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).

Minimum velocity threshold in response to the free-weight back squat: reliability and validity of different submaximal loading schemes

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

Optimal Minimum-Velocity Threshold to Predict One-repetition Maximum for the Back Squat

Average optimal minimum velocity threshold: A practical variable to increase the accuracy of one-repetition maximum estimation during the free-weight back squat

Validity of Using the Load-Velocity Relationship to Estimate 1 Repetition Maximum in the Back Squat Exercise: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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

Acute Responses to Different Velocity Loss Thresholds during Squat Exercise with Blood-Flow Restriction in Strength-Trained Men

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

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

Monitoring bar velocity to quantify fatigue in resistance training

Validity and Test-Retest Reliability of the Vmaxpro Sensor for Evaluation of Movement Velocity in the Deep Squat

Validity and reliability of velocity and power measures provided by the Vitruve linear position transducer

Repetition velocity as a measure of loading intensity in the free weight and Smith machine Bulgarian split squat

Maximal and submaximal intended velocity squat sets: Do they selectively impact mechanical performance in paired multijoint upper‐body exercise sets?

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

Are Load-Velocity Estimates of Bench Press Maximal Strength as Accurate as Actual 1-Repetition Maximum Testing?

Effect of velocity loss during squat training on neuromuscular performance

Valid and Reliable Barbell Velocity Estimation Using an Inertial Measurement Unit

The Reliability and Validity of Current Technologies for Measuring Barbell Velocity in the Free-Weight Back Squat and Power Clean

Random measurement and prediction errors limit the practical relevance of two velocity sensors to estimate the 1RM back squat

Non-Local Muscle Fatigue Impairs Mean Propulsive Velocity During Strength Loading in Strength-Trained Men