ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2024
Minimum velocity threshold in response to the free-weight back squat: reliability and validity of different submaximal loading schemes.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fragmented versus traditional resistance training: a randomized controlled trial on muscular strength, endurance, and enjoyment in recreationally trained young adults.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2026Article
- Load-velocity relationship during chain-based variable resistance in the smith machine back squat.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo explore if mean concentric velocity (MCV) of the last repetition before set failure differs between free-weight back squat protocols with greater emphasis on metabolic accumulation vs. mechanical loading. The between-set and between-day reliability of terminal MCV obtained with these different loading schemes was also determined.
methodsFifteen healthy male participants (18-30 years) were included. They all were required to exhibit a relative strength ≥ 1.5 times their body mass. MCVs were obtained at one-repetition maximum (1RM) and with two submaximal protocols (metabolic emphasis: three sets of 40%1RM with blood-flow restriction vs. mechanical emphasis: three sets 80%1RM without blood-flow restriction). Participants were instructed to reach maximal intended concentric velocity in each repetition up to failure.
resultsSet failure was achieved at a faster MCV with the metabolic protocol (p < 0.05). The reliability of MCV at failure reached higher values for the metabolic loading scheme. However, while the MCV achieved at failure during the metabolic protocol was systematically higher than the MCV at 1RM (p < 0.05), this was not entirely the case for the mechanical protocol (similar to 1RM MCV during the last sets in both testing days). Finally, the absolute error derived from estimating the MCV at 1RM based on the MCV obtained at set failure with the mechanical protocol was considerably high (≥ 0.05 m/s).
conclusionThis study indicates that MCV obtained at set failure is dependent on the specificity of the physiological demands of exercise. Thus, MCVs obtained at failure with submaximal loads should not be used to estimate 1RM MCV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38730035What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.