Considerations for Velocity-Based Training: The Instruction to Move “As Fast As Possible” Is Less Effective Than a Target Velocity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Hirsch, SM and Frost, DM. Considerations for velocity-based training: the instruction to move "as fast as possible" is less effective than a target velocity. J Strength Cond Res 35(2S): S89-S94, 2021-In addition to the potential benefits with monitoring training intensity with velocity-measuring tools during exercise, these devices also provide an opportunity for researchers and practitioners to provide feedback and instruction to performers in a new way. The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of instructing athletes with a target velocity vs. instructing them to move "as fast as possible" during a free-weight bench press. In addition, the effects of each instruction on future repetition maximum (RM) test performance was compared. Thirteen male powerlifters were recruited and performed 4 sets of 5 repetitions with 45% 1RM while being instructed to attain a target velocity of 1.0 m·s-1 or to move as fast as possible. The maximum mean velocity attained in each set was compared with a repeated measures analysis of variance and Tukey's post-hoc test. After these 4 sets of 5 repetitions, the number of repetitions performed during an RM test with 75% 1RM was compared with a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test. Participants moved faster when they received the target velocity instruction (0.84 ± 0.10 m·s-1) than when they received the "move as fast as possible" instruction (0.82 ± 0.09 m·s-1) (p < 0.001) with no differences in the number of repetitions performed in the following RM test between the 2 testing sessions (p = 0.43). An instruction to attain a challenging velocity target may be a more effective strategy to use when attempting to elicit maximum barbell velocities during training relative to the traditional instruction to move as fast as possible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".