Effects of Four Different Velocity-Based Training Programming Models on Strength Gains and Physical Performance

J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Mar 1;35(3):596-603. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003934.


Riscart-López, J, Rendeiro-Pinho, G, Mil-Homens, P, Costa, RS-d, Loturco, I, Pareja-Blanco, F, and León-Prados, JA. Effects of Four different velocity-based training programming models on strength gains and physical performance. J Strength Cond Res 35(3): 596-603, 2021-The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 4 velocity-based training (VBT) programming models (linear programming [LP], undulating programming [UP], reverse programming [RP], and constant programming [CP]) on the physical performance of moderately strength-trained men. Forty-three young (age: 22.9 ± 4.8 years; body mass [BM]: 71.7 ± 7.6; full squat [SQ] relative strength 1.32 ± 0.29) subjects were randomly assigned to LP (gradually increase training intensity and decrease volume), UP (volume and intensity increase or decrease repeatedly), RP (gradually increases volume and decrease intensity), and CP (maintains constant volume and intensity) groups and followed an 8-week VBT intervention using the SQ exercise and monitoring movement velocity for every repetition. All groups trained with similar relative average intensity (67.5% 1 repetition maximum [1RM]), magnitude of velocity loss within the set (20%), number of sets (3), and interset recoveries (4 minutes) throughout the training program. Pre-training and post-training measurements included predicted SQ (1RM), average velocity attained for all loads common to pre-tests and post-tests (AV), average velocity for those loads that were moved faster (AV > 1) and slower (AV < 1) than 1 m·s-1 at pre-tests, countermovement jump height (CMJ), and 20-m sprint time (T20). No significant group × time interactions were observed for any of the variables analyzed. All groups obtained similar increases (shown in effect size values) in 1RM strength (LP: 0.88; UP: 0.54; RP: 0.62; CP: 0.51), velocity-load-related variables (LP: 0.74-4.15; UP: 0.46-5.04; RP: 0.36-3.71; CP: 0.74-3.23), CMJ height (LP: 0.35; UP: 0.53; RP: 0.49; CP: 0.34), and sprint performance (LP: 0.34; UP: 0.35; RP: 0.32; CP: 0.30). These results suggest that different VBT programming models induced similar physical performance gains in moderately strength-trained subjects.

Publication types

  • Randomized Controlled Trial

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Adult
  • Athletic Performance*
  • Exercise Test
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Muscle Strength
  • Physical Functional Performance
  • Posture
  • Resistance Training*
  • Young Adult