Next Article in Journal
A Qualitative Investigation of Music Use among Amateur and Semi-Professional Golfers
Previous Article in Journal
Using Unilateral Strength, Power and Reactive Strength Tests to Detect the Magnitude and Direction of Asymmetry: A Test-Retest Design
Previous Article in Special Issue
Rate of Force Development and Muscle Architecture after Fast and Slow Velocity Eccentric Training
Open AccessArticle

Time Course of Recovery Following Resistance Exercise with Different Loading Magnitudes and Velocity Loss in the Set

Physical Performance & Athletic Research Center, Faculty of Sports Science, Pablo de Olavide University, Ctra. Utrera km 1, 41013 Seville, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sports 2019, 7(3), 59; https://doi.org/10.3390/sports7030059
Received: 3 January 2019 / Revised: 22 February 2019 / Accepted: 26 February 2019 / Published: 4 March 2019
The aim of this study was to compare the time course of recovery following four different resistance exercise protocols in terms of loading magnitude (60% vs. 80% 1RM—one-repetition maximum) and velocity loss in the set (20% vs. 40%). Seventeen males performed four different protocols in full squat exercise, which were as follows: (1) 60% 1RM with a velocity loss of 20% (60-20), (2) 60% 1RM with a velocity loss of 40% (60-40), (3) 80% 1RM with a velocity loss of 20% (80-20), and (4) 80% 1RM with a velocity loss of 40% (80-40). Movement velocity against the load that elicited a 1 m·s−1 velocity at baseline measurements (V1-load), countermovement jump (CMJ) height, and sprint time at 20 m (T20) were assessed at Pre, Post, 6 h-Post, 24 h-Post, and 48 h-Post. Impairments in V1-load were significantly higher for 60-40 than other protocols at Post (p < 0.05). The 60-20 and 80-40 protocols exhibited significant performance impairments for V1-load at 6 h-Post and 24 h-Post, respectively (p < 0.05). CMJ height remained decreased for 60-20 and 60-40 until 24 h-Post (p < 0.001–0.05). Regarding T20, the 80-40 protocol resulted in higher performance than 60-40 at 24 h-Post and the 80-20 protocol induced a greater performance than 60-40 protocol at 48 h-Post (p < 0.05). A higher velocity loss during the set (40%) and a lower relative load (60% 1RM) resulted in greater fatigue and slower rate of recovery than lower velocity loss (20%) and higher relative load (80% 1RM). View Full-Text
Keywords: velocity-based training; strength training; full squat; running sprint; short-term recovery; vertical jump velocity-based training; strength training; full squat; running sprint; short-term recovery; vertical jump
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Pareja-Blanco, F.; Villalba-Fernández, A.; Cornejo-Daza, P.J.; Sánchez-Valdepeñas, J.; González-Badillo, J.J. Time Course of Recovery Following Resistance Exercise with Different Loading Magnitudes and Velocity Loss in the Set. Sports 2019, 7, 59.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop