Abstract:Abstract Background: The level of effort seems to play a key role in determining neuromuscular adaptations; however, less is known regarding the optimal dose-response for intra-set levels of effort on chronic resistance training (RT) adaptations. Objective: We aimed to synthesize the current literature on chronic RT adaptations in response to different intra-set velocity loss (VL) thresholds in the back squat exercise. We investigated changes in muscle strength, muscular endurance, sports-related physical performance, and muscle hypertrophy outcomes during resistance exercise to establish optimal dose-response relationships in physically active individuals.Methods: We conducted a literature search using PubMed (Medline), Web of ScienceTM, Scopus, and Cochrane up to April 2021, with no restriction on year of publication. The inclusion criteria were based on the PICO strategy. A random-effect meta-analysis was performed to determine the standardized mean differences (SMD ± 95% confidence intervals) for different intra-set VL thresholds (low VL [< 15%], moderate VL [≥ 15% and < 30%], and high VL [≥ 30%]) in RT on maximum muscular strength, bar velocity against submaximal loads, endurance against a given load, countermovement jump height, running sprint time, and muscle hypertrophy. Results: A total of 4,031 articles were found and 11 studies met our eligibility criteria. Pooled results revealed improvements between pre- and post-training intervention in 1RM strength (SMD = 0.78; p < 0.001); bar velocity outputs (light-loads [SMD = 0.79; p < 0.001] and heavy-loads [SMD = 2.08; p < 0.001]); endurance against a given load (SMD = 1.21; p < 0.001); countermovement jump height (SMD = 0.50; p < 0.001); running sprint time (SMD = - 0.28; p = 0.001); and muscle hypertrophy (SMD = 0.31; p = 0.05), with no significant difference between VL thresholds (p > 0.05). However, low VL elicited greater within-group SMD for 1RM strength than moderate and high VL thresholds (SMD = 0.93; 0.72; and 0.75; for low, moderate, and high VL thresholds, respectively). Low and moderate VL thresholds resulted in greater within-group SMD than high VL thresholds for velocity against light loads (SMD for low VL = 0.89; moderate VL = 0.90; high VL = 0.59); countermovement jump height (SMD for low VL = 0.51; moderate VL = 0.58; high VL = 0.36); and running sprint time (SMD for low VL = -0.49; moderate VL = -0.32; high VL = -0.09). Moderate and high VL thresholds induced higher within-group SMD for muscle hypertrophy than low VL (SMD for low VL = 0.14; moderate VL = 0.40; high VL = 0.44). Conclusions: Low to moderate VL thresholds may provide more effective and efficient training stimuli for improving performance in strength-power tasks, due to the similar or even greater chronic adaptations achieved compared with high VL, despite the lower number of repetitions performed during the RT program. Conversely, moderate to high VL may provide more favorable training stimuli for inducing muscle hypertrophy. Strength coaches may apply these dose-response trends to design optimal RT stimuli based on their specific training goals. Protocol registration: The study protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42020189321).

Monitoring bar velocity to quantify fatigue in resistance training

Impact of Low Volume Velocity-Controlled vs. Repetition to Failure Resistance Training Session on Measures of Explosive Performance in a Team of Adolescents Basketball Players

Can mental fatigue affect perception of barbell velocity in resistance training?

Does Fatigue Affect the Perception of Velocity Accuracy During Resistance Training?

Implementing a velocity-based approach to resistance training: the reproducibility and sensitivity of different velocity monitoring technologies

One Velocity Loss Threshold Does Not Fit All: Consideration of Sex, Training Status, History, and Personality Traits When Monitoring and Controlling Fatigue During Resistance Training

Velocity-Based Method in Free-Weight and Machine-Based Training Modalities: The Degree of Freedom Matters

Differences between adjusted vs. non-adjusted loads in velocity-based training: consequences for strength training control and programming

Reliability of technologies to measure the barbell velocity: Implications for monitoring resistance training

Comparison of the two most commonly used gold-standard velocity monitoring devices (GymAware and T-Force) to assess lifting velocity during the free-weight barbell back squat exercise

Effect of velocity loss during squat training on neuromuscular performance

The effects of different intra-set velocity loss thresholds on lower-limb adaptations to resistance training in young adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Validation of a Single-Session Protocol to Determine the Load-Velocity Profile and One-Repetition Maximum for the Back Squat Exercise

Impact of Generalized Versus Individualized Load–Velocity Equations on Velocity-Loss Magnitude in Bench-Press Exercise: Mixed-Model and Equivalence Analysis

Velocity-Based Resistance Training Monitoring: Influence of Lifting Straps, Reference Repetitions, and Variable Selection in Resistance-Trained Men

Predicting the Maximum Dynamic Strength in Bench Press: The High Precision of the Bar Velocity Approach

Predicting Loading Intensity Measuring Velocity in Barbell Hip Thrust Exercise

Resistance training intensity prescription methods based on lifting velocity monitoring

Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance, strength gains and muscle adaptations

Effects of Velocity Loss During Bench-Press Training With Light Relative Loads

Perception of Barbell Velocity: Can Individuals Accurately Perceive Changes in Velocity?