Download PDF
Int J Sports Med 2024; 45(08): 624-632
DOI: 10.1055/a-2316-7966
Training & Testing

Monitoring Bar Velocity to Quantify Fatigue in Resistance Training

Raony Espíndola Moura
1   Physical Education, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil
,
Rodrigo Fabio Bezerra da Silva
2   Graduate Program in Physical Education Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil
,
Lucas Morais de Souza Gomes
1   Physical Education, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil
,
José Leonardo Ramos da Silva
1   Physical Education, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil
,
Rafael dos Santos Henrique
1   Physical Education, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil
,
Filipe Antônio de Barros Sousa
3   Institute of Physical Education and Sports, Federal University of Alagoas, Maceio, Brazil
,
Fabiano de Souza Fonseca
4   Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

We analyzed the effects of load magnitude and bar velocity variables on sensitivity to fatigue. Seventeen resistance-trained men (age=25.7±4.9 years; height=177.0±7.2 cm; body mass=77.7±12.3 kg; back-squat 1RM=145.0±33.9 kg; 1RM/body mass=1.86) participated in the study. Pre- and post-exercise changes in the mean propulsive velocity (MPV) and peak velocity (PV) in the back-squat at different intensities were compared with variations in the countermovement jump (CMJ). CMJ height decreased significantly from pre- to post-exercise (∆%=−7.5 to −10.4; p<0.01; ES=0.37 to 0.60). Bar velocity (MPV and PV) decreased across all loads (∆%=−4.0 to −12.5; p<0.01; ES=0.32 to 0.66). The decrease in performance was similar between the CMJ, MPV (40% and 80% 1RM; p=1.00), and PV (80% 1RM; p=1.00). The magnitude of reduction in CMJ performance was greater than MPV (60% 1RM; p=0.05) and PV (40% and 60% 1RM; p<0.01) at the post-exercise moment. Low systematic bias and acceptable levels of agreement were only found between CMJ and MPV at 40% and 80% 1RM (bias=0.35 to 1.59; ICC=0.51 to 0.71; CV=5.1% to 8.5%). These findings suggest that the back-squat at 40% or 80% 1RM using MPV provides optimal sensitivity to monitor fatigue through changes in bar velocity.

Keywords

velocity-based training - strength training - neuromuscular fatigue - back-squat


Publication History

Received: 29 December 2023

Accepted: 26 April 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
29 April 2024

Article published online:
01 June 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Scott BR, Duthie GM, Thornton HR. et al. Training monitoring for resistance exercise: Theory and applications. Sports Med 2016; 46: 687-698
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Enoka RM, Stuart DG. Neurobiology of muscle fatigue. J Appl Physiol 1992; 72: 1631-1648
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 González-Badillo JJ, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Sánchez-Medina L. et al. Short-term recovery following resistance exercise leading or not to failure. Int J Sports Med 2016; 4: 295-304
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sánchez-Medina L, González-Badillo JJ. Velocity loss as an indicator of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011; 43: 1725-1734
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Smith DJ. A framework for understanding the training process leading to elite performance. Sports Med 2003; 33: 1103-1126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Taylor K, Chapman DW, Cronin JB. et al. Fatigue monitoring in high performance sport: A survey of current trends. J Aust Strength Cond 2012; 20: 12-23
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Thorpe RT, Atkinson G, Drust B. et al. Monitoring fatigue status in elite team-sport athletes: Implications for practice. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2017; 12: 27-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Gathercole RJ, Sporer BC, Stellingwerff T. et al. Comparison of the capacity of different jump and sprint field tests to detect neuromuscular fatigue. J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29: 2522-2531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cormack SJ, Newton RU, Mcguigan MR. et al. Reliability of measures obtained during single and repeated countermovement jumps. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2008; 3: 131-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Claudino JG, Cronin J, Mezêncio B. et al. The countermovement jump to monitor neuromuscular status: A meta-analysis. J Sci Med Sport 2017; 20: 397-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Badby AJ, Mundy PD, Comfort P. et al. The validity of hawkin dynamics wireless dual force plates for measuring countermovement jump and drop jump variables. Sens 2023; 23: 4820
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Loturco I, Pereira LA, Kobal R. et al. Validity and usability of a new system for measuring and monitoring variations in vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 2017; 31: 2579-2585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Balsalobre-Fernández C, Tejero-González CM, del Campo-Vecino J. et al. The concurrent validity and reliability of a low-cost, high-speed camera-based method for measuring the flight time of vertical jumps. J Strength Cond Res 2014; 28: 528-533
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Balsalobre-Fernández C, Glaister M, Lockey RA. The validity and reliability of an iPhone app for measuring vertical jump performance. J Sports Sci 2015; 33: 1574-1579
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 González-Badillo JJ, Sánchez-Medina L, Ribas-Serna J. et al. Toward a new paradigm in resistance training by means of velocity monitoring: A critical and challenging narrative. Sports Med Open 2022; 8: 1-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Pareja-Blanco F, Alcazar J, Sánchez-Valdepeñas J. et al. Velocity loss as a critical variable determining the adaptations to strength training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2020; 52: 1752-1762
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Jukic I, Castilla AP, Ramos AG. et al. The acute and chronic effects of implementing velocity loss thresholds during resistance training: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and critical evaluation of the literature. Sports Med 2023; 53: 177-214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Vernon A, Joyce C, Banyard HG. Readiness to train: Return to baseline strength and velocity following strength or power training. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2020; 15: 204-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Callaghan DE, Guy JH, Kean CO. et al. Back squat velocity to assess neuromuscular status of rugby league players following a match. J Sci Med Sport 2021; 24: 36-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Barreira J, Gantois P, Castro J. et al Using bar velocity to assess post-match neuromuscular fatigue in young soccer players. Int J Sports Med 2024; Apr 22 DOI: 10.1055/a-2150-0960.. Online ahead of print.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 González-Badillo JJ, Sánchez-Medina L. Movement velocity as a measure of loading intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 347-352
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Gantois P, Fonseca FS, Nakamura FY. et al. Analysis of velocity- and power-load relationships of the free-weight back-squat and hexagonal bar deadlift exercises. Biol Sport 2022; 40: 201-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Pérez-Castilla A, Jiménez-Reyes P, Haff GG. et al. Assessment of the loaded squat jump and countermovement jump exercises with a linear velocity transducer: Which velocity variable provides the highest reliability?. Sports Biomech 2021; 20: 247-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Lagally KM, Costigan EM. Anchoring procedures in reliability of ratings of perceived exertion during resistance exercise. Percept Mot Skills 2004; 98: 1285-1295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Gearhart RF, Goss FL, Lagally KM. et al. Standardized scaling procedures for rating perceived exertion during resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res 2001; 15: 320-325
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kenttä G, Hassmén P. Overtraining and recovery. A conceptual model. Sports Med 1998; 26: 1-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Robertson RJ, Goss FL, Rutkowski J. et al. Concurrent validation of the OMNI perceived exertion scale for resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35: 333-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Gantois P, Fonseca FS, de Lima-Júnior D. et al. Acute effects of muscle failure and training system (traditional vs. rest-pause) in resistance exercise on countermovement jump performance in trained adults. Isokinet Exerc Sci 2021; 29: 11-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Fonseca FS, Costa BD, de V. et al. Acute effects of equated volume-load resistance training leading to muscular failure versus non-failure on neuromuscular performance. J Exerc Sci Fit 2020; 18: 94-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Martínez-Cava A, Hernández-Belmonte A, Courel-Ibáñez J. et al. Reliability of technologies to measure the barbell velocity: Implications for monitoring resistance training. PLoS One 2020; 15: 1-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sánchez-Medina L, Perez CE, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Importance of the propulsive phase in strength assessment. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 123-129
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 McGuigan MR, Foster C. A new approach to monitoring resistance training. Strength Cond J 2004; 26: 42-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Dankel SJ, Loenneke JP. Effect sizes for paired data should use the change score variability rather than the pre-test variability. J Strength Cond Res 2021; 35: 1773-1778
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM. et al. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41: 3-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15: 155-163 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med 1998; 26: 217-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Place N, Millet GY. Quantification of neuromuscular fatigue: What do we do wrong and why?. Sports Med 2020; 50: 439-447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Gordon AM, Huxley AV, Julian FJ. The variation in isometric tension with sarcomere length in vertebrate muscle fibres. J Physiol 1966; 184: 170-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Edman KAP. The relation between sarcomere length and active tension is isolated semitendinosus fibers of the frog. J Physiol 1966; 183: 407-417
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Haff GG, Nimphius S. Training principles for power. Strength Cond J 2012; 34: 2-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Duchateau J, Semmler JG, Enoka RM. Training adaptations in the behavior of human motor units. J Appl Physiol 2006; 101: 1766-1775
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Bobbert MF, Casius LJR. Is the effect of a countermovement on jump height due to active state development?. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37: 440-446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Linthorne NP. Analysis of standing vertical jumps using a force platform. Am J Phys 2001; 69: 1198-1204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Glassbrook DJ, Helms ER, Brown SR. et al. A review of the biomechanical differences between the high-bar and low-bar back-squat. J Strength Cond Res 2017; 31: 2618-2634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Thompson SW, Olusoga P, Rogerson D. et al. “Is it a slow day or a go day?”: The perceptions and applications of velocity-based training within elite strength and conditioning. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2023; 18: 1217-1228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar