Abstract

The vast majority of resistance training programmes utilise traditional percentagebased
loading methods to dictate and modify training intensity over time. These
methods rely on predetermining load based on pre-training strength assessments.
While such methods are widely used within both the applied and research
environments, percentage-based loading approaches do not factor in current levels
of fatigue or athlete readiness to train. A prospective alternative advocated as a
means to address such issues, involves the collection of concentric repetition
velocity and the documented relationship it has with relative load. While such
velocity-based methods are becoming increasingly popular, little consideration has
been given to the applied nature of such approaches when compared to traditional
percentage-based methods. As such, the main purpose of this thesis was to explore
the efficacy of adopting a velocity-based loading approach when compared to
traditional percentage-based loading during a strength and power intervention.
Before such an aim could be addressed, the method of collecting and reporting
concentric repetition velocity in an applied environment would need to be explored.
For this reason, Study 1 examined the validity and reliability of a commercially
available linear positional transducer when compared to an integrated motion
capture and piezoelectric force plate setup. Regression analysis resulted in R2
values of > 0.85 for all variables excluding deadlift mean velocity (R2 = 0.54-0.69),
demonstrating high levels of agreeability between devices with minimal exclusions.
Furthermore, the presence of low to moderate typical error (0.6-8.8%) across all
variables assessed demonstrates the sensitivity of the device. Collectively the novel
data within this study provides sufficient evidence that the GymAware PowerTool
can be used to measure kinetic and kinematic outputs in a resistance trained
ii
population across a range of widely practiced movements. These findings were
significant in providing confidence in the methods used to obtain such variables.
Study 2 explored the impact of integrating a velocity-based loading approach into a
six-week training intervention when compared to traditional percentage-based
loading. Within this study velocity was recorded in real-time and used to dictate
training load based on a pre-established generalised group-based load-velocity
profile. The findings of this study demonstrated the potential benefit of adopting such
an approach. Participants within the velocity group obtained similar or statistically
greater improvements in measures of strength and power than the percentagebased
group (velocity vs. percentage: back squat: 9.3% vs. 8.4%; bench press:
8.4% vs. 4.0%; strict overhead press: 6.5% vs. 6.2%; deadlift: 6.4% vs. 3.0%;
countermovement jump: 5.0% vs. 1.0%). Additionally, participants within the
velocity-based group completed significantly (p < 0.01) less total training volume
throughout the intervention.
While the findings from Study 2 demonstrate the potential significance of adopting
a velocity-based loading approach over traditional methods, the presence of large
individual differences between participants load-velocity relationships warranted
further investigation. As such, Study 3 explored the efficacy of two differing velocitybased
loading approaches over a strength and power training intervention.
Participants were allocated to either an individual- or group-based velocity
intervention, whereby load was dictated based either on the individual or
generalised group data, respectively. While no significance interaction was reported
between training groups, the individualised group did result in a greater magnitude
of change (individual vs. group: back squat: 9.7% vs. 7.2%; countermovement jump:
6.6% vs. 4.3%; static squat jump: 4.6% vs. 4.3%; standing broad jump: 6.7% vs.
iii
3.4%), larger effect sizes, and either the same or stronger magnitude-based
inferences across all assessed variables.
Taken collectively, the research studies that are presented within this thesis provide
preliminary data supporting the use of velocity-based loading interventions when
working with trained individuals. It would appear that adopting a velocity-based
loading approach may offer additional benefits to already trained participants both
with regards to significant improvements and less required training volume.
Furthermore, the trivial improvements witnessed following an individualised
approach may suggest a greater potential for adaptation when compared to a
generalised group-based approach. As such, this thesis serves to demonstrate that
monitoring velocity within resistance training offers a more objective and sensitive
approach to prescribing training load than traditional percentage-based approaches.