This systematic review with meta-analysis evaluated whether individualized training programs tailored to an athlete’s F-V profile were more effective than non-individualized programs (i.e., without considering the athlete´s F-V profile) in decreasing F-V imbalances and enhancing jump height and maximal power (Pmax). A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO and Cochrane Library databases from inception until April 19th 2024. Pooled meta-analysis and subgroup meta-analysis were performed using the random-effects and fixed-effects models. The individualized training program was more effective at reducing the F-V imbalance compared to the non-individualized training program (SMD = 0.59 [95%, p < 0.001), but no significant differences were reached for jump height (SMD = 0.50, p = 0.059) and Pmax (SMD = 0.10, p = 0.543). Regarding subgroup analyses, differences were found only between the velocity-deficit subgroup and the non-individualized group with the former showing greater reductions in the F-V imbalance (SMD = 1.28, p < 0.001) and greater improvements in jump height (SMD = 0.77, p = 0.010), but no significant differences were noted for Pmax (SMD = 0.40, p = 0.165). No significant differences in the F-V imbalance, jump height or Pmax were obtained between force-deficit and well-balanced subgroups compared to the non-individualized group. Individualized training programs are more effective at reducing F-V imbalances than non-individualized programs because they target specific segments of the F-V profile. However, pooled evidence suggests that individualized training is only more effective at enhancing jump height for athletes experiencing a velocity-deficit at the start of the training program.

Purpose: This study aimed to identify the lightest load to validate the load-velocity (L-V) relationship in the back squat using the modified multiple-point (a lower highest load compared to the standard method) and in-field two-point methods. Methods: Following the measurement of back squat one-repetition maximum (1RM), twenty college amateur athletes performed a multi-point incremental loads test (20%, 40%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90% 1RM), and five two-point tests (20%&90%, 20%&80%, 20%&70%, 20%&60%, and 20%&40% 1RM). The mean velocity (MV) of each submaximal load was collected to model the individual L-V relationship. Results: The concurrent validity of the modified multiple-point method worked in incremental loads test until 70% and 80%1RM and for the in-field two-point method it only worked in 20%&90% 1RM conditions (−0.45 ≤ effect size ≤ 0.59; r ≥ 0.810). MV of heavy load in the in-field two-point method was higher than the standard method. Conclusion: Modified multiple-point method assessing squat L-V relationship variables can choose the incremental load from 20% 1RM to 70%1RM (light load velocity at around 1.0 m/s and heavy load MV around 0.6 m/s) but in-filed two-point method should choose the lightest and heaviest load, around 20%1RM and 90%1RM (light load MV around 1.0 m/s and heavy load MV around 0.4 m/s).

This study investigated how different weekly resistance training frequencies affect mechanical output and perceived exertion under velocity loss (VL) monitoring when the total number of sets per week was fixed. Fourteen well-trained male subjects participated in a repeated-measures design in which all participants performed three training frequency conditions (four, three, or two sessions per week) in randomized order. Each condition involved 12 total sets of back squats at 80% one repetition maximum (1RM) with a 20% VL, the total training sets evenly distributed across sessions. The results indicated that increasing training frequency allowed for lower perceived exertion (p = 0.005). Furthermore, the frequency of four sessions per week did not compromise velocity output or repetition performed in the following sets for within-session comparison (p ≥ 0.125), whereas the other two frequencies resulted in compromised performance with increasing numbers of sets performed. The frequency of three sessions per week resulted in a significant decrease in the following set, as shown in the number of repetitions performed per set (Nset) (Δ = 8%,p = 0.003) and the average set mean velocity (MVaverage) (Δ = 4%, p = 0.013) in the last set compared with the first set. The frequency of four sessions per week resulted in lower Nset (Δ = 17%), MVaverage (Δ = 8%), and fastest mean velocity (Δ = 7%) and last mean velocity (Δ = 9%) of the set in the last set compared with the first set (0.001 ≤ p ≤ 0.033). All training frequencies allowed adequate recovery from the frequency arrangement and did not impact performance in the subsequent session. Overall, under a fixed number of sets performed weekly, increasing training frequency helped preserve velocity output and repetitions performed within-session when using 80% 1RM and 20% VL, while also reducing perceived exertion. It is recommended that athletes distribute strength training more evenly across the week rather than concentrating it into fewer days when pursuing better mechanical output and lower perceived exertion.