Trial reportPeerJ2025
Individualized responses to velocity-based
Trial report in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traditional percentage-based resistance training (PBRT) is a cornerstone of strength development, but its fixed nature may not account for daily fluctuations in athlete readiness. Velocity-based resistance training (VBRT) has been proposed as a superior alternative for power development due to its auto-regulatory capabilities, but its efficacy in highly trained combat sports athletes remains contested. Objective: This study aimed to compare the effects of velocity-based resistance training (VBRT) and percentage-based resistance training (PBRT) on upper limb strength, general power, and sport-specific power in combat sports athletes, and to explore individualized training responses. Methods: A randomized parallel-group controlled trial was conducted, recruiting 24 male university combat sports athletes (age: 21.5 ± 2.1 years; training experience: 4.8 ± 1.5 years; baseline bench press one-repetition maximum (1RM): 95.4 ± 10.2 kg). Participants were randomly assigned to either a VBRT group ( Results: A 2 × 2 mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that while both groups significantly improved in most metrics, the PBRT group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in several key areas. Significant Group × Time interactions were found favoring the PBRT group for 4kg medicine ball velocity ( Conclusion: For the cohort of university-level combat sports athletes in this study, PBRT was a more effective training methodology than VBRT for enhancing both general and sport-specific power. These findings challenge the assumption of VBRT's universal superiority for power development and highlight the continued efficacy and robustness of traditional PBRT for strength and conditioning in this population.
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.