Purpose: To describe the internal training load (ITL) of common training sessions performed during a typical week and to determine the relationships between different indicators of ITL commonly employed in professional football (soccer).Methods: Session-rating-of-perceived-exertion TL (sRPE-TL) and heart-rate- (HR) derived measurements of ITL as Edwards TL and Stagno training impulses (TRIMP_MOD) were used in 9 players during 3 periods of the season. The relationships between them were analyzed in different training sessions during a typical week: skill drills/circuit training + small-sided games (SCT+SSGs), ball-possession games + technical-tactical exercises (BPG+TTE), tactical training (TT), and prematch activation (PMa).Results: HR values obtained during SCT+SSGs and BPG+TTE were substantially greater than those in the other 2 sessions, all the ITL markers and session duration were substantially greater in SCT+SSGs than in any other session, and all ITL measures in BPG+TTE were substantially greater than in TT and PMa sessions. Large relationships were found between HR >80% HR_max and HR >90% HR_max vs sRPE-TL during BPG+TTE and TT sessions (r = .61−.68). Very large relationships were found between Edwards TL and sRPE-TL and between TRIMP_MOD and sRPE-TL in sessions with BPG+TTE and TT (r = .73−.87). Correlations between the different HR-based methods were always extremely large (r = .92−.98), and unclear correlations were observed for other relationships between variables.Conclusion: sRPE-TL provided variable-magnitude within-individual correlations with HR-derived measures of training intensity and load during different types of training sessions typically performed during a week in professional soccer. Caution should be applied when using RPE- or HR-derived measures of exercise intensity/load in soccer training interchangeably.

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of combining repeated-sprint training with 2 different methods of muscle strength training on physical performance variables in young players. Twenty-one soccer players with mean (± SD) age of 18.1 (± 0.8) years, weight 69.9 (± 6.5) kg, and height 177.1 (± 5.7) cm, and competing in U-19 category, were randomly assigned to 2 experimental groups: squat group (SG: n = 10) and take-off group (TG: n = 11). Intervention in both groups consisted of the combination of a weekly session of repeated-sprint training (the same for both groups), with 2 weekly sessions of strength training (different for each group), for 8 weeks in the final period of the season. The strength sessions for the SG consisted of conducting a series of full squats executed at maximum velocity in the concentric phase. Intervention in the TG was the performance of 2 specific strength exercises (take-offs and change of direction), with measurements taken before and after consideration of the following variables: repeated-sprint ability (RSA), yo-yo intermittent recovery test level 1 (YYIRT1), countermovement jump (CMJ), and average velocity in full squat progressive loads test. The SG improved CMJ height in 5.28% (p ≤ 0.05) and FS37.5-47.5-67.5 (p ≤ 0.05), whereas the TG improved FS17.5-27.5-37.5-47.5-67.5 (p ≤ 0.05). There were no significant changes in the values of RSA or YYIRT1 in either group. The results seem to show that the combination of a weekly session of repeated-sprint training with 2 weekly sessions of strength training could be an insufficient stimulus to improve RSA in the final period of the season.

This study aimed to analyze the effects of three different velocity loss thresholds (10%: VL10, 30%: VL30 and 50%: VL50) on maximal strength and velocity at different intensities during bench press using a weight stack machine (WSM-BP). Forty-five men were randomly assigned to three groups: VL10 (n=15), VL30 (n=15) and VL50 (n=15), which followed a 5-week (15 sessions) velocity-based WSM-BP program. Assessments performed Pre- and Post-training included: a) estimated one-repetition maximum (1RM) in WSM-BP; b) average velocity attained against all absolute loads common to Pre- and Post-training tests in WSM-BP; c) average velocity attained against all absolute loads that were lifted equal to or faster than 0.8 m·s−1 at Pre-training (light loads); and d) average velocity attained against all absolute loads that were lifted slower than 0.8 m·s−1 at Pre-training (heavy loads). All groups showed significant improvements in 1RM, velocity against all loads, and velocity against heavy loads (P<0.001–0.01). However, only the VL10 group showed significant enhancements in velocity against light loads (P=0.05). Therefore, the VL10 group showed a higher training efficiency compared to VL30 and VL50 interventions, since it obtained similar benefits by performing fewer repetitions.

Riscart-López, J, Rendeiro-Pinho, G, Mil-Homens, P, Costa, RS-d, Loturco, I, Pareja-Blanco, F, and León-Prados, JA. Effects of Four different velocity-based training programming models on strength gains and physical performance. J Strength Cond Res 35(3): 596–603, 2021—The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 4 velocity-based training (VBT) programming models (linear programming [LP], undulating programming [UP], reverse programming [RP], and constant programming [CP]) on the physical performance of moderately strength-trained men. Forty-three young (age: 22.9 ± 4.8 years; body mass [BM]: 71.7 ± 7.6; full squat [SQ] relative strength 1.32 ± 0.29) subjects were randomly assigned to LP (gradually increase training intensity and decrease volume), UP (volume and intensity increase or decrease repeatedly), RP (gradually increases volume and decrease intensity), and CP (maintains constant volume and intensity) groups and followed an 8-week VBT intervention using the SQ exercise and monitoring movement velocity for every repetition. All groups trained with similar relative average intensity (67.5% 1 repetition maximum [1RM]), magnitude of velocity loss within the set (20%), number of sets (3), and interset recoveries (4 minutes) throughout the training program. Pre-training and post-training measurements included predicted SQ (1RM), average velocity attained for all loads common to pre-tests and post-tests (AV), average velocity for those loads that were moved faster (AV > 1) and slower (AV < 1) than 1 m·s⁻¹ at pre-tests, countermovement jump height (CMJ), and 20-m sprint time (T20). No significant group × time interactions were observed for any of the variables analyzed. All groups obtained similar increases (shown in effect size values) in 1RM strength (LP: 0.88; UP: 0.54; RP: 0.62; CP: 0.51), velocity-load-related variables (LP: 0.74–4.15; UP: 0.46–5.04; RP: 0.36–3.71; CP: 0.74–3.23), CMJ height (LP: 0.35; UP: 0.53; RP: 0.49; CP: 0.34), and sprint performance (LP: 0.34; UP: 0.35; RP: 0.32; CP: 0.30). These results suggest that different VBT programming models induced similar physical performance gains in moderately strength-trained subjects.

Ansiedad estado y autoconfianza precompetitiva en gimnastas. (Precompetitive anxiety state and self-confidence in gymnasts).

Purpose: To examine the effects of 4 programming models (linear [LP], undulating [UP], reverse [RP], and constant [CP]) on physical performance. Methods: Forty-eight moderately strength-trained men were randomly assigned to LP, UP, RP, and CP groups according to their 1-repetition maximum (1RM) in the full-squat exercise (SQ) and followed an 8-week training intervention using the SQ and monitoring movement velocity for every repetition. All groups trained with similar mean relative intensity (65% 1RM), number of repetitions (240), sets (3), and interset recovery (4 min) throughout the training program. Pretraining and posttraining measurements included, in the SQ, 1RM load, the average velocity attained for all absolute loads common to pretests and posttests (AV), and the average velocity for loads that were moved faster (AV > 1) and slower (AV < 1) than 1 m·s⁻¹ at pretraining tests. Moreover, countermovement jump height and 20-m running sprint time were measured. Results: A significant time effect was found for all variables analyzed (P < .05), except for 20-m running sprint time. Significant group × time interactions were observed for 1RM, AV > 1, and AV (P < .05). After training, all groups attained significant strength gains on 1RM, AV, AV > 1, and AV < 1 (P < .001–.01). LP and RP groups improved their countermovement jump height (P < .01), but no significant changes were observed for UP and CP. No significant improvements were achieved in 20-m running sprint time for any groups. Conclusions: These different programming models are all suitable for improving physical performance. LP and RP induce similar or greater gains in physical performance than UP and CP.