Next Article in Journal
Performance and Recovery of Well-Trained Younger and Older Athletes during Different HIIT Protocols
Next Article in Special Issue
The Influence of Competitive Level on Stretch-Shortening Cycle Function in Young Female Gymnasts
Previous Article in Journal
Changes in Body Composition and Strength after 12 Weeks of High-Intensity Functional Training with Two Different Loads in Physically Active Men and Women: A Randomized Controlled Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Contextual Variation in External and Internal Workloads across the Competitive Season of a Collegiate Women’s Soccer Team
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Velocity-Based Resistance Training on 1-RM, Jump and Sprint Performance: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials

Mateo Baena-Marín
Andrés Rojas-Jaramillo
Jhonatan González-Santamaría
David Rodríguez-Rosell
Jorge L. Petro
Richard B. Kreider
9 and
Diego A. Bonilla
Grupo de Investigación ZIPATEFI, Fundación Universitaria del Área Andina, Pereira 110231, Colombia
Grupo Investigación y Desarrollo en Cultura de la Salud, Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira, Pereira 660001, Colombia
Grupo de Investigación de Ciencias Aplicadas a la Actividad Física y el Deporte, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín 050010, Colombia
Physical Performance & Sports Research Center, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, 41013 Seville, Spain
Department of Sport and Informatics, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, 41013 Seville, Spain
Research, Development and Innovation (R&D+i) Area, Investigation in Medicine and Sport Department, Sevilla Football Club, 41005 Sevilla, Spain
Research Division, Dynamical Business & Science Society—DBSS International SAS, Bogotá 110311, Colombia
Research Group in Physical Activity, Sports and Health Sciences—GICAFS, Universidad de Córdoba, Montería 230002, Colombia
Exercise & Sport Nutrition Laboratory, Human Clinical Research Facility, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
Sport Genomics Research Group, Department of Genetics, Physical Anthropology and Animal Physiology, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), 48940 Leioa, Spain
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 5 November 2021 / Revised: 23 December 2021 / Accepted: 29 December 2021 / Published: 4 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strength and Conditioning and Performance Monitoring in Sports)


Weight resistance training (RT) has been shown to positively influence physical performance. Within the last two decades, a methodology based on monitoring RT through movement velocity (also called velocity-based resistance training, VBRT) has emerged. The aim of this PRISMA-based systematic review was to evaluate the effect of VBRT programs on variables related to muscle strength (one-repetition maximum, 1-RM), and high-speed actions (vertical jump, and sprint performance) in trained subjects. The search for published articles was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, SPORT Discus/EBSCO, OVID, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE databases using Boolean algorithms independently. A total of 22 studies met the inclusion criteria of this systematic review (a low-to-moderate overall risk of bias of the analyzed studies was detected). VBRT is an effective method to improve 1-RM, vertical jump and sprint. According to the results of the analyzed studies, it is not necessary to reach high muscle failure in order to achieve the best training results. These findings reinforce the fact that it is possible to optimize exercise adaptations with less fatigue. Future studies should corroborate these findings in female population.

1. Introduction

Weight resistance training (RT) has been proven as an important tool to improve performance in different sports disciplines [1,2,3,4]. In addition, RT is also a key factor to improve body composition in physically active population [5,6], health condition in the general population [7,8], and even as preventive and palliative treatment in many metabolic and neurodegenerative diseases [9,10]. The magnitude of the effect produced by RT will depend on the manipulation of the so-called acute training variables, especially the relative load, volume, and type of exercises [11,12,13]. Traditionally, relative load during RT has been configured using the percentage of one-repetition maximum (1-RM) or the maximum number of repetitions complete against an absolute load (X-RM) [11,12]. Both methodologies present several limitations related to excessive degree of fatigue, spending time, and difficulty in applying tests of these characteristics to certain populations, such as the elderly, young people, and athletes without previous experience in RT [14,15]. However, the main limitation of the 1-RM percentage-based RT (PBT) method to prescribe the relative load is the mismatch between the actual load and the proposed load that occurs as a result of daily changes in 1-RM [16]. As a consequence, it is not possible to know the real load with which the athlete has trained in each training session and, therefore, it is impossible to determine the load that has produced a certain training effect. For example, a pre-specified 1-RM value during a long-term training program disregards a number of confounding factors (i.e., sleep, diet, and training-induced fatigue) that affect the athlete’s “true” load and daily preparedness [17]. On the other hand, volume is prescribed in terms of sets and repetitions per set [12]. However, the maximal number of repetitions completed against a given relative load present high between-subjects variability [18]; thus, subjects performing the same number of repetitions per set against the same relative load are likely performing a different effort [18,19].
To solve these problems of monitoring and quantification of the training loads, recent attention has been placed on movement velocity during RT [14,20,21]. First, several studies have observed a strong relationship between the relative load (1% RM) and movement velocity in different resistance exercises [22,23,24]. Thus, it is possible to estimate the 1% RM that is being used as soon as the first repetition with any given absolute load is performed [14]. Furthermore, there is also a strong relationship between the percentage of velocity loss (VL) attained in the set and the percentage of repetitions completed with respect to the maximum possible repetitions against a given relative load [18,19]. These results suggest that, rather than prescribing a fixed number of repetitions with a given relative load, training volume during RT should be monitored using the magnitude of VL attained in each exercise set because it is closely linked to the actual level of effort being incurred [18,19,25,26]. In addition, it has been observed that, for the same relative load, the magnitude of VL incurred in the set determine the degree of fatigue [27,28]. Therefore, first repetition’s mean velocity (which is intrinsically related to the 1% RM being used) and the percent VL to be reached during each set are the two variables that might be prescribed and monitored during an RT program aimed to optimize athletic performance. This procedure for monitoring and dosing the load is called “velocity-based RT” (VBRT) [27,29,30].
Previous studies, systematic review, and meta-analysis have shown greater strength gains for RT using repetitions not to failure compared to muscle failure [31,32,33]. Additionally,, this type of RT induced lower metabolic stress and endocrine response [27,34]. Despite these findings, the knowledge concerning the influence of different level of efforts on strength capacity and other variables related to athletic performance is limited. In an attempt to answer this fundamental question, some studies have shown the importance of VBRT method for monitoring and adjusting the fatigue degree in real time in order to find the optimal training load for improving the physical performance [28,35,36]. In this regard, it has been reported that VBRT generates significant improvements in the rate of force development (RFD) of trained athletes, which would directly influence athletic actions, such as jumps and sprints [37]. However, the magnitude of training-effects is determined by the degree of fatigue induced during RT program [29,30,38,39,40]. If the athlete presents higher movement velocities against the same absolute load, this indicates an improvement of the maximum strength and the RFD against that load. In fact, a recent meta-analysis with meta-regression highlighted this and concluded that the application of faster movement velocity and the intention to produce rapid force result in the greatest increases in RFD [41]. Similarly, the VBRT allows the evaluation and control of the magnitude of VL during a set, which is an indicator of increased muscle fatigue. This fact is the special interest for the specificity of the stimulus since the fact of performing slower repetitions would not only indicate fatigue (as a consequence of reaching a higher percentage of VL in the series), but would also be could also lead to suboptimal adaptations [22,24,42].
Although the application of the VBRT has been shown to improve training in high-performance athletes [43,44] some studies have found no superior effects when individualizing based on the force-velocity profile [45]. In addition, with the emergence of new brands of linear position transducers, accelerometers, and applications for mobile devices [46,47], VBRT has become more accessible to the general public and has gone from being applied in the laboratory to become a tool for the personal trainer who seeks to control and program the training load quickly and safely. Considering that an analysis of the scientific literature regarding the effect of VBRT in elite or recreationally trained populations aiming to improve muscular strength and physical performance has not been carried out, the goal of this systematic review is to evaluate the effect of adjusting and controlling loads within a VBRT program on physical performance variables related to muscular strength and high-speed actions (maximum repetition [1-RM], vertical jump, and running speed) in trained subjects.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Protocol and Registration

This systematic review was developed and reported according to the parameters established in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [48]. Considering that this review is not eligible to be registered in PROSPERO, as it focused on physical performance, the protocol of this work has been published in Figshare to make it publicly accessible and avoid unnecessary duplication of analyzing the same study objective (

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

The studies were selected according to the following inclusion criteria: (1) randomized clinical trials; (2) published in specialized scientific journals hosted in databases from 2009 onwards; (3) written in English or Spanish; (4) with full-text access; (5) that evaluated VBRT using either an alternative experimental group or a control group (traditional 1-RM percentage-based training); and (6) that reported effects on variables related to muscle strength (1-RM), vertical jump, or running speed. We excluded articles that were not original studies (i.e., editorials, notes, perspectives, narrative reviews, dissertations, etc.), interventions of less than four weeks, and studies including subjects with RT experience less than six months.

2.3. Information Sources

The search for published articles was carried out in the databases PubMed/MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus/EBSCO, OVID, Web of Science, Scopus and EMBASE.

2.4. Search Methods

The PICO strategy was used: P (athletes) I (VBRT) C (resistance training) O (strength, jump and sprint performance), which allows the problem to be analyzed according to Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes [49] to structure the search strategy. The authors (M.B.-M. and A.R.J.) independently ran the following Boolean algorithms to search for studies in each database: PubMed/MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus/EBSCO, OVID y Web of Science: velocity based training AND athlet* AND “resistance training” AND strength NOT old NOT elder*; Scopus: “velocity based” training AND “resistance training” AND strength; and EMBASE: velocity AND based AND training AND athlet* AND ‘resistance training’ AND strength NOT old* NOT elder*. Additionally, free language terms related to “velocity-based resistance training” were used to complement the search in some databases.

2.5. Study Selection

After performing the search, the filter option of the databases was used to meet the inclusion criteria 1 to 4. Subsequently, the remaining publications were manually filtered in an Excel matrix where the title of the article, year of publication, name of the journal, abstract, objective, conclusions were structured. The study selection process took place during February and May 2021 although an updated search was conducted prior to manuscript submission (October 2021).

2.6. Data Collection Process and Items

The authors (M.B.-M., A.R.J., and D.A.B.) were responsible for extracting the following information for subsequent analysis: (i) reference and year of publication; (ii) descriptive statistics of the study population (number of subjects, sex, age, and BMI); (iii) description of the experimental intervention; (iv) assessment methods, magnitude and units of the variables related to muscle strength and power; and (v) baseline values and change in the study variables.

2.7. Risk of Bias

The risk of bias of the selected publications was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias analysis tool RoB 2.0 [50] including: selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, outcome reporting bias, and any other bias. Discrepancies were identified and resolved through discussion among the authors (with the intervention of a third author when necessary). All randomized participants were included in the analysis of each study, considering that this is the least biased way to analyze clinical effects. Figures to represent the results of the risk of bias assessment were developed using the package Risk-of-bias Visualization (robvis) [51].

2.8. Data Analysis and Synthesis

Changes in variables related to muscle strength (1-RM), vertical jump or running speed after intervention with a VBRT program were considered as the primary outcome. Those selected publications that met all the inclusion criteria went on to the next phase of analysis and synthesis, where a table was used to report the comparison of results.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

After running the search algorithms with Boolean operators and free language terms, 441 references were retrieved. Then, the screening process of the publications was performed (filtering by date, type of article and availability of full text) and 271 potentially eligible studies were found. However, after evaluating the abstracts, full-texts, and analyzing the strict fulfillment of the other inclusion criteria, 236 articles were excluded. A total of 22 studies met the pre-established requirements [22,29,30,38,39,40,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67]. Considering that the present systematic review is reported according to the parameters established in the PRISMA guidelines, a flow chart of the literature search is shown in Figure 1.

3.2. Risk of Bias within Studies

The methodological quality of the selected studies is presented in Figure 2.

3.3. Results of Individual Studies

The main characteristics and results of the selected studies are shown in Table 1.

4. Discussion

4.1. Effects on 1-RM

A high percentage of the analyzed articles (95.45%) have evaluated the effects of VBRT on 1-RM (Table 1). Changes in this variable have been reported in several exercises, such as the squat, bench press, pull-ups, overhead press, and deadlift with full or partial ranges of motion. Most of the studies evaluating the squat exercise reported similar or higher significant improvements in the 1-RM for the VBRT group in comparison to control groups. In fact, only one study did not find positive effects after a VBRT protocol with 30% of VL [38]. Moreover, the research by Jiménez-Reyes et al. [67] showed that non-adjusted loads during a VBRT program resulted in greater changes in 1-RM than adjusting training loads although the improvements were probably due to the former group working at lower relative intensity (with lower VL). According to the authors, this might have generated lower fatigue levels and greater performance benefits. By comparing the effects of PBT and VBRT programs, Banyard et al. [60] found that both training methods might increase 1-RM although higher clinical significance (larger effect size) favored PBT in stronger individuals while VBRT was more advantageous for improving high-speed actions (e.g., CMJ, sprint). Notwithstanding, most of the studies revealed greater improvements in 1-RM after a VBRT program when compared to PBT (Table 1). Regarding to exercise technique, Pallares et al. [63] evaluated three different positions of the squat exercise: full squat, parallel squat, and half squat. This study showed statistically significant effects in full and parallel squat, but not in half squat. These findings are consistent with the fact that most of the studies reviewed have found positive results in full squat after a VBRT program [22,29,30,38,39,40,53,55,60,62,65,66,67].
Eight studies have used the bench press as an intervention exercise for the evaluation of the VBRT effects on strength-related variables. Interestingly, it has been reported that performing this exercise in a partial range of moment does not generate positive effects during VBRT-based programming in recreational and well-trained athletes [58]. In fact, it is worth noting that this research evaluated different ranges of movement during bench press (full, two-thirds, and one-third bench press) without finding significant effects in the group that trained at one-third of the movement and minor effects in those subjects who performed partial bench press [31].
In addition, the programmed pull-up exercise through the movement velocity was evaluated in a study conducted by Sánchez-Moreno et al. [61]. This study showed that the group with 25% of VL obtained significant improvements in 1-RM while no changes were observed during RT close to muscle failure (50% VL) [54]. On the other hand, although VBRT-based programming in the overhead press has also shown significant improvements in 1-RM values, no improvements have been described for the deadlift [62]. In general terms, VBRT has been shown to be efficient in improving strength measured through 1-RM in most exercises. However, when RT involved exercise executed in a partial range of motion, the training effect is considerably less.

4.2. Effects on Sprint Performance

Fifteen studies have investigated the effect of VBRT on running sprinting (10–30 m) with a total of 406 strength-trained subjects [22,29,30,38,39,40,52,55,57,59,60,63,64,66,67]. However, only eight studies [29,30,39,55,59,60,66,67] concluded that VBRT has positive or superior effects to other strategies, while the other studies did not report improvements with respect to the control group. Despite these findings, it should be noted that VBRT does not negatively affect the sprinting ability of athletes. As expected, one of the most interesting findings of most studies was that positive results are found in the groups training at a higher movement velocity during the concentric phase (i.e., lower relative loads). In addition, there was a tendency to show greater increases in sprint performance when less percentage of VL was used in each training set. This resulted in lower total volume than the other groups and, therefore, a lower level of accumulated fatigue [29,30,39,55,59,60,66,67]. Although some studies have reported no significant difference in sprinting ability when comparing two groups training with different VL [22,38], several studies suggest that lower %VL (10–15%) could be the most appropriate fatigue level to improve 20 m sprint performance [29,30,39]. Moreover, compared to PBT, the VBRT methodology showed more benefits on the performance of sport-specific actions, such as sprints and changes of direction [60]. Finally, it seems that the full squat [63] with feedback [52] would be most recommended. In any case, it seems that more research is needed regarding the effect of different ranges of motion in lower-limb exercises during a VBRT program that seeks to improve sprint performance.

4.3. Effects on CMJ

Of the selected studies, only three did not evaluate the effect of a VBRT program on countermovement jump (CMJ) [54,58,61]. Thus, results are analyzed for a total of 363 subjects with experience in RT. The findings indicate that VBRT positively affects the CMJ of athletes, obtaining benefits in functional performance with lower total training load. Similar to sprint performance, it appears that the most efficient VBRT program would be the one with lower percentage of VL in the set [22,38,39,40,57] and performed at maximum intended velocity [55], as it would reduce fatigue accumulation and facilitate motor neuronal adaptations to improve the ability to apply force quickly. Similar to the other strength-related variables, the full range of motion [63] with feedback [52,64] seems to show the best results on CMJ.

4.4. Velocity Loss

Several studies have implemented the VL in the set (from 5% to 45%) to program the training volume in different exercises, the squat being the most used [22,29,30,38,39,40,62,65,66]. In general, it is concluded that it is not necessary to reach a high percentage of VL in the squat exercise, as magnitudes of VL ranging from 5 to 20% appear to show the best results on jump, sprint, and strength performance (see Table 1). Therefore, results of these studies suggest that exercise adaptations are favored with a lower total training volume and less fatigue for the athlete. Some studies have evaluated biochemical markers of muscle damage and electromyography activity during a VBRT program with different VL in the set [29,30,65]. Although the concentrations of certain biomarkers did not show important differences, a significant increase in troponin T (a marker of muscle damage) was observed for training groups with 30% of VL compared to a 10% of VL in the set [30]. These results are in agreement with those reported by Pareja-Blanco et al. [38,68] who indicated that the degree of fatigue attained at VL below 10% could be an important factor in optimizing neuromuscular adaptations during a VBRT program. Regarding the muscle activation assessment, no significant differences were found between the pre and post-values; however, a VL in the set equal to 10% presented better percentage changes with respect to the 30% group in muscle fiber recruitment, mean, and peak power frequency [30]. In summary, the magnitude of VL in the set is a variable that takes center stage in VBRT. Studies have shown that it is not necessary to generate high magnitude of VL in the set (>20%) to increase muscle strength in exercises such as squat [57], pull-ups [61], and bench or overhead press [62]. Thus, the results of several studies suggest that higher training volumes do not always bring better results when seeking to increase strength levels, which gives some relevance to lower accumulated fatigue during neuromuscular adaptations.

4.5. Limitations and Future Directions

Despite the fact that sports performance variables were measured, the samples of the selected studies did not always include performance athletes (particularly, some studies included physically active young adults between 20 and 30 years old). Additionally, we are aware that the analyzed studies did not have a “true” control group (that is a group that did not receive treatment and therefore did not train); notwithstanding, we have based our analysis on pre-post changes and compared this (when available) to either alternative experimental groups or traditional 1-RM percentage-based training groups (control group). Although different authors have reported that improvements in strength-related variables are associated with sports performance, such as vertical jump, running speed, and throwing speed [69,70,71,72], it is worthwhile to evaluate the effect of this methodology on specific technical gestures of different sports modalities [73]. So far, it can only be stated that VBRT has positive effects on the performance of exercises such as the squat, bench press, pull-ups, and overhead press. Furthermore, the study designs showed some heterogeneity, low-to-moderate risk of bias and have mainly included male participants (training experience from 1.5 to 8.5 years), which suggests that more research is needed to evaluate the effects of this methodology in the female population. On the other hand, it has been shown that not all exercises obtain the best performance benefits from the same velocity losses, which implies that movement velocity is exercise-dependent [74]. Thus, future studies should analyze the effect of VBRT in a larger number of exercises, with free weights or other types of resistances such as elastic bands, and explore the potential effects of different RT programming approaches on strength-related variables. Indeed, only two studies have evaluated different methodologies (e.g., linear, undulating, or reverse) during a VBRT program with no relevant differences between them [65,66]. Finally, although new devices and smartphone applications have been developed recently [46,47], further external validation research is required.

4.6. Practical Applications

Evidence support the fact that PBT improves maximal strength. However, additional training methods such as VBRT might optimize load prescription and exercise adaptations [75]. Considering the main findings of the selected studies, VBRT has proven to be an effective methodology for improving strength in RT-trained individuals while completing lower training volumes compared to traditional programming. The following are some practical recommendations based on previous articles [21,76] and our systematic review:
  • A VBRT program with three sets per exercise performed twice a week might have significant changes in the 1-RM, CMJ, and sprint performance for a period of eight weeks;
  • Training at maximum intended concentric velocity is a key requirement to optimize muscle strength and gains in high-speed actions using the VBRT methodology;
  • It is necessary that the complete rest (>3 min) between sets are necessary to work at the maximum intended velocity at high intensity;
  • The load-velocity profile and mean propulsive velocity are valid options for monitoring intensity and load progression;
  • The magnitude of VL in the sets is a practical and objective method to program the training volume during RT;
  • A high magnitude of VL in the set is not necessary to achieve the best results on muscle strength and athletic performance. In fact, lower velocity losses (5–10%) guarantee less fatigue accumulation, which might lead to quicker recovery.

5. Conclusions

Movement velocity is a useful and reliable variable for monitoring and adjusting the training loads during RT, making it easier for the personal trainer to program workloads consistent with the athlete’s current performance capacity. This procedure corrects one of the main shortcomings of PBT, where the programming of the loads is based on the 1-RM of the athlete, ignoring the fact that this measure presents a high variability throughout the training sessions. After reviewing current scientific evidence, VBRT seems to be an alternative and efficient methodology to improve muscle strength (1-RM), CMJ and sprint performance, although more research is needed in female participants to corroborate these results. It must be noted that to improve muscle strength and high-speed actions, the RT should not induce a high VL during the set or reach muscle failure. These results reveal that it is possible to obtain more gains with less fatigue.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.B.-M., A.R.-J. and D.A.B.; Methodology, D.A.B.; Search and risk of bias assessment, M.B.-M., A.R.-J. and D.A.B.; Analysis and data interpretation: M.B.-M., A.R.-J. and D.A.B.; Writing—original draft preparation, M.B.-M., A.R.-J., J.G.-S. and D.A.B.; Writing—review and editing, R.B.K., D.R.-R. and J.L.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research was supported by the Research Division of DBSS International SAS and the APC was funded by the Exercise and Sport Nutrition Laboratory at Texas A&M.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting this systematic review are from previously reported studies and datasets, which have been cited.


The authors would like to thank for providing comments on the first version of the drafted manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

D.A.B. has conducted academic-sponsored research on resistance training, and has received honoraria for selling linear position transducers and speaking about exercise sciences at international conferences/private courses. R.B.K. has conducted industry sponsored studies at the universities he has been affiliated with and occasionally serves as a scientific and legal consultant related to exercise and nutrition intervention studies. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest. All authors are responsible for the content of this article.


  1. Thiele, D.; Prieske, O.; Lesinski, M.; Granacher, U. Effects of Equal Volume Heavy-Resistance Strength Training Versus Strength Endurance Training on Physical Fitness and Sport-Specific Performance in Young Elite Female Rowers. Front. Physiol. 2020, 11, 888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Beattie, K.; Kenny, I.C.; Lyons, M.; Carson, B.P. The effect of strength training on performance in endurance athletes. Sports Med. 2014, 44, 845–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Crowley, E.; Harrison, A.J.; Lyons, M. The Impact of Resistance Training on Swimming Performance: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2017, 47, 2285–2307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Thiele, D.; Prieske, O.; Chaabene, H.; Granacher, U. Effects of strength training on physical fitness and sport-specific performance in recreational, sub-elite, and elite rowers: A systematic review with meta-analysis. J. Sports Sci. 2020, 38, 1186–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Schoenfeld, B.; Fisher, J.; Grgic, J.; Haun, C.; Helms, E.; Phillips, S.; Steele, J.; Vigotsky, A. Resistance Training Recommendations to Maximize Muscle Hypertrophy in an Athletic Population: Position Stand of the IUSCA. Int. J. Strength Cond. 2021, 1, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vargas-Molina, S.; Romance, R.; Schoenfeld, B.J.; García, M.; Petro, J.L.; Bonilla, D.A.; Kreider, R.B.; Martín-Rivera, F.; Benítez-Porres, J. Effects of cluster training on body composition and strength in resistance-trained men. Isokinet. Exerc. Sci. 2020, 28, 391–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cannataro, R.; Carbone, L.; Petro, J.L.; Cione, E.; Vargas, S.; Angulo, H.; Forero, D.A.; Odriozola-Martínez, A.; Kreider, R.B.; Bonilla, D.A. Sarcopenia: Etiology, Nutritional Approaches, and miRNAs. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 9724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vargas-Molina, S.; García-Sillero, M.; Romance, R.; Medina, I.; Bonilla, D.A.; Schoenfeld, B.J.; Petro, J.L.; Kreider, R.B.; Benítez-Porres, J. Effects Of Undulating Vs. Linear Periodization On Body Composition In Untrained Older Adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2020, 52, 736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kim, Y.; Lai, B.; Mehta, T.; Thirumalai, M.; Padalabalanarayanan, S.; Rimmer, J.H.; Motl, R.W. Exercise Training Guidelines for Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke, and Parkinson Disease: Rapid Review and Synthesis. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2019, 98, 613–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yang, Z.; Scott, C.A.; Mao, C.; Tang, J.; Farmer, A.J. Resistance exercise versus aerobic exercise for type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2014, 44, 487–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Fry, A.C. The role of resistance exercise intensity on muscle fibre adaptations. Sports Med. 2004, 34, 663–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kraemer, W.J.; Ratamess, N.A. Fundamentals of resistance training: Progression and exercise prescription. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2004, 36, 674–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Spiering, B.A.; Kraemer, W.J.; Anderson, J.M.; Armstrong, L.E.; Nindl, B.C.; Volek, J.S.; Maresh, C.M. Resistance exercise biology: Manipulation of resistance exercise programme variables determines the responses of cellular and molecular signalling pathways. Sports Med. 2008, 38, 527–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J.; Sanchez-Medina, L. Movement velocity as a measure of loading intensity in resistance training. Int. J. Sports Med. 2010, 31, 347–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Conceicao, F.; Fernandes, J.; Lewis, M.; Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J.; Jimenez-Reyes, P. Movement velocity as a measure of exercise intensity in three lower limb exercises. J. Sports Sci. 2016, 34, 1099–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Zourdos, M.C.; Klemp, A.; Dolan, C.; Quiles, J.M.; Schau, K.A.; Jo, E.; Helms, E.; Esgro, B.; Duncan, S.; Garcia Merino, S.; et al. Novel Resistance Training-Specific Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale Measuring Repetitions in Reserve. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016, 30, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. McBurnie, A.J.; Allen, K.P.; Garry, M.; Martin, M.; Thomas, D.S.; Jones, P.A.; Comfort, P.; McMahon, J.J. The Benefits and Limitations of Predicting One Repetition Maximum Using the Load-Velocity Relationship. Strength Cond. J. 2019, 41, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rodriguez-Rosell, D.; Yanez-Garcia, J.M.; Sanchez-Medina, L.; Mora-Custodio, R.; Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J. Relationship Between Velocity Loss and Repetitions in Reserve in the Bench Press and Back Squat Exercises. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2020, 34, 2537–2547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J.; Yanez-Garcia, J.M.; Mora-Custodio, R.; Rodriguez-Rosell, D. Velocity Loss as a Variable for Monitoring Resistance Exercise. Int. J. Sports Med. 2017, 38, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Pereira, M.I.; Gomes, P.S. Movement velocity in resistance training. Sports Med. 2003, 33, 427–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Weakley, J.; Mann, B.; Banyard, H.; McLaren, S.; Scott, T.; Garcia-Ramos, A. Velocity-Based Training: From Theory to Application. Strength Cond. J. 2021, 43, 31–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pareja-Blanco, F.; Sanchez-Medina, L.; Suarez-Arrones, L.; Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J. Effects of Velocity Loss During Resistance Training on Performance in Professional Soccer Players. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2017, 12, 512–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J.; Izquierdo, M.; Gorostiaga, E.M. Moderate volume of high relative training intensity produces greater strength gains compared with low and high volumes in competitive weightlifters. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2006, 20, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kraemer, W.J.; Ratamess, N.A.; Flanagan, S.D.; Shurley, J.P.; Todd, J.S.; Todd, T.C. Understanding the Science of Resistance Training: An Evolutionary Perspective. Sports Med. 2017, 47, 2415–2435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Naclerio, F.; Larumbe-Zabala, E. Relative Load Prediction by Velocity and the OMNI-RES 0-10 Scale in Parallel Squat. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2017, 31, 1585–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Schilling, B.K.; Falvo, M.J.; Chiu, L.Z. Force-velocity, impulse-momentum relationships: Implications for efficacy of purposefully slow resistance training. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2008, 7, 299–304. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  27. Sanchez-Medina, L.; Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J. Velocity loss as an indicator of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2011, 43, 1725–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Rodriguez-Rosell, D.; Yanez-Garcia, J.M.; Torres-Torrelo, J.; Mora-Custodio, R.; Marques, M.C.; Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J. Effort Index as a Novel Variable for Monitoring the Level of Effort During Resistance Exercises. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 32, 2139–2153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rodriguez-Rosell, D.; Yanez-Garcia, J.M.; Mora-Custodio, R.; Sanchez-Medina, L.; Ribas-Serna, J.; Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J. Effect of velocity loss during squat training on neuromuscular performance. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2021, 31, 1621–1635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rodriguez-Rosell, D.; Yanez-Garcia, J.M.; Mora-Custodio, R.; Pareja-Blanco, F.; Ravelo-Garcia, A.G.; Ribas-Serna, J.; Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J. Velocity-based resistance training: Impact of velocity loss in the set on neuromuscular performance and hormonal response. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2020, 45, 817–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Vieira, A.F.; Umpierre, D.; Teodoro, J.L.; Lisboa, S.C.; Baroni, B.M.; Izquierdo, M.; Cadore, E.L. Effects of Resistance Training Performed to Failure or Not to Failure on Muscle Strength, Hypertrophy, and Power Output: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, 1165–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Davies, T.; Orr, R.; Halaki, M.; Hackett, D. Effect of Training Leading to Repetition Failure on Muscular Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2016, 46, 487–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Izquierdo, M.; Ibanez, J.; Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J.; Hakkinen, K.; Ratamess, N.A.; Kraemer, W.J.; French, D.N.; Eslava, J.; Altadill, A.; Asiain, X.; et al. Differential effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains. J. Appl. Physiol. 2006, 100, 1647–1656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Pareja-Blanco, F.; Rodriguez-Rosell, D.; Aagaard, P.; Sanchez-Medina, L.; Ribas-Serna, J.; Mora-Custodio, R.; Otero-Esquina, C.; Yanez-Garcia, J.M.; Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J. Time Course of Recovery From Resistance Exercise With Different Set Configurations. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2020, 34, 2867–2876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bautista, I.J.; Chirosa, I.J.; Robinson, J.E.; Chirosa, L.J.; Martinez, I. Concurrent Validity of a Velocity Perception Scale to Monitor Back Squat Exercise Intensity in Young Skiers. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016, 30, 421–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Morin, J.B.; Samozino, P. Interpreting Power-Force-Velocity Profiles for Individualized and Specific Training. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2016, 11, 267–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Guerriero, A.; Varalda, C.; Piacentini, M.F. The Role of Velocity Based Training in the Strength Periodization for Modern Athletes. J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2018, 3, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Pareja-Blanco, F.; Rodriguez-Rosell, D.; Sanchez-Medina, L.; Sanchis-Moysi, J.; Dorado, C.; Mora-Custodio, R.; Yanez-Garcia, J.M.; Morales-Alamo, D.; Perez-Suarez, I.; Calbet, J.A.L.; et al. Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance, strength gains and muscle adaptations. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2017, 27, 724–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Galiano, C.; Pareja-Blanco, F.; Hidalgo de Mora, J.; Saez de Villarreal, E. Low-Velocity Loss Induces Similar Strength Gains to Moderate-Velocity Loss During Resistance Training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2020, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pareja-Blanco, F.; Alcazar, J.; Sanchez-Valdepenas, J.; Cornejo-Daza, P.J.; Piqueras-Sanchiz, F.; Mora-Vela, R.; Sanchez-Moreno, M.; Bachero-Mena, B.; Ortega-Becerra, M.; Alegre, L.M. Velocity Loss as a Critical Variable Determining the Adaptations to Strength Training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2020, 52, 1752–1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Blazevich, A.J.; Wilson, C.J.; Alcaraz, P.E.; Rubio-Arias, J.A. Effects of Resistance Training Movement Pattern and Velocity on Isometric Muscular Rate of Force Development: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Meta-regression. Sports Med. 2020, 50, 943–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Barjaste, A.; Mirzaei, B. The periodization of resistance training in soccer players: Changes in maximal strength, lower extremity power, body composition and muscle volume. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2018, 58, 1218–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Montalvo-Perez, A.; Alejo, L.B.; Valenzuela, P.L.; Gil-Cabrera, J.; Talavera, E.; Luia, A.; Barranco-Gil, D. Traditional Versus Velocity-Based Resistance Training in Competitive Female Cyclists: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Front. Physiol. 2021, 12, 586113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wlodarczyk, M.; Adamus, P.; Zielinski, J.; Kantanista, A. Effects of Velocity-Based Training on Strength and Power in Elite Athletes-A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lindberg, K.; Solberg, P.; Ronnestad, B.R.; Frank, M.T.; Larsen, T.; Abusdal, G.; Berntsen, S.; Paulsen, G.; Sveen, O.; Seynnes, O.; et al. Should we individualize training based on force-velocity profiling to improve physical performance in athletes? Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2021, 31, 2198–2210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Weakley, J.; Morrison, M.; Garcia-Ramos, A.; Johnston, R.; James, L.; Cole, M.H. The Validity and Reliability of Commercially Available Resistance Training Monitoring Devices: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2021, 51, 443–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Perez-Castilla, A.; Boullosa, D.; Garcia-Ramos, A. Reliability and Validity of the iLOAD Application for Monitoring the Mean Set Velocity During the Back Squat and Bench Press Exercises Performed Against Different Loads. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, S57–S65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Eriksen, M.B.; Frandsen, T.F. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: A systematic review. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 2018, 106, 420–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Sterne, J.A.C.; Savović, J.; Page, M.J.; Elbers, R.G.; Blencowe, N.S.; Boutron, I.; Cates, C.J.; Cheng, H.-Y.; Corbett, M.S.; Eldridge, S.M.; et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019, 366, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. McGuinness, L.A.; Higgins, J.P.T. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res. Synth. Methods 2020, 12, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Randell, A.D.; Cronin, J.B.; Keogh, J.W.; Gill, N.D.; Pedersen, M.C. Effect of instantaneous performance feedback during 6 weeks of velocity-based resistance training on sport-specific performance tests. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2011, 25, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ramos Veliz, R.; Requena, B.; Suarez-Arrones, L.; Newton, R.U.; Saez de Villarreal, E. Effects of 18-week in-season heavy-resistance and power training on throwing velocity, strength, jumping, and maximal sprint swim performance of elite male water polo players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014, 28, 1007–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J.; Rodriguez-Rosell, D.; Sanchez-Medina, L.; Gorostiaga, E.M.; Pareja-Blanco, F. Maximal intended velocity training induces greater gains in bench press performance than deliberately slower half-velocity training. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2014, 14, 772–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Pareja-Blanco, F.; Rodriguez-Rosell, D.; Sanchez-Medina, L.; Gorostiaga, E.M.; Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J. Effect of movement velocity during resistance training on neuromuscular performance. Int. J. Sports Med. 2014, 35, 916–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Dolezal, S.M.; Frese, D.L.; Llewellyn, T.L. The Effects of Eccentric, Velocity-Based Training on Strength and Power in Collegiate Athletes. Int. J. Exerc. Sci. 2016, 9, 657–666. [Google Scholar]
  57. Pérez-Castilla, A.; García-Ramos, A.; Padial, P.; Morales-Artacho, A.J.; Feriche, B. Effect of different velocity loss thresholds during a power-oriented resistance training program on the mechanical capacities of lower-body muscles. J. Sports Sci. 2017, 36, 1331–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Martinez-Cava, A.; Hernandez-Belmonte, A.; Courel-Ibanez, J.; Moran-Navarro, R.; Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J.; Pallares, J.G. Bench Press at Full Range of Motion Produces Greater Neuromuscular Adaptations Than Partial Executions After Prolonged Resistance Training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2022, 36, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Orange, S.T.; Metcalfe, J.; Robinson, A.; Applegarth, M.J.; Liefeith, A. Effects of In-Season Velocity- Versus Percentage-Based Training in Academy Rugby League Players. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2020, 15, 554–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Banyard, H.G.; Tufano, J.J.; Weakley, J.J.S.; Wu, S.; Jukic, I.; Nosaka, K. Superior Changes in Jump, Sprint, and Change-of-Direction Performance but Not Maximal Strength Following 6 Weeks of Velocity-Based Training Compared With 1-Repetition-Maximum Percentage-Based Training. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2020, 16, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sanchez-Moreno, M.; Cornejo-Daza, P.J.; Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J.; Pareja-Blanco, F. Effects of Velocity Loss During Body Mass Prone-Grip Pull-up Training on Strength and Endurance Performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2020, 34, 911–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Dorrell, H.F.; Smith, M.F.; Gee, T.I. Comparison of Velocity-Based and Traditional Percentage-Based Loading Methods on Maximal Strength and Power Adaptations. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2020, 34, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pallares, J.G.; Cava, A.M.; Courel-Ibanez, J.; Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J.; Moran-Navarro, R. Full squat produces greater neuromuscular and functional adaptations and lower pain than partial squats after prolonged resistance training. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2020, 20, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Shattock, K.; Tee, J.C. Autoregulation in Resistance Training: A Comparison of Subjective Versus Objective Methods. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Rodriguez-Rosell, D.; Martinez-Cava, A.; Yanez-Garcia, J.M.; Hernandez-Belmonte, A.; Mora-Custodio, R.; Moran-Navarro, R.; Pallares, J.G.; Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J. Linear programming produces greater, earlier and uninterrupted neuromuscular and functional adaptations than daily-undulating programming after velocity-based resistance training. Physiol. Behav. 2021, 233, 113337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Riscart-Lopez, J.; Rendeiro-Pinho, G.; Mil-Homens, P.; Soares-daCosta, R.; Loturco, I.; Pareja-Blanco, F.; Leon-Prados, J.A. Effects of Four Different Velocity-Based Training Programming Models on Strength Gains and Physical Performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, 596–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Jimenez-Reyes, P.; Castano-Zambudio, A.; Cuadrado-Penafiel, V.; Gonzalez-Hernandez, J.M.; Capelo-Ramirez, F.; Martinez-Aranda, L.M.; Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J. Differences between adjusted vs. non-adjusted loads in velocity-based training: Consequences for strength training control and programming. PeerJ 2021, 9, e10942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pareja-Blanco, F.; Rodriguez-Rosell, D.; Sanchez-Medina, L.; Ribas-Serna, J.; Lopez-Lopez, C.; Mora-Custodio, R.; Yanez-Garcia, J.M.; Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J. Acute and delayed response to resistance exercise leading or not leading to muscle failure. Clin. Physiol. Funct. Imaging 2017, 37, 630–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Freitas, T.T.; Calleja-González, J.; Carlos-Vivas, J.; Marín-Cascales, E.; Alcaraz, P.E. Short-term optimal load training vs a modified complex training in semi-professional basketball players. J. Sports Sci. 2018, 37, 434–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rogan, S.; Loturco, I.; Contreras, B.; Kobal, R.; Fernandes, V.; Moura, N.; Siqueira, F.; Winckler, C.; Suchomel, T.; Pereira, L.A. Vertically and horizontally directed muscle power exercises: Relationships with top-level sprint performance. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0201475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Loturco, I.; Nakamura, F.Y.; Artioli, G.G.; Kobal, R.; Kitamura, K.; Cal Abad, C.C.; Cruz, I.F.; Romano, F.; Pereira, L.A.; Franchini, E. Strength and Power Qualities Are Highly Associated With Punching Impact in Elite Amateur Boxers. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016, 30, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. McBride, J.M.; Nimphius, S.; Erickson, T.M. The acute effects of heavy-load squats and loaded countermovement jumps on sprint performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2005, 19, 893–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Balsalobre-Fernandez, C.; Torres-Ronda, L. The Implementation of Velocity-Based Training Paradigm for Team Sports: Framework, Technologies, Practical Recommendations and Challenges. Sports 2021, 9, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. González Badillo, J.; Ribas Serna, J. Fuerza, Velocidad y Rendimiento Físico y Deportivo; ESM: Madrid, España, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  75. Thompson, S.W.; Rogerson, D.; Ruddock, A.; Barnes, A. The Effectiveness of Two Methods of Prescribing Load on Maximal Strength Development: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2020, 50, 919–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Picerno, P. Good Practice Rules for the Assessment of the Force-Velocity Relationship in Isoinertial Resistance Exercises. Asian J. Sports Med. 2017, 8, e15590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Sports 10 00008 g001
Figure 2. Risk of bias summary for included studies. Weighted bar-chart of the distribution of risk-of-bias judgments. These graphics were obtained using the ‘robvis’ package within the R statistical computing environment.
Figure 2. Risk of bias summary for included studies. Weighted bar-chart of the distribution of risk-of-bias judgments. These graphics were obtained using the ‘robvis’ package within the R statistical computing environment.
Sports 10 00008 g002
Table 1. Evidence of the effects of a velocity-based resistance training program on muscle strength/power.
Table 1. Evidence of the effects of a velocity-based resistance training program on muscle strength/power.
Age, Body Mass and StatureVBRT ProgramAnalyzed Variable
and Change (%)
Groups (n)Frequency
IntensityVolumeDuration (Weeks)Device
et al. [52]
25.7 ± 3.6 years;
188.5 ± 8.2 cm;
104.3 ± 10.0 kg
GVBRT1 (7): feedback
GVBRT2 (6): no feedback
340 kg
4–6 RM
3–6 reps ×
3–5 sets
6Celesco PT5A-150CMJ (cm)GVBRT1: 4.6
GVBRT2: 2.8
Jump (cm)
GVBRT1: 2.6 *
GVBRT2: 0.5
Sprint 10 mGVBRT1: 1.3
GVBRT2: 0.1
Sprint 20 mGVBRT1: 0.9
GVBRT2: 0.1
Sprint 30 mGVBRT1: 1.4 *
GVBRT2: −0.3
et al. [53]
20.4 ± 5.0 years;
180.3 ± 5.9 cm;
81.4 ± 8.4 kg
GVBRT (16)
Gcontrol (11)
4–8 reps ×
3–4 sets
18T-ForceCMJ (cm)GVBRT: 6.9
Gcontrol: 2.5
RMBP (kg)GVBRT: 10.5 * Gcontrol: 4.9
RMSQ (kg)GVBRT: 14.2 * Gcontrol: 3.4
et al. [54]
21.9 ± 2.9 years;
177 ± 8 cm;
70.9 ± 8.0 kg
Gcontrol MV (11)
3MPV: 0.79 (HV)
0.47 (MV)
2–6 reps ×
3–4 sets
6T-Force1-RM (kg)GVBRT: 18.2 *
Gcontrol: 9.7
et al. [55]
23.3 ± 3.2 years;
177 ± 7.0 cm;
73.6 ± 9.2 kg
Gcontrol MV (11)
1.0 (HV)
0.84 (MV)
2–8 reps ×
3–4 sets
6T-ForceCMJ (cm)GVBRT: 8.9 *
Gcontrol: 2.4
Sprint 10 mGVBRT: −2.8 *
Gcontrol: −1.1
Sprint 20 mGVBRT: −1.6
Gcontrol: −1.6
Sprint 30 mGVBRT: 18 *
Gcontrol: 9.7
et al. [56]
19.9 ± 1.5 years;
178.9 ± 7.0 cm;
88.4 ± 19.5 kg
GVBRT M (10)
350–80% 1-RM2–8 reps ×
3–6 sets
GVBRT F: 18.4
et al. [38]
22.7 ± 1.9 years;
176 ± 6 cm;
5.8 ± 7.0 kg
20% VL (12)
40% VL (10)
3 sets with
20% or
40% VL
8T-ForceRMGVBRT1: 17.6 *
GVBRT2: 13.5 *
CMJGVBRT1: 9.1 *
GVBRT2: 3.7
Sprint 20 mGVBRT1: −0.3
et al. [22]
23.8 ± 3.4 years,
174 ± 7 cm;
75.5 ± 8.6 kg
15% VL (8)
30% VL (8)
3 sets with 15% or
30% VL
GVBRT1: 8.9
GVBRT2: 3.6
CMJGVBRT1: 5.3 *
GVBRT2: −2.6
Sprint 30 mGVBRT1: −0.5
GVBRT2: −0.2
et al. [57]
22.0 ± 0.2 years;
175.7 ± 1.5 cm;
77 ± 18.4 kg
GVBRT1: 10% VL (10)
GVBRT2: 20% VL (10)
36 reps with 10% or
20% VL
4T-ForceRMGVBRT1: 2.0
GVBRT2: 3.6
CMJGVBRT1: 6.3 *
GVBRT2: 3.6
Sprint 15 mGVBRT1: 0.41
GVBRT2: 0.41
Martinez-Cava et al. [58]50
24.0 ± 4.7 years;
176.2 ± 8.4 cm;
73.4 ± 9.9 kg
GBP (11)
GBP2/3 (13)
GBP1/3 (12)
Gcontrol (12)
4–8 reps ×
4–5 sets
10T-ForceRMBPGBP: 12.3
GBP2/3: 7.01
GBP1/3: −0.26
Gcontrol: −2.9
et al. [39]
23.0 ± 3.2 years;
175.8 ± 4.7 cm;
73.8 ±10.8 kg
5% VL (15)
GVBRT2: 20% VL (13)
3 sets with 5% or
20% VL
7T-ForceRMGVBRT1: 10.7
GVBRT2: 13.6
GVBRT2: 8.8
Sprint 20 mGVBRT1: −4.9
GVBRT2: −3.6
et al. [59]
17 ± 1 years;
179 ± 5.8 cm;
83.15 ± 11.9 kg
GVBRT (12)
GPBT (15)
260–80% 1-RM5 reps ×
5 sets
Witty Timing System
RMGVBRT: 0.38 *
GPBT: 0.51
GPBT: 0.40
Sprint 5 mGVBRT: −0.09
GPBT: −0.69
Sprint 10 mGVBRT: −0.41
GPBT: −0.81
Sprint 20 mGVBRT: −0.48
GPBT: −1.02
Sprint 30 mGVBRT: −0.70
GPBT: −0.78
et al. [60]
25.5± 6 years
84.7± 6.8 kg
GVBRT (12)
GPBT (12)
5 reps ×
5 sets
Sprint 5 m
Sprint 10 m
Sprint 20 m
GVBRT: 11.3
GVBRT: 7.4 *
GVBRT: −6.5 *
GVBRT: −3.8 *
GVBRT: −1.8
et al. [61]
26.5 ± 6.3 years;
176.1 ± 5.3 cm;
74.3 ± 6.1 kg
25% VL (15)
50% VL (14)
2–4 sets with 25% or
50% VL
8T-ForceRMGVBRT1: 5.4 *
GVBRT2: 0.7
et al. [62]
22.8 ± 4.5 years;
180.2 ± 6.4 cm;
89.3 ± 13.3 kg
GVBRT1 (8)
GPBT (8)
3 sets with 20% VL6GymAware PowerToolRMSQGVBRT: 9.3
GPBT: 9.0
GPBT: 4.8
GPBT: 6.1
GPBT: 2.9
GPBT: 1.0
et al. [63]
23.0 ± 4.4 years;
174.0 ± 7.4 cm;
76.0 ± 12.8 kg
Gcontrol (14)
4–8 reps ×
4–5 sets
10T-ForceRMSQGVBRT1: 16.4
GVBRT2: 10.3
GVBRT3: 2.6
Gcontrol: −8.08
GVBRT2: 5.9
GVBRT3: −1.2
Gcontrol: −0.2
GVBRT2: 9.1
GVBRT3: 5.3
Gcontrol: −3.4
Sprint 20 mGVBRT1: −2.4
GVBRT2: −1.0
GVBRT3: 0.0
Gcontrol: 1.7
et al. [40]
24.1 ± 4.3 years,
175 ± 6 cm;
75.5 ± 9.7 kg
0% VL (14)
10% VL (14)
20% VL (13)
40% VL (14)
3 sets with 0%, 10%, 20% or
40% VL
8T-ForceRMGVBRT1: 13.7
GVBRT2: 18.1
GVBRT3: 14.9
GVBRT4: 12.3
et al. [64]
22 ± 3 years;
94.3 ± 15.5 kg
GVBRT (10)
GRPE (10)
3 reps × 8 sets or 4 reps × 6 sets12NACMJGVBRT: 8.2 *
GRPE: 3.8
GRPE: 3.5
GRPE: 3.8
Sprint 10 mGVBRT: −0.4
GRPE: 0.5
Sprint 20 mGVBRT: −0.4
GRPE: 0.1
Rodriguez-Rosell et al. [30]25
22.6 ± 3 years;
74.5 ± 10 kg
10% VL (12)
30% VL (13)
3 sets with 10% or
30% VL
8T-Force1-RMGVBRT1: 17.9
GVBRT2: 14.9
GVBRT2: 5.4
Sprint 10 mGVBRT1: −0.6
GVBRT2: 0.7
Sprint 20 mGVBRT1: −1.5
GVBRT2: −0.4
Rodriguez-Rosell et al. [29]33
22 ± 3 years;
72 ± 8 kg
10% VL (11)
30% VL (11)
45% VL (11)
3 sets with 10%, 30% or 45% VL8T-ForceRMSQGVBRT1: 22.1
GVBRT2: 22.0
GVBRT3: 15.4
CMJGVBRT1: 12.0 *
GVBRT2: 5.0
GVBRT3: 4.6
Sprint 10 mGVBRT1: −3.4 †
GVBRT2: −1.1
GVBRT3: 0.0
Sprint 20 mGVBRT1: −2.3
GVBRT2: −1.9
GVBRT3: −0.6
et al. [65]
23.2 ± 3 years;
75.8 ± 9 kg
LP: (16)
UP: (16)
3 sets with 15% VL8T-Force1-RMGVBRT1: 14.2
GVBRT2: 8.5
GVBRT2: 8.8
et al. [66]
22.9 ± 4.8 years;
71.7 ± 7.6 kg
LP: (11)
UP: (10)
RP: (11)
CP: (11)
3 sets with 20%VL8T-Force1-RMGVBRT1: 17.2
GVBRT2: 10.9
GVBRT3: 18.0
GVBRT4: 15.23
GVBRT2: 8.0
GVBRT3: 10.8
GVBRT4: 7.2
Sprint 20 mGVBRT1: −2.0
GVBRT2: −1.3
GVBRT3: −2.0
GVBRT4: −1.6
et al. [67]
23.1 ± 3 years;
73.6 ± 6 kg
AL: (13)
NAL: (11)
2–8 reps × 3–4 sets8T-Force1-RMGVBRT1: 12.7 *
GVBRT2: 28.9
CMJGVBRT1: 7.9 *
GVBRT2: 16.1 *
Sprint 10 mGVBRT1: −1.2
GVBRT2: −2.2
Sprint 20 mGVBRT1: −0.95 *
GVBRT2: −1.99
Data are expressed as means ± SD. The change values are expressed as percentage according to the formula: ((post-pre)/pre) × 100. To facilitate convention, the groups are represented using the capital “G”. AL: adjusted load; BP: full bench press; BP2/3: two-thirds bench press; BP1/3: one-third bench press; CMJ: Countermovement Jump; CP: constant programming; DL: dead lift; F: females; HV: high velocity; LP: linear programming; M: males; MPV: mean propulsive velocity (m∙s−1); MV: medium velocity; PBT: percentage-based training; RPE: rating of perceived exertion; FSQ: full squat; NA: not available; NAL: non-adjusted load; OP: overhead press; PP: Wingate peak power; 1-RM: one-repetition maximum; RP: reverse programming; SQ: full back squat; UP: undulating programming; VBRT: velocity-based resistance training; VL: velocity loss. Significant difference in comparison to baseline; * significant difference in comparison to the other group.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Baena-Marín, M.; Rojas-Jaramillo, A.; González-Santamaría, J.; Rodríguez-Rosell, D.; Petro, J.L.; Kreider, R.B.; Bonilla, D.A. Velocity-Based Resistance Training on 1-RM, Jump and Sprint Performance: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials. Sports 2022, 10, 8.

AMA Style

Baena-Marín M, Rojas-Jaramillo A, González-Santamaría J, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Petro JL, Kreider RB, Bonilla DA. Velocity-Based Resistance Training on 1-RM, Jump and Sprint Performance: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials. Sports. 2022; 10(1):8.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Baena-Marín, Mateo, Andrés Rojas-Jaramillo, Jhonatan González-Santamaría, David Rodríguez-Rosell, Jorge L. Petro, Richard B. Kreider, and Diego A. Bonilla. 2022. "Velocity-Based Resistance Training on 1-RM, Jump and Sprint Performance: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials" Sports 10, no. 1: 8.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop