ArticlePeerJ2025
Exercise type, training load, velocity loss threshold, and sets affect the relationship between lifting velocity and perceived repetitions in reserve in strength-trained individuals.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effects of different lifting strategies during resistance training on lower body function in untrained adult women: a comparison between 6-weeks of 10% velocity loss and standard resistance training.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To explore the relationship between bar velocity and perceived repetitions in reserve (pRIR) for the bench press and the squat exercises during multiple training sessions in strength-trained individuals. Methods: Nineteen well-trained individuals (9♀ and 10♂, 26 ± 4 yr, 174 ± 8 cm, 74 ± 9 kg (mean ± standard deviation)) trained squats and bench press for six weeks. Within each week, they conducted three sessions with different loads, corresponding to ∼77-79%, ∼82-84%, and ∼87-89% of one repetition maximum (1RM). The mean velocity was measured at the bar for all lifts, and the participants terminated each set based on a pre-set velocity loss threshold (20-60%). After every set termination, the participants reported pRIR. Results: Based on 2,972 unique measurements, we observed trivial to very large individual correlations between the objectively measured mean velocity and the pRIR (average r Discussion and conclusion: Our findings indicate that mean bar velocity and pRIR offer complementary-but not interchangeable-perspectives on strength training performance. Because pRIR was systematically influenced by exercise type, external load, proximity to failure, and set number, practitioners and researchers should interpret pRIR with caution and in the context of these variables.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.