Barbell Two studies confirming Pavel (bar speed, staying away from failure)

[Bauer]

This is a fascinating study, much in line with Pavel's teachings:

Pareja‐Blanco, F., Rodríguez‐Rosell, D., Sánchez‐Medina, L., Sanchis‐Moysi, J., Dorado, C., Mora‐Custodio, R., ... & González‐Badillo, J. J. (2017). Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance, strength gains and muscle adaptations. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 27(7), 724-735.
(Note: I got this from the VBT series of Dan Baker provided by PUSH. Parejo-Blanco et al. is cited incorrectly in there; it is cited as Pallares et al.)

We compared the effects of two resistance training (RT) programs only differing in the repetition velocity loss allowed in each set: 20% (VL20) vs 40% (VL40) on muscle structural and functional adaptations. Twenty‐two young males were randomly assigned to a VL20 (n = 12) or VL40 (n = 10) group. Subjects followed an 8‐week velocity‐based RT program using the squat exercise while monitoring repetition velocity. Pre‐ and post‐training assessments included: magnetic resonance imaging, vastus lateralis biopsies for muscle cross‐sectional area (CSA) and fiber type analyses, one‐repetition maximum strength and full load‐velocity squat profile, countermovement jump (CMJ), and 20‐m sprint running. VL20 resulted in similar squat strength gains than VL40 and greater improvements in CMJ (9.5% vs 3.5%, P < 0.05), despite VL20 performing 40% fewer repetitions. Although both groups increased mean fiber CSA and whole quadriceps muscle volume, VL40 training elicited a greater hypertrophy of vastus lateralis and intermedius than VL20. Training resulted in a reduction of myosin heavy chain IIX percentage in VL40, whereas it was preserved in VL20. In conclusion, the progressive accumulation of muscle fatigue as indicated by a more pronounced repetition velocity loss appears as an important variable in the configuration of the resistance exercise stimulus as it influences functional and structural neuromuscular adaptations.

Both groups used the same percentages of 1RM and number of sets - but they stopped their sets (barbell squats) at different points: When the bar speed dropped either 20% or 40%. The first group peformed 40% less reps and did about half of the reps per set compared to going to failure whereas the second group went rather close to failure.

Both groups improved their max strength (1RM) in similar fashions, the low volume (low velocity drop) group even a bit more! And they improved their vertical jump whereas the higher volume group did not:

[Vertical jumping] height was increased by 9.5% in the VL20group (P<0.001), while it remained unchanged(+3.5%P=0.07) in the VL40 (group x time inter-action P<0.05) (Table 2). No statistically signifi-cant changes in sprint running performance wereobserved in any group (Table 2)

The group going closer to failure showed more hypertrophy however.

In essence this confirms Pavel's teaching of stopping when you are starting to slow down and of staying away from failure. You can achieve the same increases in max strength with less total volume. And it comes at much lesser costs and side effects! Recovery is much faster and hormonal response not as extreme as the following study shows:

González-Badillo, J. J., Rodríguez-Rosell, D., Sánchez-Medina, L., Ribas, J., López-López, C., Mora-Custodio, R., ... & Pareja-Blanco, F. (2016). Short-term recovery following resistance exercise leading or not to failure. International journal of sports medicine, 37(04), 295-304.

This study analyzed the time course of recovery following 2 resistance exercise protocols differing in level of effort: maximum (to failure) vs. half-maximum number of repetitions per set. 9 males performed 3 sets of 4 vs. 8 repetitions with their 80% 1RM load, 3×4(8) vs. 3×8(8), in the bench press and squat. Several time-points from 24 h pre- to 48 h post-exercise were established to assess the mechanical (countermovement jump height, CMJ; velocity against the 1 m·s(-1) load, V1-load), biochemical (testosterone, cortisol, GH, prolactin, IGF-1, CK) and heart rate variability (HRV) and complexity (HRC) response to exercise. 3×8(8) resulted in greater neuromuscular fatigue (higher reductions in repetition velocity and velocity against V1-load) than 3×4(8). CMJ remained reduced up to 48 h post-exercise following 3×8(8), whereas it was recovered after 6 h for 3×4(8). Significantly greater prolactin and IGF-1 levels were found for 3×8(8) vs. 3×4(8). Significant reductions in HRV and HRC were observed for 3×8(8) vs. 3×4(8) in the immediate recovery. Performing a half-maximum number of repetitions per set resulted in: 1) a stimulus of faster mean repetition velocities; 2) lower impairment of neuromuscular performance and faster recovery; 3) reduced hormonal response and muscle damage; and 4) lower reduction in HRV and HRC following exercise.

I repeat the critical part: "Performing a half-maximum number of repetitions per set resulted in: 1) a stimulus of faster mean repetition velocities; 2) lower impairment of neuromuscular performance and faster recovery; 3) reduced hormonal response and muscle damage; and 4) lower reduction in HRV and HRC following exercise."

Just wanted to share this as I found the results really striking.

 

[Kenny Croxdale]

Pareja‐Blanco, F., Rodríguez‐Rosell, D., Sánchez‐Medina, L., Sanchis‐Moysi, J., Dorado, C., Mora‐Custodio, R., ... & González‐Badillo, J. J. (2017). Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance, strength gains and muscle adaptations. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 27(7), 724-735.

Full Research Article

Can you post the full research article? I wasn't able to locate it.

Both groups used the same percentages of 1RM and number of sets - but they stopped their sets (barbell squats) at different points: When the bar speed dropped either 20% or 40%. The first group peformed 40% less reps and did about half of the reps per set compared to going to failure whereas the second group went rather close to failure.

A Drop In Speed and/or Power

Speed and/or Power are optimally developed when movements are performed explosively.

The fundamental rule is once Speed and/or Power drop, the set need to be terminated.

The drop in Speed and/or Power indicates that Fast and the "Super" Fast Muscle Fiber that you want to work/develope are no longer engaged.

Continuing with a set of repetition in a movement close to failure or failure is counter productive in the development of Speed and/or Power.

The group going closer to failure showed more hypertrophy however.

To circumvent the issue of a drop in Speed and/or Power in a set, Custer Sets need to be implemented. Short Intra Set (rest between repetition) allow Fast and "Super" Fast Muscle Fiber to recover.

20% -40% of 1 Repetition Max

Speed Training Percentages fall within 10% -40% of 1 Repetition Max, with approximately 30% being the sweet spot.

40% of 1 Repetition Max pushes the movement in the the Power Training Zone.

Going Ballistic

In training with loads under 40% of 1 Repetition Max, the body or the object needs to go airborne. This assure that Speed is trained through the complete range of the movement.

The group going closer to failure showed more hypertrophy however.

Going To Failure or Close To It

1) Hypertrophy Training: Going close to failure or failure with moderate to high repetitions produced "Metabolic Stress"/The Pump which trigger Hypertrophy.

2) Limit Strength Training: Going close to failure or failure with lower repetition sets increased you 1 Repetition Max.

Going near failure or failure should be limited in a training cycle.

"...is study analyzed the time course of recovery following 2 resistance exercise protocols differing in level of effort: maximum (to failure) vs. half-maximum number of repetitions per set. 9 males performed 3 sets of 4 vs. 8 repetitions with their 80% 1RM load, 3×4(8) vs. 3×8(8), in the bench press and squat."

80% of 1 Repetition Max Training

The 80% of 1 RM Training Load with 8 repetition per set is Hypertrophy Training; 80% of 1 RM is the limited percentage for Hypertrophy Training.

With each repetition that is performed with any load, Speed and/Power drop. In training loads of 80% of 1 RM, Speed and Power are minimal or non existent with loads of 80%.

Power Training involves using load of 48 - 62% of 1 Repetition Max with Traditional Strength Exercises; 80% of 1 RM with lower repetitions falls more into Limit Strength Training.

Some initial Power is displayed with the first repetition, possibly the second repetition with 80% of 1 RM. The third and fourth reps power output drop through the floor.

"Compensatory Acceleration"

As Dr Fred Hatfield noted, heavy loads should be pushed/pulled up with as much force as possible. However, heavy load are pushed/pulled up slowly.

Research (McBride/Newton) research support Hatfield's Compensatory Acceleration. The research determined the "Intent" to explode up with a heavy load produced some increases in Power.

"Performing a half-maximum number of repetitions per set resulted in: 1) a stimulus of faster mean repetition velocities; 2) lower impairment of neuromuscular performance and faster recovery; 3) reduced hormonal response and muscle damage; and 4) lower reduction in HRV and HRC following exercise."

"Wound Healing"

The greater the trauma to the body, the longer time needed for recovery.

The less trauma to the body, the shorter time to recovery.

As the saying goes, "Stimulate, don't annihilate.”

Speed and Power Training

Both assist in the development of Limits Strength to some degree.

Kenny Croxdale

 

[Bauer]

Can you post the full research article? I wasn't able to locate it.

Abstract: Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance, strength gains and muscle adaptations. - PubMed - NCBI
Full text: Error - Cookies Turned Off
(Don't know if this is publicly available. As a scientist I have access to more resources. I have the PDF however)

 

[Kenny Croxdale]

(Don't know if this is publicly available.

I couldn't get it. I may be able to access through a friend.

Thanks for trying.

Kenny Croxdale

 

[North Coast Miller]

I'd love to see the entire paper. Several questions come to mind:

Training resulted in a reduction of myosin heavy chain IIX percentage in VL40, whereas it was preserved in VL20.

Could this be explained mostly by the increased hypertrophy in the slower speed group.

Also, did the VL40% group improve their submax RM numbers compared to VL20 or was that not addressed?

A question that always comes to mind when reading velocity studies, would adding additional lower velocity set(s) to the high velocity cohort have negated the adaptive response or would it have simply triggered comparable hypertrophy?

I have tough time wrapping my head around idea that, within a reasonable amount of workload, additional training would negate an adaptive response with exception of tendon stiffness - that is you've triggered a response primarily in FT fibers but additional ST/mixed FT/ST work somehow erased that response in the muscle tissue.