Time Course of Recovery From Different Velocity Loss Thresholds and Set Configurations During Full-Squat Training.

ABSTRACT: Cornejo-Daza, PJ, Villalba-Fernández, A, González-Badillo, JJ, and Pareja-Blanco, F. Time course of recovery from different velocity loss thresholds and set configurations during full-squat training. J Strength Cond Res 38(2): 221-227, 2024-The aims of the research were to examine the effects of (a) velocity loss (VL) thresholds and (b) set configuration, traditional or cluster, on time-course recovery. A randomized cross-over research design was conducted, in which 15 resistance-trained men performed 4 protocols consisting of 3 sets of 70% 1RM in full squat (SQ), differing in the VL incurred during the set assessed with a linear velocity transducer: (a) 20% (70-20), (b) 30% (70-30), (c) 40% (70-40), and in the set configuration (d) 20% of VL using a cluster methodology (70-CLU). Movement velocity against the load that elicited a 1 m·s -1 velocity at baseline measurements (V1-load) in SQ, countermovement jump (CMJ) height, and sprint time in 20 m (T20) were assessed at baseline (Pre) and postintervention (Post, 6 hour-Post, 24 hour-Post, and 48 hour-Post). The 70-20 protocol resulted in fewer total repetitions than the other protocols ( p = 0.001), whereas 70-CLU, 70-30, and 70-40 completed similar total repetitions. The 70-30 protocol significantly worsened T20 at 6 hours-Post, CMJ at 48 hours-Post, and V1-load at 6 hours-Post ( p < 0.05). The 70-40 protocol significantly impaired T20 at 6 hours-Post, and CMJ and V1-load at 24 hours-Post ( p < 0.05). No significant performance reductions were observed for 70-20 and 70-CLU at 6 hours-Post, 24 hours-Post, and 48 hours-Post. Protocols with higher VL resulted in more pronounced fatigue and a slower rate of recovery. Cluster sets (70-CLU) resulted in higher volume than protocols with a similar level of fatigue (70-20) and a quicker recovery than protocols with a similar volume (70-30 and 70-40).

Time Course of Recovery Following Resistance Exercise with Different Loading Magnitudes and Velocity Loss in the Set.

The aim of this study was to compare the time course of recovery following four different resistance exercise protocols in terms of loading magnitude (60% vs. 80% 1RM-one-repetition maximum) and velocity loss in the set (20% vs. 40%). Seventeen males performed four different protocols in full squat exercise, which were as follows: (1) 60% 1RM with a velocity loss of 20% (60-20), (2) 60% 1RM with a velocity loss of 40% (60-40), (3) 80% 1RM with a velocity loss of 20% (80-20), and (4) 80% 1RM with a velocity loss of 40% (80-40). Movement velocity against the load that elicited a 1 m·s-1 velocity at baseline measurements (V1-load), countermovement jump (CMJ) height, and sprint time at 20 m (T20) were assessed at Pre, Post, 6 h-Post, 24 h-Post, and 48 h-Post. Impairments in V1-load were significantly higher for 60-40 than other protocols at Post (p < 0.05). The 60-20 and 80-40 protocols exhibited significant performance impairments for V1-load at 6 h-Post and 24 h-Post, respectively (p < 0.05). CMJ height remained decreased for 60-20 and 60-40 until 24 h-Post (p < 0.001⁻0.05). Regarding T20, the 80-40 protocol resulted in higher performance than 60-40 at 24 h-Post and the 80-20 protocol induced a greater performance than 60-40 protocol at 48 h-Post (p < 0.05). A higher velocity loss during the set (40%) and a lower relative load (60% 1RM) resulted in greater fatigue and slower rate of recovery than lower velocity loss (20%) and higher relative load (80% 1RM).