Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.789582
Title: The application of the load-velocity relationship as a means of dictating resistance training intensity
Author: Dorrell, Harry Francis
ISNI:       0000 0004 8501 5358
Awarding Body: University of Lincoln
Current Institution: University of Lincoln
Date of Award: 2019
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
The vast majority of resistance training programmes utilise traditional percentage-based loading methods to dictate and modify training intensity over time. These methods rely on predetermining load based on pre-training strength assessments. While such methods are widely used within both the applied and research environments, percentage-based loading approaches do not factor in current levels of fatigue or athlete readiness to train. A prospective alternative advocated as a means to address such issues, involves the collection of concentric repetition velocity and the documented relationship it has with relative load. While such velocity-based methods are becoming increasingly popular, little consideration has been given to the applied nature of such approaches when compared to traditional percentage-based methods. As such, the main purpose of this thesis was to explore the efficacy of adopting a velocity-based loading approach when compared to traditional percentage-based loading during a strength and power intervention. Before such an aim could be addressed, the method of collecting and reporting concentric repetition velocity in an applied environment would need to be explored. For this reason, Study 1 examined the validity and reliability of a commercially available linear positional transducer when compared to an integrated motion capture and piezoelectric force plate setup. Regression analysis resulted in R2 values of > 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 all variables assessed demonstrates the sensitivity of the device. Collectively the novel data within this study provides sufficient evidence that the GymAware PowerTool can be used to measure kinetic and kinematic outputs in a resistance trained ii population across a range of widely practiced movements. These findings were significant in providing confidence in the methods used to obtain such variables. Study 2 explored the impact of integrating a velocity-based loading approach into a six-week training intervention when compared to traditional percentage-based loading. Within this study velocity was recorded in real-time and used to dictate training load based on a pre-established generalised group-based load-velocity profile. The findings of this study demonstrated the potential benefit of adopting such an approach. Participants within the velocity group obtained similar or statistically greater improvements in measures of strength and power than the percentagebased group (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 the velocity-based group completed significantly (p < 0.01) less total training volume throughout the intervention. While the findings from Study 2 demonstrate the potential significance of adopting a velocity-based loading approach over traditional methods, the presence of large individual differences between participants load-velocity relationships warranted further investigation. As such, Study 3 explored the efficacy of two differing velocitybased loading approaches over a strength and power training intervention. Participants were allocated to either an individual- or group-based velocity intervention, whereby load was dictated based either on the individual or generalised group data, respectively. While no significance interaction was reported between training groups, the individualised group did result in a greater magnitude of 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. iii 3.4%), larger effect sizes, and either the same or stronger magnitude-based inferences across all assessed variables. Taken collectively, the research studies that are presented within this thesis provide preliminary data supporting the use of velocity-based loading interventions when working with trained individuals. It would appear that adopting a velocity-based loading approach may offer additional benefits to already trained participants both with regards to significant improvements and less required training volume. Furthermore, the trivial improvements witnessed following an individualised approach may suggest a greater potential for adaptation when compared to a generalised group-based approach. As such, this thesis serves to demonstrate that monitoring velocity within resistance training offers a more objective and sensitive approach to prescribing training load than traditional percentage-based approaches.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.789582  DOI: Not available
Keywords: C600 Sports Science
Share: