Journal Logo

D-57 Free Communication/Poster - Resistance Training Thursday, May 31, 2018, 1: 00 PM - 6: 00 PM Room: CC-Hall B

Using Velocity Loss for Monitoring Resistance Training Effort in a Real World Setting

1790 Board #51 May 31 2

00 PM - 3

30 PM

Gentil, Paulo1; Bottaro, Martim2; Marques, Vítor A.1; Neto, Josaphat P. P.1; Santos, Anna C. G.1; Steele, James3; Fisher, James3; Paoli, Antonio4; Prudente, Pablo1

Author Information
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise: May 2018 - Volume 50 - Issue 5S - p 420
doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000536469.27721.e7
  • Free

Previous studies demonstrated the importance of analyzing movement propulsive velocity (MPV) loss during resistance training as an estimate of intensity of effort. However, these studies involved sets performed with maximal intended velocity and used special devices, which is not usual for most people practicing resistance training

PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the changes in MPV during resistance training with different loads while the trainees are attempting to move the load at a pre- determined repetition duration.

METHODS: Twenty-one resistance-trained men (age: 25.7 ± 5 years; height: 177.0 ± 7.2 cm; mass: 85.4 ± 13.56 kg) participated in the study. Participants performed two tests sessions. The first to determine 1 repetition maximum (1RM) load, and the second to evaluate MPV loss during a set to momentary muscle failure (MF) performed at 75% and 50% of 1RM using a 2 second concentric and 2 second eccentric repetition duration controlled by a mobile app metronome.

RESULTS: Mean one-repetition maximum 1RM load was 98±21.6 Kg, with a relative strength of 1.15±0.2, obtained by ratio of the load of 1RM relative to body mass. The average number of repetitions performed at 75% of 1RM was 7.5±1.7 and 13.7±2,8 for 50% of 1RM. With 75% of 1RM there was a significant difference among repetitions MPV. Post hoc analysis revealed that MPV in the last repetition was lower than in the preceding three. Similarly, MPV during the penultimate repetition was lower than during the antepenultimate and the 4th from last. However, there was no difference in MPV between the 4th last and the antepenultimate repetition. Velocity loss from the antepenultimate to the penultimate repetition was 5.33%, from the last to the penultimate was 22.11% and the accumulated loss from the last to the 4th last was 25.4%. ANOVA for MPV values obtained at 50% 1RM load showed no significant effects, which suggested the same predetermined velocity pattern was maintained until reaching MF

CONCLUSIONS: Acessing MPV loss during resistance training using simple methods can be an important tool for standardize the intensity of effort employed during submaximal training with high loads, but not with light loads. This can be specially useful in clinical conditions where maximum exertions are contraindicated.

© 2018 American College of Sports Medicine