The Impact of Velocity of Movement on Performance Factors in Resistance Exercise

Authors

Disa L. Hatfield, University of Connecticut
William J. Kraemer, University of Connecticut
Barry A. Spiering, University of Connecticut
Keijo Hakkinen, University of Jyvdskyld
Jeff S. Volek, University of Connecticut
Tomoko Shimano, University of Connecticut
Luuk Spreuwenberg, Univesity of Maastricht
Ricardo Silvestre, University of Connecticut
Jakob L. Vingren, University of Connecticut
Maren S. Fragala, University of Connecticut
Ana L. Gomez, University of Connecticut
Steve J. Fleck, Colorado College
Robert U. Newton, Edith Cowan UniversityFollow
Carl M. Maresh, University of Connecticut

Document Type

Journal Article

Publisher

National Strength and Conditioning Association

Faculty

Faculty of Computing, Health and Science

School

School of Exercise, Biomedical and Health Science / Centre for Exercise and Sports Science Research

RAS ID

5262

Comments

Hatfield, D., Kraemer, W., Spiering, B., Hakkinen, K., Volek, J., Shimano, T., Spreuwenberg, L., Silvestre, R., Vingren, J., Fragala, M., Gomez, A., Fleck, S., Newton, R. , & Marshall, T. (2006). The impact of velocity of movement on performance factors in resistance exercise. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(4), 760-766. Available here

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of a very slow (VS) velocity and a self-selected volitional (VOL) velocity at varying intensities on repetition number, peak force, peak power, and total volume in the squat and shoulder press exercises. On separate testing days, 9 resistance trained men (age: 23.9 ± 2.5 years; height: 174.8 ± 6.5 cm; body mass: 80.1 ± 12.4 kg) performed a squat (SQ) and shoulder press (SP) exercise at 60 or 80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) at either VOL or VS (10-second eccentric and 10-second concentric actions) velocity for as many repetitions as possible. Force, power, and volume (repetitions x ks) were also determined. Subjects performed significantly fewer repetitions (p ≤ 0.05) in the VS exercises (60% VS SQ 5 ± 1 vs. VOL SQ 24 ± 2; 80% VS SQ 2 ± 0 vs. VOL SQ 12 ± 1; 60% VS SP 4 ± 1 vs. VOL SP 14 ± 2: 80% VS SP 1 ± 0 vs. VOL SP 6 ± 1). Peak force and power were significantly higher at the VOL speed (peak force [in newtons]: 60% VS SQ 564. 4 ± 77.3 vs. VOL SQ 1229.0 ± 134.9 N; 80% VS SQ 457.3 ± 27.9 vs. VOL SQ 1059.3 ± 104.7 N; 60% VS SP 321.6 ± 37.8 vs. VOL SP 940.7 ± 144.8 N; 80% VS SP 296.5 ± 24.7 vs. VOL SP 702.5 ± 57.7 N; and peak power [in watts]: 60% VS SQ 271.2 ± 40.1 vs. VOL SQ 783.2 ± 129.1 W; 80% VS SQ 229.3 ± 49.5 vs. VOL SQ 520.2 ± 85.8 W; 60% VS SP 91.3 ± 21.9 vs. VOL SP 706.6 ± 151.4 W; 80% VS SP 78. 1 ± 19.8 vs. VOL SP 277. 6 ± 46.4 W). VOL speed elicited higher total volume than the VS velocity. The results of this study indicate that a VS velocity may not elicit appropriate levels of force, power, or volume to optimize strength and athletic performance.