Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study assessed the effects of squat training with different velocity loss (VL) thresholds on squat strength, heavy-load squat velocity (HLSV), light-load squat velocity (LLSV), countermovement jump (CMJ) height, and sprint time (ST). A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted. Meta-analysis was used to examine effects of trainings with different VL thresholds and used meta-regression to examine the interaction effects (correlation) between training effects and VL in different performance-based outcomes. Our systematic search yielded 1017 articles, 13 of which were included in the present study. Meta-analysis revealed that resistance training with both low (0%–20%) and high (30%–45%) VL thresholds improved squat strength, HLSV, LLSV, and CMJ height, but only low VL improved ST ( p < 0.05). Training gains for HLSV, LLSV, CMJ ( p = 0.088), and ST with low VL were superior to those with high VL ( p < 0.05). Meta-regression revealed that CMJ ( p = 0.076) and ST ( p = 0.010) demonstrated improvements as VL decreased in the range of 0% to 45%. In conclusion, squat resistance training with low (≤20%) VL provides relatively more effective training stimuli, improving performance in power and speed tasks. Optimal VL ranges may be in the range 10% to 20%, ≤20%, and ≤10% for the HLSV and LLSV, CMJ, and ST, respectively.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: