↓ Skip to main content

Movement Velocity in Resistance Training

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
339 Mendeley
Title
Movement Velocity in Resistance Training
Published in
Sports Medicine, September 2012
DOI 10.2165/00007256-200333060-00004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marta I. R. Pereira, Paulo S. C. Gomes

Abstract

Guidelines for resistance training include the number of exercises, sets, repetitions, and frequency of training, but only vaguely mention movement velocity. Nevertheless, different velocities imply different performances, i.e. a different number of repetitions or different loads. Studies investigating the effect of different movement velocities on resistance training have not reached a consensus. Some studies indicate specificity in strength gains while others indicate generality. Some indicate slow training to be better, others indicate fast training, and still others indicate no differences. Most of these studies were conducted on isokinetic or hydraulic equipment. Very few used isotonic equipment for training, and their results seem to tend towards generality and no differences in gains of strength between velocities. Defining the training velocity is mostly important for athletic performances where a wide range of velocities is needed and transfer of gains would greatly optimise training. At the other end of the spectrum, there are the most frail and elderly, to whom power loss may impair even daily functions, but training with fast velocities might increase injury risk and, therefore, transfer of gains from slow training would be greatly beneficial. Movement velocity for resistance training with isotonic equipment needs to be further investigated so that recommendations may be made.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 339 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 7 2%
Spain 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 317 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 78 23%
Student > Bachelor 45 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 12%
Researcher 25 7%
Professor 25 7%
Other 84 25%
Unknown 42 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 184 54%
Medicine and Dentistry 38 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 2%
Other 23 7%
Unknown 52 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2017.
All research outputs
#3,586,064
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#1,772
of 2,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,603
of 189,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#286
of 761 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.8. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 189,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 761 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.