Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38742077›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Optimizing strength training protocols in young females: A comparative study of velocity-based and percentage-based training programs.

Carlo Rossi, Isidora Vasiljevic, Marko Manojlovic, Tatjana Trivic, Marijana Ranisavljev, Valdemar Stajer, Ewan Thomas, Antonino Bianco, Patrik Drid

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Carlo RossiSport and Exercise Research Unit, Department of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, Via Giovanni Pascoli 6, 90144, Palermo, Italy.
Isidora VasiljevicFaculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Novi Sad, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia.
Marko ManojlovicFaculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Novi Sad, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia.
Tatjana TrivicFaculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Novi Sad, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia.
Marijana RanisavljevFaculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Novi Sad, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia.
Valdemar StajerFaculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Novi Sad, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia.
Ewan ThomasSport and Exercise Research Unit, Department of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, Via Giovanni Pascoli 6, 90144, Palermo, Italy.
Antonino BiancoSport and Exercise Research Unit, Department of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, Via Giovanni Pascoli 6, 90144, Palermo, Italy.
Patrik DridFaculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Novi Sad, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of velocity-based strength training (VBT) and percentage-based strength training (PBT) on absolute strength, explosive strength, speed, and agility, as well as markers of muscle damage after 6 weeks of exercise programs. The study included 30 young female individuals, divided into three groups of 10 participants: VBT, PBT, and control group. The main findings indicated that the VBT group and PBT group showed significant improvement in 1RM squat exercise (Δ% 27.87 and Δ% 8.98, respectively) and 1RM bench press (Δ% 14.47 and Δ% 8.65, respectively), but a greater enhancement was observed in the VBT group. In addition, VBT induced substantial changes in SJ (Δ% 14.32) and CMJ height (Δ% 7.69), while PBT had an improvement only in the SJ test (Δ% 6.72). The improvement noted in the VBT group could be attributed to its ability to tailor training intensity according to the speed of movement execution. This approach allows athletes to perform each repetition as fast as possible, thus maintaining an optimal intensity for explosive strength development. The capacity of VBT to adapt training intensity based on the speed of movement execution may be the key factor contributing to these results. Therefore, coaches and athletes should consider implementing VBT as a valuable tool to optimize strength and power development. In conclusion, VBT induced greater improvement in the 1RM squat, 1RM bench press, SJ, and CMJ compared to the group that performed the traditional strength training modality. Therefore, VBT is considered a more effective training tool regarding the development of absolute and explosive strength in young women.

Indexed as

ExerciseMuscle damageNeuromuscular performanceSpeed-based trainingTraditional exerciseWomen

Identifiers

PMID38742077
PMCPMC11089354

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.