Effects of 4 Different Velocity-Based Resistance-Training Programming Models on Physical Performance.

Area of Science:

• Exercise Physiology
• Sports Science
• Biomechanical Analysis

Background:

• Strength training programming models significantly influence adaptations in physical performance.
• Understanding the differential effects of various training structures is crucial for optimizing athletic development.
• Previous research has explored different periodization strategies, but direct comparisons of specific programming models on key performance metrics are limited.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the efficacy of four distinct strength training programming models: linear (LP), undulating (UP), reverse (RP), and constant (CP).
• To assess the impact of these models on maximal strength (1RM), movement velocity (AV), jump performance, and sprint ability.
• To determine which programming model yields superior improvements in physical performance metrics.

Main Methods:

• Forty-eight moderately trained men participated in an 8-week full-squat training intervention.
• Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four programming models (LP, UP, RP, CP) matched for relative intensity (65% 1RM) and total volume.
• Key performance indicators including 1RM, average velocity (AV) at various loads, countermovement jump height, and 20-m sprint time were measured pre- and post-intervention.

Main Results:

• All programming models led to significant improvements in 1RM, AV, and velocity-specific measures (AV > 1, AV < 1), except for 20-m sprint time.
• The linear (LP) and reverse (RP) programming models resulted in significant improvements in countermovement jump height, unlike the undulating (UP) and constant (CP) models.
• No significant improvements in 20-m running sprint time were observed across any of the training groups.

Conclusions:

• All four programming models (LP, UP, RP, CP) are effective in enhancing overall physical performance, particularly in strength and velocity-based metrics.
• The linear (LP) and reverse (RP) programming models appear to be more advantageous for improving explosive power, as indicated by greater gains in countermovement jump height.
• While all models improve strength, LP and RP may offer superior benefits for power-related adaptations compared to UP and CP.