Trial reportScandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports2026
Velocity Loss During Resistance Training: Implications for Concurrent Training Adaptations.
Trial report in Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Correction to "Velocity Loss During Resistance Training: Implications for Concurrent Training Adaptations".Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined the effects of different velocity loss (VL) thresholds during resistance training (RT) on adaptations to concurrent training (CT), with particular focus on strength, endurance, neuromuscular, and hypertrophic outcomes. Forty-one moderately trained men were randomly assigned to one of four groups: CT with RT at 0% (VL0; n = 10), 15% (VL15; n = 10), or 40% (VL40; n = 11) VL, or endurance training (ET; n = 10) alone. Over 8 weeks, CT groups performed squat-based RT at 70%-85% of one-repetition maximum followed by ET (separated by 10 min), consisting of running at 90%-105% (from 18 to 8 min) of maximal aerobic speed (MAS) two times per week. Assessments included cross-sectional area of the vastus lateralis, maximal isometric squat, progressive loading squat, countermovement jump, sprinting, MAS, fatigue resistance, and electromyography (EMG) during squat tests. All CT groups significantly increased muscle mass, with VL40 achieving the greatest gains (group × time interaction, p < 0.05), while ET showed no changes. MAS improved in all groups (p < 0.001), with ET achieving the greatest gains; within CT, the lower the VL, the higher the effect size (group × time interaction, p = 0.04). VL15 and VL40 obtained greater 1RM gains than ET (group × time interaction, p = 0.009). VL15 and VL40 significantly improved strength-related variables. ET showed no strength gains and significantly reduced the rate of force development at 400 ms (p = 0.01). VL0 increased EMG amplitude across loads, while ET reduced it (group × time interactions, p < 0.05). CT improved strength and endurance performance. However, fatigue induced during RT may attenuate endurance adaptations. ET enhanced aerobic performance but impaired neuromuscular function and failed to improve strength.
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.