BACKGROUND: Movement velocity is an acute resistance-training variable that can be manipulated to potentially optimize dynamic muscular strength development. However, it is unclear whether performing faster or slower repetitions actually influences dynamic muscular strength gains. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the effect of movement velocity during resistance training on dynamic muscular strength. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched using terms related to movement velocity and resistance training. Studies were deemed eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: randomized and non-randomized comparative studies; published in English; included healthy adults; used isotonic resistance-exercise interventions directly comparing fast or explosive training to slower movement velocity training; matched in prescribed intensity and volume; duration ≥4 weeks; and measured dynamic muscular strength changes. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies were identified that investigated movement velocity in accordance with the criteria outlined. Fast and moderate-slow resistance training were found to produce similar increases in dynamic muscular strength when all studies were included. However, when intensity was accounted for, there was a trend for a small effect favoring fast compared with moderate-slow training when moderate intensities, defined as 60-79% one repetition maximum, were used (effect size 0.31; p = 0.06). Strength gains between conditions were not influenced by training status and age. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results suggest that fast and moderate-slow resistance training improve dynamic muscular strength similarly in individuals within a wide range of training statuses and ages. Resistance training performed at fast movement velocities using moderate intensities showed a trend for superior muscular strength gains as compared to moderate-slow resistance training. Both training practices should be considered for novice to advanced, young and older resistance trainers targeting dynamic muscular strength.
BACKGROUND: Movement velocity is an acute resistance-training variable that can be manipulated to potentially optimize dynamic muscular strength development. However, it is unclear whether performing faster or slower repetitions actually influences dynamic muscular strength gains. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the effect of movement velocity during resistance training on dynamic muscular strength. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched using terms related to movement velocity and resistance training. Studies were deemed eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: randomized and non-randomized comparative studies; published in English; included healthy adults; used isotonic resistance-exercise interventions directly comparing fast or explosive training to slower movement velocity training; matched in prescribed intensity and volume; duration ≥4 weeks; and measured dynamic muscular strength changes. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies were identified that investigated movement velocity in accordance with the criteria outlined. Fast and moderate-slow resistance training were found to produce similar increases in dynamic muscular strength when all studies were included. However, when intensity was accounted for, there was a trend for a small effect favoring fast compared with moderate-slow training when moderate intensities, defined as 60-79% one repetition maximum, were used (effect size 0.31; p = 0.06). Strength gains between conditions were not influenced by training status and age. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results suggest that fast and moderate-slow resistance training improve dynamic muscular strength similarly in individuals within a wide range of training statuses and ages. Resistance training performed at fast movement velocities using moderate intensities showed a trend for superior muscular strength gains as compared to moderate-slow resistance training. Both training practices should be considered for novice to advanced, young and older resistance trainers targeting dynamic muscular strength.
Authors: F Pareja-Blanco; D Rodríguez-Rosell; L Sánchez-Medina; E M Gorostiaga; J J González-Badillo Journal: Int J Sports Med Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 3.118
Authors: Nicholas A Burd; Richard J Andrews; Daniel W D West; Jonathan P Little; Andrew J R Cochran; Amy J Hector; Joshua G A Cashaback; Martin J Gibala; James R Potvin; Steven K Baker; Stuart M Phillips Journal: J Physiol Date: 2011-11-21 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Roger A Fielding; Nathan K LeBrasseur; Anthony Cuoco; Jonathan Bean; Kelly Mizer; Maria A Fiatarone Singh Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Matthew J Handford; Thomas E Bright; Peter Mundy; Jason Lake; Nicola Theis; Jonathan D Hughes Journal: Sports Med Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 11.928
Authors: Jozo Grgic; Luke C Mcllvenna; Jackson J Fyfe; Filip Sabol; David J Bishop; Brad J Schoenfeld; Zeljko Pedisic Journal: Sports Med Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Jozo Grgic; Brad J Schoenfeld; Timothy B Davies; Bruno Lazinica; James W Krieger; Zeljko Pedisic Journal: Sports Med Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Ivan Jukic; Bas Van Hooren; Amador García Ramos; Eric R Helms; Michael R McGuigan; James J Tufano Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: David Rodríguez-Ridao; José A Antequera-Vique; Isabel Martín-Fuentes; José M Muyor Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 3.390