↓ Skip to main content

Intentionally Slow Concentric Velocity Resistance Exercise and Strength Adaptations: A Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, August 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
235 X users
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intentionally Slow Concentric Velocity Resistance Exercise and Strength Adaptations: A Meta-Analysis
Published in
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, August 2023
DOI 10.1519/jsc.0000000000004490
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew J. Hermes, Andrew C. Fry

Abstract

Hermes, MJ and Fry, AC. Intentionally slow concentric velocity resistance exercise and strength adaptations: a meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 37(8): e470-e484, 2023-Intentionally slow-velocity resistance exercise (ISVRE) is suggested by some to be equally or more effective than fast or traditional velocities for increasing muscular strength. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the effect ISVRE has on strength adaptations compared with faster or traditional velocities, with subgroup analyses exploring age, sex, and training status as confounding factors on the influence of velocity on strength adaptation. Eligible studies (n = 24) were required to be chronic (multiple weeks) randomized or nonrandomized comparative studies using dynamic constant external resistance for training and testing, and pre-post strength assessments. All studies examined healthy individuals (n = 625; fast or traditional n = 306, intentionally slow n = 319). A random-effects meta-analysis indicated a significant (p ≤ 0.05) effect in favor of fast training (effect size [ES] = 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.02-0.41, p = 0.03). Publication bias was noted through trim and fill analysis, with an adjusted effect size estimate of 0.32 (p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses indicated no difference between trained and untrained subjects (QM = 0.01, p = 0.93), and no difference between older and younger subgroups (QM = 0.09, p = 0.77), despite younger favoring faster (ES = 0.23, p = 0.049) and older not favoring either velocity (ES = 0.16, p = 0.46). Subgroup analysis also indicated women favored faster training (ES = 0.95, p < 0.001) in comparison to men (ES = 0.08, p = 0.58). Contrary to some previous reviews, these results indicate that chronic fast or traditional velocity resistance exercise increases muscular strength to a greater degree than ISVRE training. Resistance training velocity must be considered if strength is a desired outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 235 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Researcher 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 11 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 9 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Unknown 12 55%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 161. 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 09 May 2024.
All research outputs
#262,808
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#129
of 6,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,062
of 364,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#1
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,694 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
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 364,361 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.