Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40634547›Full record

ArticleSports medicine - open2025

The Coach's Eye: A Randomized Repeated-Measure Observational Study Assessing Coaches' Perception of Velocity Loss During Resistance Training Exercises.

Antonio Dello Iacono, Scott Henry, Asaf Ben-Ari, Israel Halperin, Laura Carey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sports medicine - open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Antonio Dello Iacono *Division of Sport, Exercise and Health, School of Health and Life Sciences, Sport and Physical Activity Research Institute (SPARI), University of the West of Scotland, Hamilton, UK. antonio.delloiacono@uws.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0204-0957
Scott Henry *Division of Sport, Exercise and Health, School of Health and Life Sciences, Sport and Physical Activity Research Institute (SPARI), University of the West of Scotland, Hamilton, UK.
Asaf Ben-AriDepartment of Health Promotion, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Israel HalperinDepartment of Health Promotion, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Laura CareyDivision of Sport, Exercise and Health, School of Health and Life Sciences, Sport and Physical Activity Research Institute (SPARI), University of the West of Scotland, Hamilton, UK.

Funding

UUKi Innovation Researcher Mobility Scheme 2024/7
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResistance training (RT) coaches regularly instruct their trainees to terminate a set when the repetition velocity drops below a certain threshold, aligned with the principles of velocity loss in velocity-based training (VBT). However, absent of a velocity-tracking device, coaches are required to detect velocity loss through observation-a topic that has never been studied. Here, we assess the accuracy of RT coaches in detecting when trainees reach specific repetition velocity loss thresholds.

methodsTwenty RT coaches participated in a single experimental session. They observed videos of two trainees completing sets of the barbell bench press and barbell back squat exercises, using three loads (45%, 65%, and 85% of 1 repetition-maximum [1RM]), and recorded from two views (front and side). We asked them to detect when repetition velocity dropped below two velocity loss thresholds (20% and 40% relative to their first repetition). We examined whether load, velocity loss threshold, view, mental fatigue, and gaze strategy (bar or no-bar tracking) influenced accuracy. We compared outcomes using a negative binomial generalized mixed-effects model.

resultsThe average absolute error across all conditions was 2.6 repetitions. Coaches improved their accuracy (negative estimates indicate reduced error) when observing a higher velocity loss threshold (40% vs 20%; - 1.8, 95%CI [- 2.3, - 1.3]); observing heavier loads (- 0.8, 95% CI [- 1.5, - 0.1] for 65% 1RM, and - 3, 95%CI [- 3.4, - 2.6] for 85% 1RM compared to 45% 1RM); and employing a bar tracking gaze strategy compared to a no-bar strategy (- 1.7, 95%CI [- 2.7, - 0.4]). In contrast, point of view and mental fatigue had a negligible effect.

conclusionsWhile coaches detect velocity loss with some degree of accuracy, their error rates vary depending on the threshold, load, and gaze strategy. These factors should be considered when using perceived velocity loss in practice.

Indexed as

AutoregulationCoachingGaze strategyVelocity-based training

Identifiers

PMID40634547
PMCPMC12240891

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.