THE APPLICATION OF THE LOAD-VELOCITY RELATIONSHIP AS A MEANS OF DICTATING RESISTANCE TRAINING INTENSITY
Creators: name: Dorrell, Harry Francis
Publisher: name: University of Lincoln
Year: 2024
Subjects: C600 - Sport &amp; exercise science

description: The vast majority of resistance training programmes utilise traditional percentagebasedloading methods to dictate and modify training intensity over time. Thesemethods rely on predetermining load based on pre-training strength assessments.While such methods are widely used within both the applied and researchenvironments, percentage-based loading approaches do not factor in current levelsof fatigue or athlete readiness to train. A prospective alternative advocated as ameans to address such issues, involves the collection of concentric repetitionvelocity and the documented relationship it has with relative load. While suchvelocity-based methods are becoming increasingly popular, little consideration hasbeen given to the applied nature of such approaches when compared to traditionalpercentage-based methods. As such, the main purpose of this thesis was to explorethe efficacy of adopting a velocity-based loading approach when compared totraditional percentage-based loading during a strength and power intervention.Before such an aim could be addressed, the method of collecting and reportingconcentric repetition velocity in an applied environment would need to be explored.For this reason, Study 1 examined the validity and reliability of a commerciallyavailable linear positional transducer when compared to an integrated motioncapture and piezoelectric force plate setup. Regression analysis resulted in R2values of &gt; 0.85 for all variables excluding deadlift mean velocity (R2 = 0.54-0.69),demonstrating high levels of agreeability between devices with minimal exclusions.Furthermore, the presence of low to moderate typical error (0.6-8.8%) across allvariables assessed demonstrates the sensitivity of the device. Collectively the noveldata within this study provides sufficient evidence that the GymAware PowerToolcan be used to measure kinetic and kinematic outputs in a resistance trainediipopulation across a range of widely practiced movements. These findings weresignificant in providing confidence in the methods used to obtain such variables.Study 2 explored the impact of integrating a velocity-based loading approach into asix-week training intervention when compared to traditional percentage-basedloading. Within this study velocity was recorded in real-time and used to dictatetraining load based on a pre-established generalised group-based load-velocityprofile. The findings of this study demonstrated the potential benefit of adopting suchan approach. Participants within the velocity group obtained similar or statisticallygreater improvements in measures of strength and power than the percentagebasedgroup (velocity vs. percentage: back squat: 9.3% vs. 8.4%; bench press:8.4% vs. 4.0%; strict overhead press: 6.5% vs. 6.2%; deadlift: 6.4% vs. 3.0%;countermovement jump: 5.0% vs. 1.0%). Additionally, participants within thevelocity-based group completed significantly (p &lt; 0.01) less total training volumethroughout the intervention.While the findings from Study 2 demonstrate the potential significance of adoptinga velocity-based loading approach over traditional methods, the presence of largeindividual differences between participants load-velocity relationships warrantedfurther investigation. As such, Study 3 explored the efficacy of two differing velocitybasedloading approaches over a strength and power training intervention.Participants were allocated to either an individual- or group-based velocityintervention, whereby load was dictated based either on the individual orgeneralised group data, respectively. While no significance interaction was reportedbetween training groups, the individualised group did result in a greater magnitudeof change (individual vs. group: back squat: 9.7% vs. 7.2%; countermovement jump:6.6% vs. 4.3%; static squat jump: 4.6% vs. 4.3%; standing broad jump: 6.7% vs.iii3.4%), larger effect sizes, and either the same or stronger magnitude-basedinferences across all assessed variables.Taken collectively, the research studies that are presented within this thesis providepreliminary data supporting the use of velocity-based loading interventions whenworking with trained individuals. It would appear that adopting a velocity-basedloading approach may offer additional benefits to already trained participants bothwith regards to significant improvements and less required training volume.Furthermore, the trivial improvements witnessed following an individualisedapproach may suggest a greater potential for adaptation when compared to ageneralised group-based approach. As such, this thesis serves to demonstrate thatmonitoring velocity within resistance training offers a more objective and sensitiveapproach to prescribing training load than traditional percentage-based approaches.