ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
Comparative effects of four back squat prescription models on explosive performance and sprint outcomes in resistance-trained men.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the effects of maximum intended velocity (MIV), velocity-loss threshold (VLT), target velocity zone combined with velocity-loss threshold (TVZ+VLT), and traditional percentage-based training (PBT) on explosive performance and sprint outcomes in resistance-trained men. Methods: Fifty-two resistance-trained male athletes were randomly assigned to one of four groups and completed 12 supervised back squat sessions over 4 weeks. Primary outcomes were countermovement jump (CMJ) height, 0-30 m sprint time, and isometric mid-thigh pull rate of force development (IMTP RFD). Secondary outcomes included CMJ peak force and peak power, 0-10 m sprint time, IMTP peak force, relative IMTP peak force, and dynamic strength index (DSI). Results: Significant baseline-adjusted group effects were retained after Holm correction for CMJ height (F = 7.50, P = .001, ηp² = .324) and 0-30 m sprint time (F = 4.77, P = .011, ηp² = .233). MIV and TVZ+VLT produced greater improvements in CMJ height than PBT, and TVZ+VLT produced a greater improvement in 0-30 m sprint time than PBT. Corrected group effects were also observed for CMJ peak power and DSI, whereas IMTP RFD and IMTP peak force did not show prescription-specific differences. Conclusions: MIV and TVZ+VLT prescription packages were associated with more favorable short-term changes in selected explosive-performance and sprint-related outcomes than PBT. However, because the interventions differed in velocity zone, relative intensity, movement intent, feedback provision, and velocity-loss termination, and because session-level realized dose data were not retained, these findings should be interpreted as package-level effects rather than evidence for the independent superiority of any isolated VBT component.
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.