The effects of a six week velocity based resistance training intervention on maximal strength in trained males

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of six weeks velocity based resistance training on free weight back squat, bench press, and conventional deadlift maximal strength in resistance trained males. METHODS: Sixteen resistance trained males (mean ± SD; age: 22.8 ± 4.5 years; stature: 180.2 ± 6.4 cm; body mass: 90.8 ± 17.2 kg) were recruited. Following familiarisation, participants completed a back squat, bench press, and deadlift one repetition maximum (1RM; 140.2 ± 26.0 kg; 102.7 ± 18.2 kg; 176.6 ± 27.2 kg respectively), with mean concentric velocity (MCV) monitored via a linear positional transducer. Participants were then assigned to either velocity based training (VBT), or percentage based training (PBT) groups. For both groups, relative training loads (% 1RM), number of sets and repetitions, and inter-set rest time were equated. The VBT group’s load, and repetitions were dictated via real-time MCV monitoring, while the PBT group’s programme was designed utilising pre-testing 1RM data. Participants completed two sessions per week for six weeks, before retesting 1RM. Independent sample t-tests were completed to examine the pre-training inter-group differences, as well as post-training total volume relationship. A two-way mixed ANOVA, using one inter-factor (VBT vs. PBT) and one intra-factor (pre- vs. post-training), was conducted to examine the pre to post between group differences. Inferential statistics based on the magnitude of effects were calculated using a custom-built spreadsheet. RESULTS: No significant differences (p > 0.05) were present between groups for pre-testing data. Training resulted in significant increases in maximal strength for back squat, bench press, and deadlift for the VBT group (9%; 8%; 6% respectively), and back squat and bench press only, for the PBT group (8%; 4% respectively). No significant interaction effect was witnessed between training groups for the back squat or deadlift, however, for the back squat a significant difference was present between the total volume lifted (VBT -9%). A significant interaction was recorded between groups for the bench press (VBT vs. PBT), with this group lifting significantly less total volume (VBT -6%). Inferential statistics revealed the VBT intervention to be “most likely” beneficial for the back squat and bench press, and “very likely” for the deadlift, as opposed to “most likely”, “likely”, and “possibly” for the PBT group respectively. CONCLUSION: The VBT intervention induced favourable adaptations in back squat, bench press, and deadlift maximal strength in a resistance trained population. This finding is furthered when considering the significant reduction in volume completed by the VBT group across both the back squat and bench press movements. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: The data presented provides sufficient evidence to support the use of VBT interventions within a resistance trained population for eliciting favourable adaptations in maximal strength. While no interaction was witnessed between groups for the back squat or deadlift, the VBT group achieved the same percentage increases for back squat (9% vs. 8%), and a greater percentage increase for deadlift (6% vs. 3% respectively), with less training volume. Within the applied setting, the ability to produce the same, or significantly greater adaptations, with lower total training volume, is essential for a competitive athlete. A reduction in total volume will link directly to a decreased risk of injury and a reduction in training induced fatigue