Methods for Controlling and Reporting Resistance Training Proximity to Failure: Current Issues and Future Directions

Estimating repetitions in reserve through movement velocity: Applicability across bench press exercise modes and sexes

This study explored the accuracy of using the relationship between repetitions in reserve (RIR) and mean velocity (MV) to predict proximity to failure in bench press exercises across two modes (Smith machine and free-weight) and sexes (men and women). Twenty-eight recreationally trained individuals completed two sessions of each exercise mode, with sets performed to failure at 65% and 75% of one-repetition maximum. Individualized RIR-MV relationships showed a higher goodness-of-fit for the Smith machine compared to the free-weight bench press (R2 = 0.79-0.87 vs. 0.41-0.78), without significant sex differences (p = 0.880). MV values were mostly similar between exercise modes across different RIRs (p > 0.077), but men demonstrated higher MV values than women for RIR 5-1 (p ≤ 0.013). Individualized RIR-MV relationships were more accurate at estimating RIR 5 at 65%1RM in subsequent sessions than generalized RIR-MV relationships (absolute errors = 0.64-1.36 vs. 1.25-2.00 repetitions; p < 0.001), regardless of sex. However, the prediction accuracy was similar for both relationships at RIRs 2 and 0 (absolute errors ≤ 1 repetition; p ≥ 0.164). These results suggest that RIR-MV relationships can effectively estimate proximity to failure across exercise modes and sexes, with individualized relationships offering greater accuracy.

Delineating the Role of Inter-Repetition Interval in the Relationship between Maximum Repetitions to Failure or Repetitions in Reserve and Movement Velocity

BACKGROUND

Maximum repetitions to failure (RTF) and repetitions in reserve (RIR) can be estimated through fastest mean velocity (MVfastest) and mean velocity (MV), respectively. However, the impact of inter-repetition intervals (IRI) on these relationships in free-weight back squat and bench press exercises is unclear.

HYPOTHESIS

The IRI would affect RTF-MVfastest and RIR-MV relationships, with a higher goodness-of-fit using self-selected IRI (SSIRI) compared with 0 seconds (IRI0) and 3 seconds (IRI3).

STUDY DESIGN

Crossover study design.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

METHODS

Eighteen male participants completed 1 session per IRI configuration, consisting of 3 single sets of RTF (65%-75%-85% of the 1-repetition maximum) during the free-weight back squat and bench press exercises.

RESULTS

Individualized RTF-MVfastest and RIR-MV relationships were stronger than generalized (median R2 = 0.98 vs 0.65 and 0.84 vs 0.40, respectively). The goodness-of-fit of the relationships was stronger for SSIRI than for IRI0 during back squat (P < .01) and comparable between IRIs during bench press (P ≥ .28). During back squat, MVfastest values were higher for IRI0 than for IRI3 and SSIRI (eighth-fifteenth repetitions; P ≤ .07), whereas during the bench press, they were higher for IRI0 than for IRI3 (eleventh-fifteenth repetitions; P ≥ .28). Overall, MV values associated with each RIR were higher for IRI0 than for SSIRI (10 out of 18 comparisons) during back squat, and for IRI0 than for IRI3 and SSIRI (16 and 14 out of 18 comparisons) during bench press.

CONCLUSION

These results highlight the importance of standardizing the IRI during set-to-failure to establish RTF-MVfastest and RIR-MV relationships, with SSIRI recommended as a more accurate and effective procedure.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This information may provide practitioners with a valuable tool to objectively quantify the level of effort being exerted during resistance training sets by measuring movement velocity in free-weight exercises.

Estimating Repetitions in Reserve During the Bench Press Exercise: Should We Consider Sex and the Exercise Equipment?

BACKGROUND

Estimating repetitions in reserve (RIR) has been established as a valid and practical method for monitoring set configuration concerning proximity to failure in resistance training. However, factors such as sex and exercise equipment could interfere with the estimation process. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the influence of sex (female vs male) and exercise equipment (free-weight vs Smith machine) on the RIR estimation at different relative loads during the bench press exercise.

HYPOTHESIS

Men would be more accurate than women in the RIR estimation, and participants would better perceive their actual effort at the Smith machine compared with the free-weight bench press exercise.

STUDY DESIGN

Repeated measures design.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

METHODS

In a counterbalanced order, recreationally trained participants (12 female, 14 male) performed 2 identical sessions with the free-weight bench press exercise in 1 week and 2 identical sessions with the Smith machine bench press exercise in another week (first session for familiarization and second session for validity analysis). In each session, participants performed single sets of repetitions to failure against 3 relative loads (65%, 75%, and 85% of the 1-repetition maximum [1RM]).

RESULTS

Results revealed a significant interaction between RIR and sex at 65% 1RM (P < 0.01; women: -1.2 [-1.7 to -0.6] repetitions; men: -0.1 [-0.6 to 0.3] repetitions), and between RIR and exercise equipment at 65% 1RM (P < 0.01; free-weight: -1.1 [-1.5 to -0.6] repetitions; Smith machine: -0.2 [-0.6 to 0.2] repetitions), but not at 75% and 85% 1RM.

CONCLUSIONS

RIR estimation is a valid method for monitoring set configuration. However, this method tends to underestimate RIR at 65%1RM with female athletes and in the free-weight exercise for both sexes.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Strength and conditioning coaches should help their athletes understand effort awareness in the aforementioned context.

Exploring the Dose-Response Relationship Between Estimated Resistance Training Proximity to Failure, Strength Gain, and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Series of Meta-Regressions

BACKGROUND

The proximity to failure in which sets are terminated has gained attention in the scientific literature as a potentially key resistance training variable. Multiple meta-analyses have directly (i.e., failure versus not to failure) or indirectly (e.g., velocity loss, alternative set structures) evaluated the effect of proximity to failure on strength and muscle hypertrophy outcomes categorically; however, the dose-response effects of proximity to failure have not been analyzed collectively in a continuous manner.

OBJECTIVE

To meta-analyze the aforementioned areas of relevant research, proximity to failure was quantified as the number of repetitions in reserve (RIR). Importantly, the RIR associated with each effect in the analysis was estimated on the basis of the available descriptions of the training interventions in each study. Data were extracted and a series of exploratory multilevel meta-regressions were performed for outcomes related to both strength and muscle hypertrophy. A range of sensitivity analyses were also performed. All models were adjusted for the effects of load, method of volume equating, duration of intervention, and training status.

RESULTS

The best fit models for both strength and muscle hypertrophy outcomes demonstrated modest quality of overall fit. In all of the best-fit models for strength, the confidence intervals of the marginal slopes for estimated RIR contained a null point estimate, indicating a negligible relationship with strength gains. However, in all of the best-fit models for muscle hypertrophy, the marginal slopes for estimated RIR were negative and their confidence intervals did not contain a null point estimate, indicating that changes in muscle size increased as sets were terminated closer to failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The dose-response relationship between proximity to failure and strength gain appears to differ from the relationship with muscle hypertrophy, with only the latter being meaningfully influenced by RIR. Strength gains were similar across a wide range of RIR, while muscle hypertrophy improves as sets are terminated closer to failure. Considering the RIR estimation procedures used, however, the exact relationship between RIR and muscle hypertrophy and strength remains unclear. Researchers and practitioners should be aware that optimal proximity to failure may differ between strength and muscle hypertrophy outcomes, but caution is warranted when interpreting the present analysis due to its exploratory nature. Future studies deliberately designed to explore the continuous nature of the dose-response effects of proximity to failure in large samples should be considered.

Sex and Equipment Impact on Lifting Velocity and the Maximum Repetitions in Bench Press

This study investigated how equipment and sex affect the prediction accuracy of the maximum number of repetitions performed to failure (RTF) using the fastest mean velocity of the set (MVfastest). Sixteen men and twelve women completed four sessions (two using free-weight equipment and two sessions using the Smith machine). Each session involved three sets of repetitions to failure against the 65%, 75%, and 85% of the one-repetition maximum, interspersed by 10-min of rest. The goodness-of-fit of the individualized RTF-MVfastest relationships was comparable between both equipment types and sexes (P≥0.510). Moreover, there were not significant differences in the MVfastest associated with RTF between equipment types (P≥0.258). However, the MVfastest associated with RTF was higher for men than for women in repetitions 6 to 15 (P≤0.043; ES≥0.69). In addition, the absolute errors when predicting RTF showed no significant differences between equipment types and loads (P<0.444). Specifically, these RTF estimates were within an acceptable range for men (<2 repetitions), but not for women (≥2 repetitions) (main effect of sex: P≤0.018; ES≥0.58). These findings suggest that individualized RTF-MVfastest equations estimate the RTF with an acceptable precision in men during bench press exercises in both equipment types but exhibit lower precision for women.

A Randomized Trial of Healthy Weight Gain in Athletic Individuals

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of a 10-wk diet and exercise regimen designed to promote healthy weight gain with excess energy from peanut-containing or high-carbohydrate foods.

METHODS

Nineteen male and 13 female athletes were randomly assigned to receive an additional 500 kcal·d -1 above typical intake through provision of either peanut-based whole foods/snacks (PNT group) or a similar, high-carbohydrate, peanut-free snack (CHO group) along with supervised, whole-body RT (3 d·wk -1 for 60-120 min). Body composition was assessed by dual-energyx-ray absorptiometry at baseline and postintervention.

RESULTS

Total body mass (TBM) increased 2.2 ± 1.3 kg with 1.5 ± 1.1 kg as LBM after week 10. The PNT group ( n = 16; 27 ± 7 yr; 10 men, 6 women) gained less TBM than the CHO group ( n = 16; 23 ± 3 yr; 9 men, 7 women) (1.6 ± 1.1 kg vs 2.7 ± 1.2 kg, respectively, P = 0.007) with no differences in LBM (1.2 ± 1.1 kg vs 1.9 ± 1.0 kg, P = 0.136).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the addition of 500 kcal·d -1 from whole foods/snacks in combination with a rigorous RT program promotes a similar weight gain of ~0.22 kg·wk -1 , primarily as LBM, over 10 wk in both male and female athletes. However, snack macronutrient content may impact the effectiveness of this regimen.

Inter-Repetition Rest Impact on the Estimated Repetitions in Reserve at Various Loads and Proximities to Neuromuscular Failure

ABSTRACT

Ruiz-Alias, SA, Ramirez-Campillo, R, Leando Quidel-Catrilelbún, ME, García-Pinillos, F, and Pérez-Castilla, A. Inter-repetition rest impact on the estimated repetitions in reserve at various loads and proximities to neuromuscular failure . J Strength Cond Res 38(8): 1379-1385, 2024-The repetitions in reserve (RIR) estimation method allows for monitoring resistance training set volume. However, a significant bias is commonly observed when ending the set further from neuromuscular failure and using lower relative loads. Is unclear if implementing an IRR could improve its estimation validity. This study aimed to determine if the RIR estimation is influenced by the IRR at different relative loads and proximities to neuromuscular failure during the back squat (BQ) and bench press (BP) exercises. After a familiarization session, 19 male subjects (age, 21-26 years) completed an experimental session for each IRR configuration: IRR0 (without rest), IRR3 (3 seconds of rest), and SSIRR (self-selected rest [up to 5 seconds]). In each session, single sets to neuromuscular failure were performed at 3 relative loads (65% 1 repetition maximum [1RM], 75% 1RM, 85% 1RM) for BQ and BP exercises. Using the Estimated Repetitions to Failure scale, subjects estimated the RIR associated with a score of "5" and "2" (i.e., RIR-5 and RIR-2). The results revealed no interactions between the RIR estimation and IRR for BQ (RIR-5: p = 0.812; RIR-2: p = 0.084) or BP (RIR-5: p = 0.884; RIR-2: p = 0.944). Subjects provided valid estimations, with overestimation (BQ RIR-5: 0%; BQ RIR-2: 2.9%; BP RIR-5: 1.1%; BP RIR-2: 2.3%) or underestimation (BQ RIR-5: 14.9%; BQ RIR-2: 4%; BP RIR-5: 15.2% BP RIR-2: 8.2%) in few sets. In conclusion, the RIR estimation method seems valid, and the IRR (0-5 seconds) does not influence its validity at 65-85% 1RM loads nor proximities to neuromuscular failure (RIR-2, RIR-5).

Accuracy of Intraset Repetitions-in-Reserve Predictions During the Bench Press Exercise in Resistance-Trained Male and Female Subjects

ABSTRACT

Refalo, MC, Remmert, JF, Pelland, JC, Robinson, ZP, Zourdos, MC, Hamilton, DL, Fyfe, JJ, and Helms, ER. Accuracy of intraset repetitions-in-reserve predictions during the bench press exercise in resistance-trained male and female subjects. J Strength Cond Res 38(3): e78-e85, 2024-This study assessed the accuracy of intraset repetitions-in-reserve (RIR) predictions to provide evidence for the efficacy of RIR prescription as a set termination method to inform proximity to failure during resistance training (RT). Twenty-four resistance trained male ( n = 12) and female ( n = 12) subjects completed 2 experimental sessions involving 2 sets performed to momentary muscular failure (barbell bench press exercise) with 75% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), whereby subjects verbally indicated when they perceived to had reached either 1 RIR or 3 RIR. The difference between the predicted RIR and the actual RIR was defined as the "RIR accuracy" and was quantified as both raw (i.e., direction of error) and absolute (i.e., magnitude of error) values. High raw and absolute mean RIR accuracy (-0.17 ± 1.00 and 0.65 ± 0.78 repetitions, respectively) for 1-RIR and 3-RIR predictions were observed (including all sets and sessions completed). We identified statistical equivalence (equivalence range of ±1 repetition, thus no level of statistical significance was set) in raw and absolute RIR accuracy between (a) 1-RIR and 3-RIR predictions, (b) set 1 and set 2, and (c) session 1 and session 2. No evidence of a relationship was found between RIR accuracy and biological sex, years of RT experience, or relative bench press strength. Overall, resistance-trained individuals are capable of high absolute RIR accuracy when predicting 1 and 3 RIR on the barbell bench press exercise, with a minor tendency for underprediction. Thus, RIR prescriptions may be used in research and practice to inform the proximity to failure achieved upon set termination.

Similar muscle hypertrophy following eight weeks of resistance training to momentary muscular failure or with repetitions-in-reserve in resistance-trained individuals

This study examined the influence of resistance training (RT) proximity-to-failure, determined by repetitions-in-reserve (RIR), on quadriceps hypertrophy and neuromuscular fatigue. Resistance-trained males (n = 12) and females (n = 6) completed an 8-week intervention involving two RT sessions per week. Lower limbs were randomised to perform the leg press and leg extension exercises either to i) momentary muscular failure (FAIL), or ii) a perceived 2-RIR and 1-RIR, respectively (RIR). Muscle thickness of the quadriceps [rectus femoris (RF) and vastus lateralis (VL)] and acute neuromuscular fatigue (i.e., repetition and lifting velocity loss) were assessed. Data was analysed with Bayesian linear mixed-effect models. Increases in quadriceps thickness (average of RF and VL) from pre- to post-intervention were similar for FAIL [0.181 cm (HDI: 0.119 to 0.243)] and RIR [0.182 cm (HDI: 0.115 to 0.247)]. Between-protocol differences in RF thickness slightly favoured RIR [-0.036 cm (HDI: -0.113 to 0.047)], but VL thickness slightly favoured FAIL [0.033 cm (HDI: -0.046 to 0.116)]. Mean volume was similar across the RT intervention between FAIL and RIR. Lifting velocity and repetition loss were consistently greater for FAIL versus RIR, with the magnitude of difference influenced by the exercise and the stage of the RT intervention.

The velocity of resistance exercise does not accurately assess repetitions-in-reserve

This study assessed the reliability of mean concentric bar velocity from 3- to 0-repetitions in reserve (RIR) across four sets in different exercises (bench press and prone row) and with different loads (60 and 80% 1-repetition maximum; 1RM). Whether velocity values from set one could be used to predict RIR in subsequent sets was also examined. Twenty recreationally active males performed baseline 1RM testing before two randomised sessions of four sets to failure with 60 or 80% 1RM. A linear position transducer measured mean concentric velocity of repetitions, and the velocity associated with each RIR value up to 0-RIR. For both exercises, velocity decreased between each repetition from 3- to 0-RIR (p ≤ 0.010). Mean concentric velocity of RIR values was not reliable across sets in the bench press (mean intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.40, mean coefficient of variation [CV] = 21.3%), despite no significant between-set differences (p = 0.530). Better reliability was noted in the prone row (mean ICC = 0.80, mean CV = 6.1%), but velocity declined by 0.019-0.027 m·s-1 (p = 0.032) between sets. Mean concentric velocity was 0.050-0.058 m·s-1 faster in both exercises with 60% than 80% 1RM with (p < 0.001). At the individual level, the velocity of specific RIR values from set one accurately predicted RIR from 5- to 0-RIR for 30.9% of repetitions in subsequent sets. These findings suggest that velocity of specific RIR values vary across exercises, loads and sets. As velocity-based RIR estimates were not accurate for 69.1% of repetitions, alternative methods to should be considered for autoregulating of resistance exercise in recreationally active individuals.

The effectiveness of adjusting resistance training loads through velocity-based techniques in experienced sprinters: a case series study

Introduction: This study aimed to determine if adjusting the loads via velocity-based training (VBT) in each session is more efficient in monitoring the relative intensity than programming loads assessing 1RM pre-training. Methods: To achieve this, six national level sprinters were randomly divided into two groups, i.e., adjusting loads (AL, n = 3) and not adjusting loads (NAL, n = 3), during twelve sessions of a squat training (ST) program. During this training intervention, the AL group adjusted the intensity for each session in the squat exercise depending on the speed the load was lifted after warmup. The NAL group, instead, progressed in the squat exercise referring to the 1RM estimated at pre-test. In addition, Parallel Squat (PSQ), Countermovement Jump (CMJ), Squat Jump (SJ), 30 m sprint standing start (30S) and 30 m sprint flying start (30F) tests were carried out before and after conducting the ST program. Results: Interestingly, AL performed the ST near their estimated velocities at 70%-75% 1RM, however with a wider gap at 80%-85% 1RM. The NAL group, instead, did not presented such a detectable behaviour across the whole ST. Moreover, both groups demonstrated improved performances in PSQ, CMJ, and SJ, whereas there were little changes in 30S and 30F after ST. Additionally, AL obtained a greater effect size than NAL in PSQ (0.60 vs. 0.35) but lower effect size in CMJ, SJ, 30S, and 30F (0.41 vs. 0.63, 0.30 vs. 0.40, 0.04 vs. 0.28 and 0.22 vs. 0.24). However, percentage change was greater in AL in all tests. Discussion: Based on these findings, we can conclude that further investigation into the AL strategy in VBT is warranted for sprinter athletes' daily strength practices. The AL technique shows promise as a valuable tool for accurately adjusting and monitoring medium-high training loads to ensure they align with the intended intensity.

Predicting Total Back Squat Repetitions from Repetition Velocity and Velocity Loss

The purpose of this investigation was to determine if average concentric velocity (ACV) of a single repetition at 70% of one-repetition maximum (1RM), ACV of the first repetition of a set to failure at 70% of 1RM, or the velocity loss during the set could predict the number of repetitions performed in the back squat. Fifty-six resistance-trained individuals participated in the study (male = 41, age = 23 ± 3 yrs, 1RM = 162.0 ± 40.0 kg; female = 15, age = 21 ± 2 yrs, 1RM = 81.5 ± 12.5 kg). After 1RM testing, participants performed single repetition sets with 70% of 1RM and a set to failure with 70% of 1RM. ACV was recorded on all repetitions. Regression model comparisons were performed, and Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) and Standard Error of the Estimate (SEE) were calculated to determine the best model. Neither single repetition ACV at 70% of 1RM (R2 = 0.004, p = 0.637) nor velocity loss (R2 = 0.011, p = 0.445) were predictive of total repetitions performed in the set to failure. The simple quadratic model using the first repetition of the set to failure (Y = β 0 + β 1 X A C V F i r s t + β 2 Z + ε ) was identified as the best and most parsimonious model (R2 = 0.259, F = 9.247, p < 0.001) due to the lowest AIC value (311.086). A SEE of 2.21 repetitions was identified with this model. This average error of ~2 repetitions warrants only cautious utilization of this method to predict total repetitions an individual can perform in a set, with additional autoregulatory or individualization strategies being necessary to finalize the training prescription.

Metabolic and cardiovascular responses to continuous and intermittent plank exercises

BACKGROUND

Plank exercise (PE) is a whole-body isometric muscle training which is beneficial for physical health. However, none of the previous studies investigated the responses within a typical isometric muscle training or PE protocol consisting of multiple sets. The application of PE was restricted for the understudied metabolic and cardiovascular responses, especially for the patients with cardiovascular diseases. This study is to alleviate the safety concerns of PE by investigating the PE-induced metabolic and cardiovascular responses.

METHODS

Eleven male recreational-level college students completed a baseline cardiopulmonary exercise test, continuous PE (CPE) and intermittent PE (IPE). Ratio of maximal oxygen uptake per kilogram of body mass (%VO_2max/kg), ratio of maximal heart rate (%HR_max), and respiratory exchange ratio (RER) were continuously measured during PEs and divided into seven equal timepoints. Blood pressure (BP) was measured every minute during, before, and after PEs. A mixed-model repeated measures ANOVA was used to examine the interaction effect of exercise × phase.

RESULTS

The %VO_2max/kg (F_6,69=11.25, P < 0.001), %HR_max (F_6,65=7.74, P < 0.001), RER (F_6,69=11.56, P < 0.001), and BP (systolic BP, F_2,26=8.42, P = 0.002; diastolic BP, F_2,24=22.63, P < 0.001) increased by safe magnitudes. Compared with the corresponding period in the IPE group, the %VO_2max/kg (33.5 [2.2] vs. 27.7 [1.9], P = 0.043) and %HR_max (63.2 [3.9] vs. 53.3 [2.1], P = 0.019) increased more significantly from the 40% duration of CPE. Systolic BP increased by larger magnitudes during CPE than IPE (154.2 [3.8] vs. 142.3 [4.8] mmHg, P = 0.002). RERs were over 1 during PEs without cardiovascular and metabolic variables over the anaerobic threshold.

CONCLUSION

Energy was mainly supplied by anaerobic metabolism during PEs. CPE may be preferable for trainees aiming at anaerobic capacity enhancement. IPEs may be preferable to CPEs for youth patients with mild and borderline cardiovascular diseases due to their lower metabolic and cardiovascular responses.

Barbell load distribution and lifting velocity affect bench press exercise volume and perceived exertion

OBJECTIVE

The intensity of barbell bench press exercise is generally prescribed as the load to be lifted for a specific number of repetitions; however, other factors (e.g., execution velocity) can affect bench press exercise intensity. Moreover, no study assessed whether load distribution (i.e., the distance between the disc stacks on the two sides of the barbell) affects exercise intensity. The present study aims to assess how different combinations of load, velocity, and barbell load distribution affect the number of repetitions to failure (REPfailure), and rating of perceived exertion (RPEfatigue) and number of repetitions (REPfatigue) at fatigue onset.

METHODS

Ten males (age 23.3±1.8 years) performed bench press exercises to exhaustion using random combinations of three loads (50%, 65%, and 80% of 1 repetition maximum), three execution velocities (50%, 70%, and 90% of maximal concentric velocity), and two load distributions (narrow and wide). Three separate three-way repeated-measures ANOVAs were performed to assess the effect of load, velocity, and load distribution on REPfailure, RPEfatigue, and REPfatigue expressed as a percentage of REPfailure.

RESULTS

REPfailure was affected by load (p<0.001), velocity (p<0.001), and distribution (p = 0.005). The interactions between load and velocity (p<0.001) and load and distribution (p = 0.004) showed a significant effect on REPfailure, whereas the interaction between velocity and distribution was not significant (p = 0.360). Overall, more REPfailure were performed using lower loads, higher velocities, and a wider distribution. RPEfatigue and REPfatigue were affected by load (p<0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively) and velocity (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively), and not by distribution (p = 0.510 and p = 0.571, respectively) or the two-way interaction effects. Overall, using higher loads yielded higher RPEfatigue but lower REPfatigue, while RPEfatigue and REPfatigue were higher when slower velocities were used.

CONCLUSION

The current investigation shows that not only load but also velocity and barbell load distribution may influence bench press training volume and perceived exertion.

Comparison of the effects of velocity-based vs. traditional resistance training methods on adaptations in strength, power, and sprint speed: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and quality of evidence appraisal

We estimated the effectiveness of using velocity feedback to regulate resistance training load on changes in muscle strength, power, and linear sprint speed in apparently healthy participants. Academic and grey literature databases were systematically searched to identify randomised trials that compared a velocity-based training intervention to a 'traditional' resistance training intervention that did not use velocity feedback. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) were pooled using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias 2 tool and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Four trials met the eligibility criteria, comprising 27 effect estimates and 88 participants. The main analyses showed trivial differences and imprecise interval estimates for effects on muscle strength (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.51-0.63; I² = 42.9%; 10 effects from 4 studies; low-quality evidence), power (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.28-0.49; I² = 13.5%; 10 effects from 3 studies; low-quality evidence), and sprint speed (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.72-0.53; I² = 30.0%; 7 effects from 2 studies; very low-quality evidence). The results were robust to various sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, there is currently no evidence that VBT and traditional resistance training methods lead to different alterations in muscle strength, power, or linear sprint speed.