Levels of Effort, Loading Configuration
Conditions
Keywords
level of effort, lifting velocity, training volume, velocity-based training, variable resistance training
Brief summary
The goal of this observational study was to evaluate the feasibility of percentage of velocity loss (%VL)-based approaches for prescribing training volume during constant-load and chain-based Smith machine back squats. The study aimed to answer whether %VL can be expressed as the maximum number of repetitions (%Rep) in constant-load and chain-based Smith machine squats. Twenty-six resistance-trained men performed repetitions-to-failure tests under variable (VRT) and constant resistance training (CRT). The %Rep attained before reaching different levels of effort were compared between VRT and CRT across various loads and sessions. Furthermore, this study evaluated the influence of different factors on the predictive accuracy of the %Rep-%VL relationships. These findings will provide evidence-based evidence in prescribing and monitoring intra-set volume.
Detailed description
The goal of this observational study was to evaluate the feasibility of percentage of velocity loss (%VL)-based approaches for prescribing training volume during constant-load and chain-based Smith machine back squats. The study aimed to answer whether %VL can be expressed as the maximum number of repetitions (%Rep) in constant-load and chain-based Smith machine squats. Twenty-six resistance-trained men performed repetitions-to-failure tests at 85%, 75%, and 65% of their constant-load one-repetition maximum (1RM) under variable (VRT; 40% of the total external load provided by chains) and constant resistance training (CRT; 0% chains). The %Rep attained before reaching low (10% VL), moderate (20% VL), and high (30% VL) levels of effort were compared between VRT and CRT across various loads and sessions. Furthermore, this study evaluated the influence of regression type (individual vs. general), load specificity (load-specific vs. multiple-load), and loading configuration (CRT vs. VRT) on the predictive accuracy of the %Rep-%VL relationships established in session 1 for estimating %Rep in session 2. These findings will provide evidence-based evidence in prescribing and monitoring intra-set volume.
Interventions
Participants initially completed a standardized general warm-up and a specific warm-up. The specific warm-up protocol included 3 repetitions at approximately 40% 1RM, 2 repetitions at 65% 1RM, and 1 repetition at 90% 1RM using constant-load to ensure adequate neuromuscular activation for the subsequent testing sets. After a 3-minute rest, participants performed three sets to momentary muscular failure with 40% of total external loads provided by chains. To minimize fatigue from higher-repetition sets influencing the repetitions completed in subsequent loads, the loads were not tested in a randomized order. Instead, participants performed the tests in a descending order of 85%, 75%, and 65% 1RM.
OTHERconstant resistance training
Participants initially completed a standardized general warm-up and a specific warm-up. The specific warm-up protocol included 3 repetitions at approximately 40% 1RM, 2 repetitions at 65% 1RM, and 1 repetition at 90% 1RM using constant-load to ensure adequate neuromuscular activation for the subsequent testing sets. After a 3-minute rest, participants performed three sets to momentary muscular failure with 0% of total external loads provided by chains. To minimize fatigue from higher-repetition sets influencing the repetitions completed in subsequent loads, the loads were not tested in a randomized order. Instead, participants performed the tests in a descending order of 85%, 75%, and 65% 1RM.
Sponsors
South China Normal University
Study design
Observational model
CASE_CROSSOVER
Time perspective
CROSS_SECTIONAL
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
MALE
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* at least 1 year of resistance training experience, performing back squats at least once per week. * proficiency in the Smith machine back squat executed at maximal intended velocity. * a constant-load 1RM of ≥ 1.5 times their body mass. * no reported musculoskeletal injuries in the past three months.
Exclusion criteria
* Voluntary withdrawal or injury. * Not satisfied with inclusion label.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| The %Rep attained before reaching the 10%, 20%, and 30% VL thresholds | April 1st, 2026 | The %Rep attained before reaching the 10%, 20%, and 30% VL thresholds was recorded across all loads, sessions, and loading configurations. |
| The %rep predictive accuracy | April 1st, 2026 | To assess predictive accuracy, second-order polynomial regression equations were generated from the first session of each loading configuration using all repetitions within a set, setting %Rep as the dependent variable and %VL as the independent variable. These equations were constructed using different regression types (individual vs. general), load specificities (load-specific vs. multiple-load), and loading configurations (CRT vs. VRT). During the second session, the actual %VL recorded after reaching the 10%, 20%, and 30% VL thresholds was substituted into the corresponding first-session equations to derive the predicted %Rep. Then, the absolute estimation error was calculated as (\|actual %Rep - predicted %Rep\|). In cases where muscular failure occurred before a specific %VL threshold was reached (e.g., 30% VL), the %VL of the final completed repetition was recorded, and the corresponding actual %Rep was defined as 100%. |
Countries
China
Outcome results
None listed