↓ Skip to main content

Maximal intended velocity training induces greater gains in bench press performance than deliberately slower half-velocity training

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Sport Science, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 803)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
133 tweeters
facebook
17 Facebook pages
reddit
2 Redditors
video
3 video uploaders

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
Title
Maximal intended velocity training induces greater gains in bench press performance than deliberately slower half-velocity training
Published in
European Journal of Sport Science, April 2014
DOI 10.1080/17461391.2014.905987
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juan José González-Badillo, González-Badillo JJ, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Sánchez-Medina L, Gorostiaga EM, Pareja-Blanco F, David Rodríguez-Rosell, Luis Sánchez-Medina, Esteban M. Gorostiaga, Fernando Pareja-Blanco

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect on strength gains of two isoinertial resistance training (RT) programmes that only differed in actual concentric velocity: maximal (MaxV) vs. half-maximal (HalfV) velocity. Twenty participants were assigned to a MaxV (n = 9) or HalfV (n = 11) group and trained 3 times per week during 6 weeks using the bench press (BP). Repetition velocity was controlled using a linear velocity transducer. A complementary study (n = 10) aimed to analyse whether the acute metabolic (blood lactate and ammonia) and mechanical response (velocity loss) was different between the MaxV and HalfV protocols used. Both groups improved strength performance from pre- to post-training, but MaxV resulted in significantly greater gains than HalfV in all variables analysed: one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength (18.2 vs. 9.7%), velocity developed against all (20.8 vs. 10.0%), light (11.5 vs. 4.5%) and heavy (36.2 vs. 17.3%) loads common to pre- and post-tests. Light and heavy loads were identified with those moved faster or slower than 0.80 m · s(-1) (∼ 60% 1RM in BP). Lactate tended to be significantly higher for MaxV vs. HalfV, with no differences observed for ammonia which was within resting values. Both groups obtained the greatest improvements at the training velocities (≤ 0.80 m · s(-1)). Movement velocity can be considered a fundamental component of RT intensity, since, for a given %1RM, the velocity at which loads are lifted largely determines the resulting training effect. BP strength gains can be maximised when repetitions are performed at maximal intended velocity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 133 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 3 3%
Denmark 2 2%
Chile 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 100 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 17%
Student > Bachelor 18 16%
Professor 9 8%
Other 8 7%
Other 29 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 86 78%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Unspecified 3 3%
Other 5 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 108. 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 05 September 2017.
All research outputs
#80,853
of 8,477,503 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Sport Science
#18
of 803 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,922
of 171,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Sport Science
#2
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,477,503 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 803 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 171,011 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 25 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 92% of its contemporaries.