

BENEFITS OF VBT

➤ Two completely new metrics of intensity ➤ Power (peak & average) ➤ Velocity (peak &

average)

APPLICATIONS

➤ Reps & Rest ➤ Workout Tracking ➤ Feedback ➤ Testing ➤ Auto-Regulation ➤ Threshold Training ➤ Cutoff Training ➤ Motivation ➤ Monitoring

REP COUNTING

REST TRACKING

REST TRACKING

WORKOUT TRACKING

FEEDBACK

EFFECT OF INSTANTANEOUS PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK DURING 6 WEEKS OF VELOCITY-BASED RESISTANCE TRAINING ON SPORT-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE TESTS

➤ The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of instantaneous performance feedback (peak velocity) provided after each repetition of squat jump exercises over a 6-week training block on sport-specific performance tests. Thirteen professional rugby players were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups, feedback (n = 7) and non-feedback (n = 6). Both groups completed a 6-week training program (3 sessions per week) comprising exercises typical of their normal preseason conditioning program. Squat jumps were performed in 2 of the 3 sessions each week during which both groups performed 3 sets of 3 concentric squat jumps using a barbell with an absolute load of 40 kg. Participants in group 1 were given real-time feedback on peak velocity of the squat jump at the completion of each repetition using a linear position transducer and customized software, whereas those in group 2 did not receive any feedback. Pre and posttesting consisted of vertical jump, horizontal jump, and 10-/20-/30-m timed sprints. The relative magnitude (effect size) of the training effects for all performance tests was found to be small (0.18-0.28), except for the 30-m sprint performance, which was moderate (0.46). The probabilities that the use of feedback during squat jump training for 6 weeks was beneficial to increasing performance of sport-specific tests was 45% for vertical jump, 65% for 10-m sprints, 49% for 20-m sprints, 83% for horizontal jump, and 99% for 30-m sprints. In addition to improvements in the performance of sport-specific tests, suggesting the potential for greater adaptation and larger training effects, the provision of feedback may also be used in applications around performance targets and thresholds during training.

FEEDBACK

TESTING➤1RMs ➤ Jumping ➤RSI ➤Peak Power Output

PREDICTIVE TESTING➤Predict 1RMs with sub maximal loads ➤Validated results ➤Benefits: ^Frequency, ^Safety, Seamless

AUTO-REGULATION

AUTO-REGULATION

AUTO-REGULATION

➤Predictive Test

AUTO-REGULATION

➤Predictive Test➤3 reps @ 40%

AUTO-REGULATION

➤Predictive Test➤3 reps @ 40%➤3 reps @ 50%

AUTO-REGULATION

➤Predictive Test➤3 reps @ 40%➤3 reps @ 50%➤3 reps @ 60%

AUTO-REGULATION

➤Predictive Test➤3 reps @ 40%➤3 reps @ 50%➤3 reps @ 60%➤3 reps @ 70%

AUTO-REGULATION

➤Predictive Test➤3 reps @ 40%➤3 reps @ 50%➤3 reps @ 60%➤3 reps @ 70%➤3 reps @ 80%

AUTO-REGULATION

➤Predictive Test➤3 reps @ 40%➤3 reps @ 50%➤3 reps @ 60%➤3 reps @ 70%➤3 reps @ 80%

➤Working sets at Daily Max

AUTO-REGULATION

➤Predictive Test➤3 reps @ 40%➤3 reps @ 50%➤3 reps @ 60%➤3 reps @ 70%➤3 reps @ 80%

➤Working sets at Daily Max➤5 x 2 @ 90% of DM

THRESHOLD TRAINING

THRESHOLD TRAINING

CUTOFF TRAINING

Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athleticperformance, strength gains and muscle adaptationsF. Pareja-Blanco1, D. Rodr!ıguez-Rosell1, L. S!anchez-Medina2, J. Sanchis-Moysi3,4, C. Dorado3,4, R. Mora-Custodio1,

J. M. Y!a~nez-Garc!ıa1, D. Morales-Alamo3,4, I. P!erez-Su!arez3,4, J. A. L. Calbet3,4, J. J. Gonz!alez-Badillo1

1Physical Performance & Sports Research Center, Pablo de Olavide University, Seville, Spain, 2Studies, Research & Sports

Medicine Center, Government of Navarre, Pamplona, Spain, 3Department of Physical Education, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

University, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, 4Research Institute of Biomedical and Health Sciences (IUIBS), Las Palmas de

Gran Canaria University, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, SpainCorresponding author: Fernando Pareja-Blanco, Centro de Investigaci!on en Rendimiento F!ısico y Deportivo, Universidad Pablo de

Olavide, Ctra. de Utrera km 1, 41013 Seville, Spain. Tel.: +34 653121522; Fax: +34 954 348 659; E-mail: fparbla@gmail.com

Accepted for publication 23 February 2016

We compared the effects of two resistance training (RT)programs only differing in the repetition velocity lossallowed in each set: 20% (VL20) vs 40% (VL40) onmuscle structural and functional adaptations. Twenty-twoyoung males were randomly assigned to a VL20 (n = 12)or VL40 (n = 10) group. Subjects followed an 8-weekvelocity-based RT program using the squat exercise whilemonitoring repetition velocity. Pre- and post-trainingassessments included: magnetic resonance imaging, vastuslateralis biopsies for muscle cross-sectional area (CSA)and fiber type analyses, one-repetition maximum strengthand full load-velocity squat profile, countermovement jump(CMJ), and 20-m sprint running. VL20 resulted in similar

squat strength gains than VL40 and greater improvementsin CMJ (9.5% vs 3.5%, P < 0.05), despite VL20performing 40% fewer repetitions. Although both groupsincreased mean fiber CSA and whole quadriceps musclevolume, VL40 training elicited a greater hypertrophy ofvastus lateralis and intermedius than VL20. Trainingresulted in a reduction of myosin heavy chain IIXpercentage in VL40, whereas it was preserved in VL20. Inconclusion, the progressive accumulation of muscle fatigueas indicated by a more pronounced repetition velocity lossappears as an important variable in the configuration ofthe resistance exercise stimulus as it influences functionaland structural neuromuscular adaptations.

The adaptive response to resistance training (RT)depends on several variables that configure the resis-tance exercise stimulus such as loading magnitude,number of sets and repetitions, exercise type andorder, rests duration, and movement velocity (Spier-ing et al., 2008; S!anchez-Medina & Gonz!alez-Badillo, 2011). It has been shown that velocity lossand metabolic stress considerably differ dependingon the actual number of repetitions performed in anexercise set in relation to the maximum number thatcan be completed (S!anchez-Medina & Gonz!alez-Badillo, 2011). Although some studies (Rooneyet al., 1994; Ahtiainen et al., 2003; Drinkwater et al.,2005) suggest that performing repetitions to failuremay be necessary to maximize muscle mass andstrength, others seem to indicate that similar, if notgreater, strength gains and improvements in athleticperformance can be obtained without reaching mus-cle failure (Folland et al., 2002; Izquierdo et al.,2006; Izquierdo-Gabarren et al., 2010). It has beenhypothesized that RT eliciting high levels of fatigue,as it occurs in typical body-building routines, may

induce greater strength adaptations due to anenhanced activation of motor units and secretion ofgrowth-promoting hormones (Schott et al., 1995;Schoenfeld, 2010). However, definitive evidence islacking and the controversial results found in the lit-erature clearly emphasize the need to conduct furtherresearch on this topic.Experiments with isolated human muscle fibers(Mogensen et al., 2006), as well as in vivo humanstudies (Aagaard & Andersen, 1998; Sanchis-Moysiet al., 2010) have shown that a high proportion oftype II muscle fibers or myosin heavy chain (MHC)II isoforms is associated with high levels of force pro-duction during fast muscle contractions. Interest-ingly, most studies have shown that the percentageof type IIX fibers is reduced following a RT programbased on repetitions to failure (Staron et al., 1991;Andersen & Aagaard, 2000; Campos et al., 2002;Andersen et al., 2005). Nevertheless, a study byHarridge et al. (1998) showed that maximal isomet-ric strength (voluntary and electrically evoked) canbe significantly increased without a reduction in the

1

Scand J Med Sci Sports 2016: !!: !!–!!doi: 10.1111/sms.12678

ª 2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

MOTIVATION

LOGISTICSImplementing VBT without hassles

MONITORING

LOGISTICSImplementing VBT without hassles

THERE WILL BE PROBLEMS

BEST PRACTICES➤ Make it “Dummy Proof” ➤ Minimize setup ➤ Aim for “invisible” ➤ Make the data actionable

THANKS@mikeyoung