Original Research

Application of a New Monitoring Variable: Effects of

Power Loss During Squat Training on Strength
Gains and Sports Performance
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

Mingyang Zhang,1 Lunxin Chen,1 Jing Dai,1 Qun Yang,2 Zijing Huang,1 Jiaxin He,2 Hongshen Ji,2 Jian Sun,2
and Duanying Li2
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 11/13/2024

1
Digitalized Strength and Conditioning Training Laboratory, Guangzhou Sport University, Guangzhou, China; and 2School of Athletic
Training, Guangzhou Sport University, Guangzhou, China

Abstract
Zhang, M, Chen, L, Dai, J, Yang, Q, Huang, Z, He, J, Ji, H, Sun, J, and Li, D. Application of a new monitoring variable: Effects of
power loss during squat training on strength gains and sports performance. J Strength Cond Res 38(4): 656–670, 2024—This study
aimed to compare the effects of power loss (PL) autoregulated volume (PL10 and PL20) with standardized fixed-load (FL) pre-
scription on strength, sports performance, and lean body mass (LBM). Thirty-five female basketball players from a sports college
were randomly assigned to 3 experimental groups (PL10, n 5 12; PL20, n 5 12; and FL, n 5 11, respectively) that performed a
resistance training (RT) program with wave-like periodization for 10 weeks using the back squat exercise. Assessments performed
before (Pre) and after (Post) intervention included assessed 1 repetition maximum (1RM), body composition, 20-m sprint (T20M),
change of direction (COD), and jump performance, including countermovement jump with arm swing, maximum vertical jump, and
reactive strength index. Three groups showed significant improvements in strength (effect size [ES]: PL10 5 2.98, PL20 5 3.14, and
FL 5 1.90; p , 0.001) and jump performance (ES: PL10 5 0.74, PL20 5 1.50, and FL 5 0.50; p ,0.05–0.001). However, PL10 and
PL20 demonstrated different advantages in sports performance compared with FL (group 3 time interaction, p ,0.05). Specifically,
PL10 significantly improved COD performance (ES 5 20.79 ; 20.53, p ,0.01), whereas PL20 showed greater improvements in
sprint (ES 5 20.57, p ,0.05) and jump performance (ES 5 0.67–1.64, p ,0.01–0.001). Moreover, PL10 resulted in similar gains to
PL20 and beneficial improvements compared with FL in LBM, despite performing the least repetitions. Overall, the study indicates
that power loss–based autoregulation induces greater gains in LBM and sports performance, as well as eliciting a higher efficiency
dose response than standardized FL prescriptions, particularly for PL10. Therefore, incorporating PL monitoring in training pro-
grams is recommended, and further studies on power-based RT would be worthwhile.
Key Words: training monitoring, volume autoregulation, resistance training, neuromuscular fatigue, power-based training

Introduction maximizes muscular strength and improves transfer to sports per-

formance is still unknown. Traditional 1 repetition maximum
Resistance training (RT) is an effective way to improve athletic
(1RM) RT based on repetition to failure (RTF) is a common ap-
performance and prevent injuries, both in professional sports and
proach. However, growing evidence (41) suggests that RTF training
for recreational athletes (8). In basketball, RT programs play a
is not superior in producing strength gains and hypertrophy adap-
crucial role in enhancing specific skills and game performance,
tations, and may even have counterproductive effects. Generally,
such as vertical jump, sprints, and change of direction (COD), by
there is an inverse linear relationship between load and volume
increasing strength and power (38). Previous studies (20,39) have
(19,20). Specifically, training load is based on a specified number of
demonstrated that the interaction between load and volume is
repetition maximums or a percentage of the 1RM (%1RM), which
essential in determining the optimal training stimulus range for
neurological, hormonal, hypertrophy, and muscle adaptations. are relative loads intended to elicit specific adaptations (39). The
Therefore, prescribing the appropriate RT volume is pivotal in guidelines in Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning assign
determining the acute response and neuromuscular adaptations each training phase a specific goal or relative load that corresponds
to strength training and physical fitness (25). to a specific repetition range (14). For instance, individuals aiming to
RT volume refers to the number of sets and repetitions performed increase muscle hypertrophy typically train at an intensity of
during training sessions (20). Structured RT has been shown to in- 67–85% 1RM, with 8–12 repetitions per set. When prescribing the
duce greater improvements in physical performance than unplanned number of repetitions performed within a set at a given load, a
RT, according to a previous review (42). Which program, however, number of variables must be taken into account, including degree of
fitness, training goals, training state, and exercise intensity. By ad-
Address correspondence to Duanying Li, [email protected]. hering to these principles, individuals can optimize their RT volume
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 38(4)/656–670 prescription and achieve their desired training performance.
Copyright ª 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf Identifying optimal training volume and acute training variable
of the National Strength and Conditioning Association.. This is an open access combinations that promote the progress of elite athletes has been
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non
Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to
a priority for sports scientists and coaches (26). However, prac-
download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be titioners face challenges in setting and adjusting these variables
changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. over prolonged training cycles because of personal physiological

656
 Application of Power Loss During Squat Training (2024) 38:4 | www.nsca.com

adaptations, acute strength fluctuations, and fatigue (10), which include a fixed volume program as a comparison when designing
limit their capacity to determine whether absolute loads match to an autoregulation technique to monitor RT volume.
the target relative loads necessary to induce desirable adaptations Given the importance of power loss (PL)-based volume
(13,37). In addition, there is large interindividual variation in the autoregulation and its potential applications in RT, it is crucial to
number of repetitions that athletes can perform under a given conduct a preliminary study to evaluate the feasibility of using
load, resulting in different degrees of exertion and fatigue even repetition power to monitor neuromuscular fatigue during RT
when performing the same RT volume within a set (12). As a and assess its efficacy in quantifying training quality. Therefore,
result, well-designed RT programs may be inadequate for meeting the aim of this study was to (1) validate the utility of repetition
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

the demands of strength and conditioning coaches because of the power as a means of monitoring acute fatigue and adjusting
lack of precise quantification of the degree of approaching failure volume during RT and (2) compare the effects of 3 different
and the absence of personalization and real-time monitoring of training volume protocols (PL10 vs. PL20 vs. FL) on muscle
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 11/13/2024

neuromuscular fatigue. strength, sports performance, and body composition adaptations

It is widely recognized that adjusting training load to match in- in female basketball players. The main hypothesis was that using
dividual performance is crucial to maximize training effects and the PL-based autoregulation during RT periodization enables
prevent unwanted symptoms such as injury and overtraining (6). To trainers to avoid ineffective repetitions during the fatigue state
address the limitations, sport scientists have explored autoregulation while executing more training volume at higher performance
strategies in RT. Autoregulation involves adjusting the training load states, ultimately leading to greater neuromuscular adaptations.
or volume based on acute and chronic dynamic changes in individual In addition, the aim of this study was to investigate the underlying
performance, such as strength and power, to ensure that the desired mechanisms of load differences between fixed volume and
training stimuli are achieved (13). Two principal autoregulatory autoregulated volume in the RT prescription. As a result, the
programs involve the systematic manipulation of load and volume study assesses the dose-response relationships for different pro-
through subjective or objective strategies (17). In the past decade, grams, training volume, and strength adaptation. The study
velocity loss (VL)-based autoregulation has emerged as the primary represents a novel attempt at a monitoring strategy for RT pre-
objective approach for RT volume owing to its ability to monitor scription that is highly practical for most trainers. By demon-
daily fluctuations and accurately quantify acute neuromuscular fa- strating the validity of repetition power as a tool to monitor
tigue (32). According to the concept of kinematics, changes in rep- neuromuscular fatigue and adjust training volume, we provide a
etition power output during RT directly reflect strength foundation for future studies to explore the use of power-based
performance, exertion, and the degree of neuromuscular fatigue, RT in various populations and training settings.
similar to the VL principle (32). Despite the importance of moni-
toring and autoregulating training, a significant proportion of pre-
vious research analyzing the response to different RT programs has Method
overlooked monitoring repetition power loss (PL). Monitoring
Experimental Approach to the Problem
power output during RT is not solely for maximizing power pro-
duction but rather for finding the optimal balance between intensity A longitudinal experimental study was devised to compare the
and efficiency. By monitoring power output in each training session, chronic effects of strength, sports performance, and lean body mass
individuals can ensure that they are pushing themselves enough to (LBM). The study was conducted during the preseason preparatory
promote strength gains without overexerting themselves and risking period for the 11th University Games (Table 1). Subjects trained
injury or exhaustion. twice a week, with 48–72 hours in between, for a total of 20 sessions
Several longitudinal studies and reviews (16,17,19) have been over a 10-week period. During the intervention period, subjects were
conducted on various VL thresholds published in recent years, but instructed to follow a specific diet or sleep plan during the experi-
the results are inconsistent. This could be due to differences in the ment. A progressive RT program with wave-like periodization, pri-
definitions of VL threshold ranges used in the studies, and the fact marily comprising the squat exercise, was used. All groups received
that some studies report on variables other than strength, such as training using the same relative load (%1RM), visual feedback, and
muscular endurance, hypertrophy, and jumping, which could motivation. Three RT programs with the same loading but different
introduce interference and bias in the results. Nevertheless, some volumes, with the PL degree or predetermined prescription during
researchers (24) claim that there may exist a threshold for RT each set as the independent variable, labeled as 10% (PL10), 20%
volume that, when reached, leads to optimal training adaptation, (PL20), or FL were conducted. In the experimental group, training
indicating an inverted “U” relationship in VL-based autor- was halted on exceeding the corresponding target PL limit. By con-
egulation. Earlier research (24,25) has largely focused on autor- trast, the training volume in the control group was prescribed based
egulatory training volume and has not compared the dose- on the standardized FL method (fixed protocol and no monitoring).
response relationships between autoregulatory and standardized After a 2-week familiarization, subjects were allocated to 2 testing
fixed-load (FL) prescriptions. Moreover, because most VL re- sessions, separated by at least 48 hours. All tests were performed in a
search (17) has used an integrated load and volume autor- laboratory setting, under the direct supervision of the investigators,
egulation methodology, it is challenging to determine whether conducted at the same time of day (61 hour) for each subject, and
observed differences are due to training volume or other adjusted under controlled environmental conditions (approximately 26° C
factors. In fact, a study (3) indicated that simple load autor- and 68% humidity). In addition, because it was the preparatory
egulation can achieve superior explosive adaptations with period, subjects underwent basketball training during the study pe-
equivalent training volume when compared to standardized load riod. All subjects were evaluated twice, Pre and Post the 10-week
prescription. The latest network meta-analysis (16) further sup- training intervention, with the tests being conducted over 2 days,
ported the notion that integrated load and volume autoregulation separated by 48 hours. On day 1, body composition measurements
might be more advantageous for neuromuscular performance were taken and specific performance tests (COD and maximum
than single volume autoregulation. Thus, it is important to avoid vertical jump [MVJ] test) and back squat 1RM tests were conducted.
adjusting load in a way that may confound adaptation and to Day 2 involved all-out sprint and jump tests: countermovement jump

657
 Application of Power Loss During Squat Training (2024) 38:4

Table 1
Experimental design.
Part Familiarization Pre General preparatory Specific preparatory Post Transitional phase Competitive period
Day 1 Resistance training Day 1
Day 2 Intervention Day 2
Time Week 1–2 Week 3 Week 4–13 Week 14 Week 15–17 Week 18
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

with arms (CMJA) and drop jump (DJ). An identical warm-up and with 3 minutes of rest. The load was then increased until the
sequence were maintained for each subject in both the Pre and Post. individual 1RM attempt was started. If the attempt was suc-
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 11/13/2024

cessful, the load was increased by 5–10% 1RM, otherwise the

Subjects weight was lowered by 5% 1RM with 5 minutes of rest. The load
was increased until the 1RM was reached. Each subject was
An a priori power analysis with G*Power v. 3.1.9.7 indicated that
allowed a maximum of #5 attempts to measure their baseline
the study would require 42 subjects based on a moderate effect
1RM, with strong verbal encouragement given throughout the
size (ES) of 0.25, an alpha level of 0.05, a b value of 0.8 for an
test. The coefficient of variation (CV) between the familiarization
analysis of variance (ANOVA) design with repeated measures,
sessions and the 1RM test was 3.4% (,5%).
and a correlation among repeated measures value of 0.5. Initially
45 subjects were recruited, but 10 subjects (PL10: n 5 3; PL20: n Body Composition. The subjects’ height was measured with a
5 3; and FL: n 5 4) were unable to complete the posttest because calibrated stadiometer, and the LBM was determined using a
of injury or illness. Thus, 35 healthy female basketball players Lunar Prodigy dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry system (Holo-
who were members of the championship team in the 2021 Na- gic, Bedford, MA). During the scan, the subjects were instructed
tional Sports College Basketball Association and had at least 3 to lie supine with their legs extended and to remain still
years of experience performing the free-weight parallel squat throughout the procedure. The subjects were instructed to abstain
exercise participated in the study (Figure 1). The subjects un- from food for 10 hours, avoid alcohol consumption for 24 hours,
derwent regular RT exercises, consisting of 2–3 weekly sessions, refrain from strenuous exercise for 48 hours, and arrive at the
each lasting approximately 30 minutes, with gradually increased laboratory in a euhydrated state before the test. The CV was
intensity over time to progressively enhance strength and main- determined before the study using 5 subjects who had charac-
tain overall fitness. They were knowledgeable about VL-based teristics similar to those of the current subjects (CV 5 #1.5%).
autoregulatory and monitoring RT volume and had no physical
limitation that could affect their ability to participate. Their Sprint Test. The T20M test consisted of 2 maximal 20-m sprints on
typical weekly training regimen included 8 basketball training an indoor running track, separated by a 3-minute interval, after a
sessions, 3 conditioning sessions (2 of which involved RT), and 1 standardized warm-up and 1 practice 30-m sprint. Electronic pho-
game per week, totaling approximately 25 hours of training per tocell timing gates (Smartspeed, Fusion Sport, Queensland, Aus-
week on average. After the Pre, subjects were randomly assigned tralia) were used to measure the time for each sprint, with the timing
to 1 of 3 groups using SPSS randomization numbers, and these gates placed at 0 and 20 m. The fastest trial was selected for analysis.
groups varied only in the RT volume and the number of repeti- The test demonstrated good reliability, as indicated by a CV of 1.3%
tions in each training set: PL10 (n 5 12; age: 21.3 6 1.7 years), and an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.94 with 95%
PL20 (n 5 12, age: 21.4 6 1.1 years), and FL (n 5 11, age: 22.0 6 confidence interval (CI): 0.88–0.97.
2.4 years). Five players withdrew during the intervention period
because of injury or illness. Therefore, of the 40 players initially Jump Performance. The CMJA swing and DJ tests were con-
enrolled, 35 players remained for statistical analysis. ducted indoors using a mobile contact mat (SmartJump; Fusion
Before obtaining written informed consent, the subjects were Sport). Subjects were required to be in an upright position with
fully briefed on the experimental details. The study was con- their feet shoulder-width apart. They swung their arms back as
ducted in strict adherence to the principles in the Declaration of they dropped their body and bent their knees, followed by a
Helsinki and was approved by the Local Ethics Committee at forceful upward jump with a simultaneous swing of the arms
Guangzhou Sport University. forward and above the head, achieving maximal vertical height
before landing on the jump mat. In the DJ test, subjects stepped off
a 30-cm high box with their preferred leg, landed with both feet,
Procedures
and immediately jumped as high as possible. Invalid jumps were
Familiarization and Standardized Warm-Up. All subjects com- those where the subject displayed excessive knee flexion in the air.
pleted 2 familiarization procedures, followed by the first testing Three maximal CMJA swings and DJs were performed consec-
session before the study. Before testing and training sessions, the utively, with 20-second rests between each jump. The highest
subjects performed a standardized warm-up, which included achieved height (cm) or reactive strength index (RSI) (m·s21) was
fascial relaxation, static and dynamic stretching, crawls, jogging, recorded, and the resulting highest jump was selected for analysis.
and a 20-kg barbell back squat, 10 repetitions per set for 2 sets. The test-retest reliability was assessed during preintervention
Furthermore, all tests were performed under the careful supervi- testing for all subjects for CMJA (ICC 5 0.99, 95% CI:
sion and protection of the same researchers. 0.98–0.99, CV 5 2.2%) and RSI (ICC 5 0.93, 95% CI:
0.87–0.97, CV 5 5.7%).
Strength Assessments. Maximal strength was assessed on 1RM The MVJ assessment was conducted using the Vertec (Sports
back squat exercise. After a standardized warm-up, the subjects Imports, Columbus, OH). Subjects were instructed to stand with
performed 6–10 repetitions (
50% 1RM) with 2–3 minutes of both legs on the ground, and the highest point of vertical reach
rest. Then, the subjects performed 3 repetitions (
80% 1RM) was recorded using the Vertec. Clear and standardized testing

658
 Application of Power Loss During Squat Training (2024) 38:4 | www.nsca.com
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 11/13/2024

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the included subjects.

instructions were provided to ensure proper jump techniques. for further analysis. Test-retest reliabilities for LCOD and
Subjects were instructed to jump straight up as high as possible, RCOD, as measured by the CV, were 1.1 and 1.4%, respectively.
with either 1 or 2 legs, taking same steps toward the Vertec as The ICC was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.93–0.99) for LCOD and 0.98
required to achieve the jump reach distance. An experienced tester (95% CI: 0.96–0.99) for RCOD.
provided verbal cues and corrected any deviations from the
standardized techniques. The MVJ height was calculated as the Training Program. Subjects completed weekly basketball-specific
difference between the standing reach and the jump reach dis- technical, tactical, and general motor skills, as well as a competitive
tance. The best result of 2 attempts was used for analysis. The test- game during the intervention period. Table 2 presents the details of
retest ICC was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98–0.99), and the CV was 0.4%. the training programs. Subjects had to comply with $95% of the
scheduled sessions to be included in the analysis. The same re-
505 Change of Direction Test. The timing gates were positioned searchers attended all sessions to ensure consistency and accuracy. RT
5 m from the turning point. Subjects assumed a crouched starting sessions were conducted in the afternoon at 4:00 PM and started with
position, then sprinted all-out for 15 m, quickly changed di- a standardized warm-up routine, followed by free-weight back squat
rection, and sprinted 5 m back toward the starting line. The repetitions. The mean concentric power of each repetition was me-
subjects performed 4 trials (2 with the left-dominant leg and 2 ticulously monitored using a linear position transducer (LPT,
with the right-dominant leg: LCOD and RCOD), with a 2-minute GymAware, Kinetic Performance Technology, Canberra, Australia)
rest between each trial. The fastest trial for each leg was selected (2). The LPT can also determine the mean force by summing the mass

659
 Application of Power Loss During Squat Training (2024) 38:4

Table 2
Weekly training program.*
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
AM Shooting Tactical Small-sided games Game Small-sided games Field Rest
PM Technical Field (aerobic) RT session 1 Training situations (1-on-1) RT session 2 Rest
*AM: 9:00–11:30; PM: 15:00–17:30.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

of the barbell and the lifter and multiplying it with the acceleration between the PL10, PL20, and FL groups at baseline. Compliance
due to gravity, allowing the mean power to be calculated for each with the training program was 97% for all subjects.
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 11/13/2024

repetition. As previously indicated, the relative load, number of sets,

and rest intervals (;3 minutes) during the training were standardized
for all groups. To avoid confounding adaptations, an autoregulated Training Program
load was not used and a loading-based RT program, which is com- The descriptive characteristics of the actual training conducted by
monly used, was used instead (17). The relative load program fol- each group are presented in Table 4. Significant differences in
lowed a progressive wave-like periodization with session 1 at training volume-related variables were observed among the 3
80–95% of 1RM and session 2 at 60–70% of 1RM. The experi- groups during the intervention period. PL20 and FL groups
mental groups (PL10 and PL20) terminated repetitions when the completed more training volume per session (43.1 6 16.2 and
subject’s PL reached a predetermined threshold, whereas the control 38.9 6 23.2 repetitions, respectively) compared with the PL10
group (FL) completed a given number of repetitions. All subjects were group (31.8 6 11.0 repetitions), indicating a graded relationship
given enthusiastic verbal motivation to exert themselves fully while in total training volume completed by each group (PL20 5 844.3
lifting the barbell. Immediate power feedback from the measurement 6 52.5 . FL 5 777.5 6 35.4 . PL10 5 629.7 6 67.7, p ,
system was given through both visual and auditory signals to all 0.001). Notably, the mean power output was higher in the PL10
subjects, including in the FL, to prevent any influence from feedback group (377.8 6 51.2 W) than in the PL20 (339.9 6 24.5 W) and
bias. FL (346.7 6 18.6 W) groups (PL10.PL20
FL, p , 0.01). In
addition, the CV of the number of repetitions between sets within
the same training session was 22.8, 19.0, and 16.7 for the PL10,
Statistical Analyses PL20, and FL groups, respectively. Subgroup analysis with dif-
A 1-way ANOVA was used to examine differences between ferent intensity of load showed that the PL20 group (7.8 6 1.3
groups in all variables at baseline and training parameters, fol- repetitions) completed significantly more repetitions within set
lowing normality of distribution (i.e., Shapiro-Wilk) and homo- than the PL10 group (6.8 6 1.9 repetitions) and the FL group (4.6
geneity of variance (i.e., Levene) tests. The test-retest absolute and 6 1.4 repetitions) with high-intensity loads (80–95% 1RM)
relative reliability was determined using the CV and ICC with a (PL20.PL10.FL, p , 0.001, Figure 2). Further analysis
95% CI with the 1-way random effects model, respectively. To revealed that subjects in the PL20 group completed more repeti-
assess the effects of training, a 3 (group: PL10 vs. PL20 vs. FL) 3 2 tions and a higher volume load than the remaining 2 groups under
(time: Pre vs. Post) factorial ANOVA with repeated measures was the 80–85% and 90–95% 1RM ranges, and that subjects in the
performed, with baseline values as covariates and Bonferroni’s PL10 group performed more repetitions and a higher volume load
adjustment. The Mauchly test was used to evaluate the assump- than the FL group. Comparatively, during training in the low-to-
tion of sphericity. Two-tailed tests were conducted with a level of moderate intensity range (60–70% 1RM), both the PL20 group
statistical significance set at p # 0.05. Moreover, Hedges’ g on the (15.0 6 3.4 repetitions) and the FL group (15.8 6 2.1 repetitions)
pooled SD was used to evaluate the ESs within each group (14). exhibited more repetitions per set than the PL10 group (10.5 6
All statistical analyses were conducted using jamovi and R soft- 3.0 repetitions), with the FL group performing more repetitions
ware. The mean 6 SD was used to present the results. than the PL20 group (Table 5).
The relationship between relative load (%1RM) and number Collectively, these findings suggest that power-based ap-
of repetitions in undulating periodization was analyzed by fitting proaches to autoregulation induce more repetitions with a high
a curve with nonlinear regression using the GaussAmp model.-
where A is the amplitude, xc is the peak position, w is the peak
Table 3
width, and y0 is the background constant. The equation can be
Baseline characteristic.*†‡
fitted to the experimental data using a nonlinear fitting method
(e.g., least squares) to obtain the best-fitting parameters. The Variable PL10 (n 5 12) PL20 (n 5 12) FL (n 5 11) ANOVA
coefficient of determination (R2) is used to assess the fit of the Age (y) 21.3 6 1.7 21.4 6 1.1 22.0 6 2.4 0.771
regression model. Experience (y) 8.8 6 2.3 8.6 6 2.1 8.8 6 2.0 0.842
  Height (cm) 172.5 6 7.6 173.5 6 8 173.6 6 8.9 0.805
Y ¼ y0 1 A 3 exp 2 0:5 3 ð½x 2 xc =wÞ2 Body mass (kg) 62.4 6 8.1 64.9 6 8.6 69.4 6 12.8 0.452
Lean body mass (kg) 48.9 6 4.4 50.3 6 5.4 53.9 6 6.8 0.159
BF% 21.1 6 5.9 22.1 6 4.1 16.6 6 5.4 0.273
1RM (kg) 74.8 6 8.3 74.1 6 8.5 74.7 6 9.1 0.989
*BF% 5 total body fat percentage; 1RM 5 1 repetition maximum; ANOVA 5 analysis of variance;
Results PL10 5 the group that trained with a mean power loss of 10% in each set; PL20 5 the group that
trained with a mean power loss of 20% in each set; FL 5 standardized fixed-load prescription.
All variables analyzed displayed homogeneity and normal dis- †Data are presented as mean 6 SD.
tribution of data (p . 0.05). Table 3 shows that there were no ‡Significant differences between PL10, PL20, and FL groups in mean values: *p , 0.05,
significant differences in the descriptive variables analyzed **p , 0.01, ***p , 0.001.

660
 Application of Power Loss During Squat Training (2024) 38:4 | www.nsca.com

Table 4
Descriptive characteristics of the squat training program performed in 3 groups.*†
Actually
performed Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Session 5 Session 6 Session 7 Session 8 Session 9 Session 10
Training load
Sets 3 % 43;80 % 43;60 % 43;85 % 4 3 70 % 4 3 85 % 4 3 65 % 4 3 85 % 4 3 65 % 4 3 90 %1RM 4 3 60 %
1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM
Rep/set
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

PL10 6.4 6 2.0 9.7 6 2.8 6.7 6 1.7 9.9 6 2.3 6.3 6 1.3 9.7 6 2.9 7.2 6 1.2 9.9 6 2.4 6.4 6 1.3 9.0 6 1.9
PL20 7.7 6 1.7 12.2 6 2.0 7.6 6 1.1 12.9 6 1.6 8.3 6 1.5 13.1 6 1.9 8.7 6 1.2 12.9 6 1.7 7.3 6 1.2 15.6 6 2.4
FL 7.5 6 0.8 18.5 6 1.4* 5.5 6 0.8* 11.5 6 0.9** 5.5 6 0.8*** 15.8 6 0.5*** 5.5 6 0.8*** 15.6 6 0.7*** 3.6 6 0.5*** 19.3 6 1.0***
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 11/13/2024

CV 11.6 11.1 14.7 12.2 12.9 11.9 12.8 11.2 10.1 12.9
Rep/session
PL10 25.6 6 8.0 38.7 6 11.4 26.9 6 6.6 39.6 6 9.1 25.3 6 5.3 38.7 6 11.7 28.7 6 5.0 39.7 6 9.5 25.5 6 5.0 36.1 6 7.6
PL20 30.8 6 6.7 48.7 6 8.2 30.3 6 4.5 51.5 6 6.4 33.0 6 6.1 52.5 6 7.7 34.8 6 4.9 57.5 6 8.7 29.2 6 4.8 62.2 6 9.7
FL 31 6 2.8 74 6 5.7* 22 6 3.0* 46 6 3.7** 22 6 3.0*** 61 6 1.9*** 22 6 3.0*** 62 6 1.9.*** 14.5 6 2.1*** 77 6 4.1***
Volume load
PL10 1,540 6 572 1,801 6 604 1,612 6 380 2,088 6 601 1,598 6 343 1,862 6 576 1,796 6 325 1,893 6 441 1,706 6 394 1,627 6 445
PL20 1,835 6 367 2,202 6 409 1,842 6 349 2,700 6 509 2,098 6 363 2,546 6 430 2,203 6 367 2,480 6 373 1,937 6 281 2,834 6 670
FL 1,776 6 338 3,267 6 497* 1,295 6 246** 2,370 6 362 1,381 6 3,010 6 1,370 6 2,985 6 961 6 190*** 3,402 6 492
290*** 367*** 227*** 380***

Actually
performed Session 11 Session 12 Session 13 Session 14 Session 15 Session 16 Session 17 Session 18 Session 19 Session 20
Training load
Sets 3 %1RM 4 3 90 % 4 3 65 % 4 3 90 % 4 3 65 % 4 3 90 % 4 3 65 % 3 3 90 % 3 3 60 % 3 3 95 % 3 3 65 %
1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM
Rep/set
PL10 6.9 6 1.2 9.7 6 1.8 6.2 6 4.4 10.3 6 2.7 5.2 6 1.3 10.2 6 3.0 6.7 6 1.6 13.2 6 4.0 6.5 6 1.5 12.6 6 3.4
PL20 7.4 6 0.6 15.8 6 1.6 7.5 6 0.7 16.3 6 2.5 7.9 6 1.1 16.4 6 2.5 8.3 6 1.7 16.7 6 1.3 7.1 6 1.2 19.7 6 3.3
FL 3.8 6 0.5*** 15.5 6 3.8 6 0.5*** 15.6 6 3.9 6 0.4*** 15.5 6 3.9 6 0.4*** 15.4 6 0.7* 2.8 6 0.5*** 15.5 6
0.8*** 0.7*** 0.8*** 0.8***
CV 17.6 7.7 13.2 14.1 13.7 15.9 12 16.5 16.3 12.6
Rep/session
PL10 27.5 6 4.9 38.6 6 7.2 24.9 6 4.4 41.3 6 10.9 20.9 6 5.3 40.6 6 11.8 20.1 6 4.8 39.6 6 12.1 19.4 6 4.4 37.6 6 10.3
PL20 29.7 6 2.5 63.4 6 6.4 29.9 6 2.9 65.4 6 9.9 31.6 6 4.6 65.4 6 9.9 24.9 6 5.0 50.2 6 4.0 21.2 6 3.5 59.1 6 9.8
FL 15 6 1.9*** 62 6 3.0*** 15 6 1.9*** 62.5 6 15.5 6 62 6 3.0*** 11.6 6 46.1 6 2.2* 8.3 6 1.4*** 46.5 6
3.0*** 1.4*** 1.1*** 2.3***
Volume load
PL10 1,895 6 471 1,882 6 482 1,680 6 413 1,980 6 511 1,415 6 439 1,968 6 566 1,284 6 279 2,040 6 843 1,386 6 409 1,828 6 588
PL20 2,041 6 279 3,099 6 452 1,982 6 282 3,157 6 632 2,138 6 320 3,234 6 672 1,654 6 336 2,550 6 388 1,505 6 304 2,922 6 605
FL 990 6 152* 2,971 6 995 6 2,985 6 1,028 6 961 6 771 6 2,205 6 291*** 578 6 128*** 2,221 6
439*** 184*** 380*** 169*** 378*** 127*** 282***
*PL10 5 the group that trained with a mean power loss of 10% in each set; PL20 5 the group that trained with a mean power loss of 20% in each set; FL 5 standardized fixed-load prescription; CV 5
coefficient of variation of actual number of repetitions performed in each set in 3 groups; PL 5 magnitude of power loss expressed as percent loss in mean repetition power from the fastest to the slowest
repetition of each set. Volume load 5 repetitions 3 external load (kg).
†Data are presented as mean 6 SD. Significant differences between PL10, PL20, and FL groups in mean values: *p , 0.05, **p , 0.01, ***p , 0.001.

intensity of load during periodized RT interventions, as opposed As shown in Figure 3, volume load per session (1750 kg) and
to standardized load prescriptions. However, when it comes to the number of repetitions per session (about 28) in the PL10
low to moderate intensity, the training volume tends to follow group were distributed as a “single peak”; the number of repeti-
standardized FL prescriptions, gradually transitioning from 10 to tions in the PL20 group showed a “double peak,” whereas the
20% thresholds, as monitored by PL. volume load was distributed as a “single peak” (;2000 kg). The
FL was the only group in which both the volume load per session
and the number of repetitions per session were distributed as a
Visual Distribution Analysis
“double peak” (Figure 3A, B). Significant differences (p , 0.001)
The study visualized the following variables: (a) the number of were observed in the SD of the number of repetitions (Figure 3C)
repetitions per session and volume load and (b) the SD of vol- and volume load (Figure 3D) per set during a week between
ume load and number of repetitions per week. To compare the groups. Specifically, the PL10, PL20, and FL showed a graded
differences in training volume performed between the given PL increasing distribution (PL10 , PL20 , FL, p , 0.01–0.001). In
threshold monitoring and the standardized FL prescription, the other words, the FL group performed the highest degree of dis-
distribution of training volume for the 3 programs under persion in the number of repetitions in 2 sessions during the same
waveform periodization was compared using ridge and violin week, and the dispersion in the number of repetitions per session
plots. decreased with a lower PL threshold.

661
 Application of Power Loss During Squat Training (2024) 38:4

As given in Table 5 and shown in Figure 3, the PL10 group

Total volume load Average power/set

*PL 5 magnitude of power loss expressed as percent loss in mean repetition power from the fastest to the slowest repetition of each set; PL10 5 the group that trained with a mean power loss of 10% in each set (n 5 12); PL20 5 the group that trained with a mean power loss of 20%
in each set (n 5 12); FL 5 standardized fixed-load prescription (n 5 11); average rep/set 5 average number of repetitions performed in each set; average volume load/session 5 average volume load performed in each session; average power/set 5 average power output performed
76
76
76
346.7 6 18.6*
377.8 6 51.2
339.9 6 24.5

sets
performed higher training volume under high intensity and lower

All

in each set; total rep or total volume load 5 total number of repetitions or volume load performed during the training program; CV 5 coefficient of variation; rep/set 5 actual number of repetitions performed in each set; volume load 5 repetitions 3 external load (kg).
volume under low-to-moderate intensity compared with the FL

(W)
group. This resulted in a more neutralized distribution of number

Average intensity (%
of repetitions and volume load between high and low-to-

76.1 6 12.7
76.3 6 12.7
76.1 6 12.9
moderate intensity for the PL10 group.

11,145 6 1788***
15,483 6 2,729
18,888 6 2,175
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

Power Loss–Based Autoregulation Model

(kg)

1RM)
The GuassAmp model for nonlinear curve fitting was used to an-
alyze the number of repetitions and intensity of load data during the
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 11/13/2024

intervention period. The model fit was evaluated by the R2 of the

Volume

20.95
19.36
load

13.9
fitted curve. The fitting results in Table 6 showed a decrease in the
80–95% 1RM
Average volume load/

CV

number of repetitions as the intensity of load (%1RM values) in-

1,115 6 179***
1,590 6 233
1924 6 185
session (kg)

creased. A gradual slowdown was observed for PL10 and PL20 in

22.77
18.98
16.74
Rep/
set

the range of approximately $85%1RM, as shown in Figure 4. The

R2 value of PL10 was 0.46, indicating that the model accounted for
46% of the variability in the target variable.
Average power/set

312.6 6 64.5**
348.8 6 60.0
323.1 6 38.7
(W)

Maximal Strength
175.9 6 14.4***
237.2 6 28.8
290.0 6 34.2
Total rep

Although no significant differences were observed between the 3

groups in maximal strength (Figure 5A) and group 3 time in-
teractions, we noted small practical differences between the PL
groups and FL group, which was supported by the magnitude of
39,521 6 5,459***
Total volume load

34,288 6 5,336
46,153 6 5,357
Total volume load Average power/set Average rep/

ES and percentage differences. All 3 groups showed a significant

4.6 6 1.4***
6.8 6 1.9
7.8 6 1.3

increase in 1RM strength (PL10 ES 5 2.98, PL20 ES 5 3.14, and

(kg)
set

FL ES 5 1.90; p , 0.001), as shown in Table 7.

Jump Performance
318.3 6 34.9
305.4 6 22.0
28,376 6 3,715*** 281.4 6 27.1***

Average volume load/session

All 3 groups exhibited significant improvements in jump-related

(W)

performances (p , 0.05–0.001), but in different ways. The results

1,976 6 985***

from Table 7 indicated a significant group 3 time interaction for

1,746 6 524
2,350 6 656

CMJA and MVJ. Specifically, the PL20 group demonstrated the

Overall training

(kg)

greatest improvement in CMJA, with a 23.4% increase (ES 5 1.5, p

‡Significant differences between PL10, PL20, and FL groups in mean values: *p , 0.05, **p , 0.01, ***p , 0.001.
18,805 6 3,479
27,266 6 4,085

, 0.05), surpassing both the PL10 and FL groups. In addition, PL20

displayed a significantly higher gain in RSI (146.9%, ES 5 1.64)
(kg)

compared with FL (121.4%, ES 5 0.51) (Figure 5B) (p , 0.001).

Subgroup analysis of different intensity of load between groups.*†‡

Both PL (PL10 and PL20) groups exhibited superior improvement (p

, 0.05–0.001) in MVJ compared with the FL group (Figure 5E).
777.5 6 35.4***
629.7 6 67.7
844.3 6 52.5
60–70% 1RM
Average volume load/

Total rep
2,838 6 371***
1,904 6 386
2,776 6 398

Sprint Ability and Change of Direction Performance

session

Significant group 3 time interactions were observed for T20M

and COD (Table 7). The sprint performance of PL20 was en-
hanced by 3.6% (p , 0.05), whereas there were no significant
38.9 6 23.2**
Average rep/

31.8 6 11.0
43.1 6 16.2

differences in PL10 (22.0%, p . 0.05) and FL (21.1%, p . 0.05)

session

(Table 2 and Figure 5C). However, only PL10 showed significant

15.8 6 2.1*** 601.6 6 21.7***
392.6 6 67.1
554.3 6 48.7
Total rep

improvement in LCOD and RCOD by 5.1 and 3.1%, respectively

(p , 0.01–0.001), whereas no significant differences were ob-
served in LCOD and RCOD for FL and RCOD for PL20. Positive
10.2 6 5.9***
Average rep/

effects on LCOD and RCOD performance (p , 0.01–0.001) were

8.4 6 3.1
11.4 6 4.4
Average rep/

only induced by PL10.

set
10.5 6 3.0
15.0 6 3.4

†Data are presented as mean 6 SD.

set

Discussion
This study was the first to analyze the chronic effects of 3-arm RT
volume programs, comparing PL-based autoregulation (PL10
Table 5

performed

performed

and PL20) and standardized FL prescription. The primary find-

Actually

Actually

ings indicated significant improvements in maximal strength for

PL10
PL20

PL10
PL20

all groups, with the PL-based autoregulation approach displaying

FL

FL

662
 Application of Power Loss During Squat Training (2024) 38:4 | www.nsca.com
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 11/13/2024

Figure 2. Subgroup analysis comparing number of repetitions (A) and volume load (B) performed across different load
intensity ranges.

663
 Application of Power Loss During Squat Training (2024) 38:4
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 11/13/2024

Figure 3. Visual representation of the distribution and SD of total number of repetitions and volume load. A) Visual repre-
sentation of the distribution of total number of repetitions per session, (B) visual representation of the distribution of volume
load per session, (C) SD of the training volume in 2 sessions in a week, and (D) SD of the volume load in 2 sessions in a week
across the 3 RT volume programs. Statistically significant differences: *p , 0.05, **p , 0.01, ***p , 0.001.

664
 Application of Power Loss During Squat Training (2024) 38:4 | www.nsca.com

Table 6
Fitting results of GaussAmp model.*†‡
y0 xc w A R2 r
PL10 21.1 6 2.9 62.1 6 4.0 13.6 6 4.3 19.4 6 3.2 0.46 0.634***
PL20 63.2 6 4.7 93.3 6 2.9 15.1 6 3.8 236.4 6 5.3 0.72 0.844***
FL 250.6 6 359.9 2321.3 6 12,945.5 143.4 6 2,638.7 4,005.6 6 452,824.0 0.89 0.944***
*y0 5 background constant; xc 5 peak position; w 5 peak width; A 5 amplitude; R2 5 coefficient of determination; r 5 Pearson’s correlation coefficients.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

†Data are presented as mean 6 SD.

‡Statistically significant correlation: *p , 0.05; **p , 0.01, ***p , 0.001.
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 11/13/2024

a slight advantage over the standardized FL prescription, dem- have already confirmed that performing a small volume is in-
onstrating greater within-group ESs and percentage changes. sufficient to improve sports performance. However, the training
Regarding sports performance, the PL10 group was effective in volume monitored by PL20 seems to be beneficial for improving
improving change-of-direction ability, whereas the PL20 group lean mass and power adaptation, particularly for enhancing jump
was more beneficial in optimizing jumping and sprinting perfor- and sprint ability, which are crucial for basketball athletes (44).
mance. Moreover, the PL-based autoregulation induced higher Thus, it seems that objective PL-based volume autoregulation,
volume than the standardized FL prescriptions at high-intensity particularly for PL10, results in a higher efficiency in dose re-
loads and was also effective in increasing individual LBM. The sponse of RT.
data suggest that using the PL-based autoregulation produces a All groups experienced significant increases in maximal
more efficient dose response, especially at a 10% PL threshold. strength. The groups using PL-based autoregulation showed
Therefore, setting appropriate PL thresholds to objectively slightly greater strength gains than the group using standardized
quantify individual fatigue and effort by monitoring RT volume FL (PL10: 33.0% and 2.98; PL20: 35.6% and 3.14; and FL: 26%
in a long-term periodized RT program seem to be a practical and and 1.9). The subtle advantage observed for the 1RM gain could
effective means of optimizing performance. be attributed to a specific adaptation in the RT volume. Specifi-
An unexpected discovery regarding acute effects was that the cally, during the waveform periodization, PL10 and PL20 per-
PL-based autoregulation exhibited a lower effect of fit compared formed significantly more training volume than FL at high-
with standardized prescriptions, particularly for small magnitude intensity loads (80–;95% 1RM) prescribed during odd-
loss thresholds. The fitting model and visualized results yielded an numbered training sessions. Fixed-load completed only 60% of
interesting observation: in RT programs designed to enhance the total repetitions and total volume load compared with PL20
absolute strength under high intensity of load (80–95% 1RM), (p , 0.001). According to the principle of specificity, previous
the number of repetitions and volume load for autoregulation literature (33) has stated that the increase in strength in the force-
were significantly greater than those of standardized prescrip- velocity curve of 1RM adaptation depends on the load used (%
tions. Conversely, for training sessions focused on muscle hy- 1RM), with gains in maximal strength and explosive strength
pertrophy or endurance with low-to-moderate intensity of load coming mainly from high-intensity or low-volume RT stimuli (5),
(60–70% 1RM), PL10 resulted in fewer repetitions. The existing whereas muscle hypertrophy can be achieved equally at different
literature (12) has suggested a strong correlation between the load ranges (33). During prolonged periodized RT, the fluctua-
magnitude of VL and the total achievable repetitions in a non- tions of positive effects (increase in strength performance) and
muscle failure state. However, the number of repetitions to failure negative impacts (life stress and fatigue) will change an athlete’s
at a given %1RM shows high variability between individuals daily state (10). Furthermore, using PL-based volume autor-
(29), meaning that the training volume prescribed in a strength egulation enables individuals to perform more repetitions to
training session may not provide the intended training stimulus match the absolute intensity of their training goal, in addition to
for each individual. Although the theoretical advantages of VL- frequently updating their 1RM (29). Recent research has also
based autoregulatory RT volume over standardized FL are rec- suggested that FL may underestimate the potential number of
ognized, the chronic adaptation differences between them have repetitions, which is in line with these findings (29). Instead, by
not been studied. Moreover, individuals who used PL-monitored monitoring acute neuromuscular fatigue through PL during
and standardize FL methods to complete different repetitions may training, a proper increase in high-intensity repetitions can lead to
obtain varying degrees of neuromuscular and metabolic adapta- a small favorable effect on strength gain than the FL prescriptions.
tion with innovative monitored parameters. The superiority of As mentioned in the Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands
different percentages of PL in comparison to a predetermined principle and Progressive Overload theory (20), the finding can be
number of repetitions remains unknown. Therefore, direct attributed to both the monitoring of the subjects’ fatigue levels
evidence-based validation of the effects of different RT volumes is and the accurate identification of individual effort, which induce a
necessary. After 10 weeks of wave-like periodization structure, specific RT stimulus (5). It is worth noting that these subtle ad-
the total number of repetitions and total volume load completed vantages are important, particularly for trained individuals. Pre-
by the PL20 group were more than those of the PL10 and FL vious study (40) has shown that FL can result in greater gains in
groups. The PL10 group completed the least training volume and strength and power when compared to RTF with equivalent
the highest average power output. The comprehensive data seem volume, while also helping to decrease the risks of injury and
to indicate that monitoring a 10% PL threshold to RT during the overtraining. Furthermore, a previous randomized controlled
preseason period induced a low-training, low-neuromuscular study conducted by Held et al. (15) found that VL10 led to lower
fatigue but a high-power output training stimulus. However, it is mechanical stress and greater strength adaptation compared with
important to note that a certain level of fatigue is necessary to RTF. However, no previous study has directly investigated the
achieve muscle and strength growth. Pareja-Blanco et al. (24) comparison between objective autoregulation and FL. Regarding

665
 Application of Power Loss During Squat Training (2024) 38:4

VL-based autoregulation, the existing evidence regarding its ef-

ficacy in improving strength remains inconclusive.
According to a recent review (17), using low-to-moderate
percentages of VL (#25%) has a greater impact on improving
muscle strength compared with high VL (.25%). This effect was
more apparent among subjects who had undergone other training
during the intervention, as in the present study. Some researchers
(16) have suggested that RT monitored by low VL (#15%)
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

benefits strength adaptations. Similarly, a recent detailed meta-

analysis (19) found that higher VL thresholds (.30%) are ben-
eficial for enhancing muscle hypertrophy, whereas lower VL
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 11/13/2024

thresholds (#15%) are more beneficial for improving sports

performance, such as jumping and sprinting. The analysis also
showed that muscle strength gains are not solely dependent on the
VL threshold but also on other factors, such as the selected
strength level of the exercise (19). Differences in these findings
may be due to varying VL threshold divisions, statistical differ-
ences, and researcher heterogeneity. Direct studies, taking into
account percentage differences and within-group ESs, suggest
that moderate VL thresholds are superior to both low VL (VL
0%) and high VL (VL 30–50%) (24,31). This is because low VL is
insufficient for significant improvements in stimuli and fails to
maximize adaptation (24). By contrast, high VL for training
volume implies suboptimal chronic strength adaptation close to
momentary muscle failure, without inducing further strength
gains. Rodrı́guez-Rosell et al. (30) found a curvilinear relation-
ship between VL thresholds and changes in strength, sprint, and
CMJ performance when using sets of back squats with load
magnitudes ranging from 70 to 85% of 1RM. To better un-
derstand the optimal training adaptations for different competi-
tive performances, future studies should aim to comprehensively
investigate these thresholds. However, caution should be taken
when comparing these studies because of the use of different
monitor parameters (e.g., VL). In addition, the subjects were in
the preseason preparatory period, which required more moni-
toring of neuromuscular fatigue during RT. These findings may
be somewhat limited by sample sizes and differences in training
statuses across studies.
Although all groups showed significant improvements in jump
performance, there was a graded effect relationship without a
linear relationship between training volume and adaptation. It is
worth noting that there was a significant interaction between
CMJA and MVJ (p , 0.05). In recent years, studies have in-
vestigated the effect of different monitored loss thresholds on
vertical jump adaptation, but their results differ from the present
study. For example, Pareja-Blanco et al. (25) found that per-
forming Smith RT twice a week with autoregulated volume at
VL20 or VL40 for 8 weeks resulted in VL20 being more effective
than VL40 in CMJ height. Similarly, Pareja-Blanco et al. (24)
found that VL10 led to greater improvement in CMJ height than
VL30 and VL45, which may be due to high VL inducing training
close to failure, thereby reducing CMJ gain and mechanical
power (11). Improvements in jumping performance are primarily
influenced by 2 factors, 1 of which is the enhancement of kine-
matic parameters. According to scientific literature (7), strength
gains achieved through RT can enhance peak performance vari-
Figure 4. Results of nonlinear fitting models between number of repetitions and ables and improve force-time characteristics, specifically the rate
%1RM. A) The PL10 group, (B) the PL20 group, and (C) the FL groups. of force development (RFD) and external mechanical power. In
addition, a recent study (18) found a positive correlation between

666
 Application of Power Loss During Squat Training (2024) 38:4 | www.nsca.com

Table 7
Results of all outcomes in the pre and post for each group.*†‡
Pre Post ES (90% CI) Meandiff Time effect Group 3 time
Lean body mass 0.215 0.012
LBM-PL10 (kg) 48.2 6 4.0 49.3 6 5.0* 0.23 (0.13–0.39) 1.09 6 0.9
LBM-PL20 (kg) 50.4 6 5.4 51.1 6 5.6* 0.13 (0.03–0.25) 0.73 6 0.6
LBM-FL (kg) 53.9 6 6.8 53.5 6 7.3 20.06 (20.17 to 0.02) 20.48 6 0.8
Maximal strength
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

1RM-PL10 (kg) 74.3 6 8.1 98.9 6 7.7*** 2.98 (2.33–4.10) 24.5 6 2.4 <0.001 0.445
1RM-PL20 (kg) 74.1 6 8.5 100.5 6 7.6*** 3.14 (2.43–4.34) 26.4 6 3.3
1RM-FL (kg) 74.7 6 9.1 94.1 6 10.2*** 1.90 (1.21–3.04) 19.4 6 6.7
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 11/13/2024

Jump performance
CMJA-PL10 (cm) 34.7 6 6.9 39.6 6 5.9** 0.74 (0.44–1.17) 4.5 6 2.08 0.015 0.03
CMJA-PL20 (cm) 32.8 6 4.4 40.5 6 5.3*** 1.50 (1.14–2.13) 7.67 6 3.03
CMJA-FL (cm) 33.2 6 6.2 36.6 6 6.6* 0.50 (0.17–0.96) 3.41 6 2.44
RSI-PL10 (m·s21) 0.78 6 0.21 1.02 6 0.26* 0.96 (0.42–1.66) 0.24 6 0.16 0.006 0.613
RSI-PL20 (m·s21) 0.64 6 0.13 0.94 6 0.21*** 1.64 (1.14–2.42) 0.30 6 0.11
RSI-FL (m·s21) 0.70 6 0.25 0.89 6 0.27* 0.51 (0.02–1.13) 0.15 6 0.15
MVJ-PL10 (cm) 47.4 6 8.9 54.1 6 9.3** 0.71 (0.43–1.15) 6.73 6 2.6 0.073 0.04
MVJ-PL20 (cm) 47.3 6 11.1 54.1 6 11.9*** 0.67 (0.27–1.07) 6.76 6 3.3
MVJ-FL (cm) 48.3 6 9.5 50.7 6 9.4* 0.25 (0.08–0.49) 2.44 6 1.8
COD performance
LCOD-PL10 (s) 2.76 6 0.16 2.62 6 0.17*** 20.79 (21.22 to 20.51) 20.14 6 0.05 0.005 0.025
LCOD-PL20 (s) 2.72 6 0.18 2.61 6 0.09* 20.75 (21.58 to 20.08) 20.11 6 0.12
LCOD-FL (s) 2.78 6 0.29 2.76 6 0.23 20.05 (20.14 to 0.02) 20.02 6 0.05
RCOD-PL10 (s) 2.66 6 0.15 2.58 6 0.14** 20.53 (20.83 to 20.29) 20.08 6 0.04 0.224 0.017
RCOD-PL20 (s) 2.69 6 0.17 2.63 6 0.18 20.37 (20.72 to 20.09) 20.07 6 0.06
RCOD-FL (s) 2.73 6 0.24 2.75 6 0.23 0.08 (20.10 to 0.28) 0.02 6 0.05
Sprint performance
T20M-PL10 (s) 3.43 6 0.15 3.36 6 0.19 20.39 (20.74 to 20.13) 20.07 6 0.05 0.408 0.259
T20M-PL20 (s) 3.58 6 0.22 3.46 6 0.18* 20.57 (20.93 to 20.30) 20.12 6 0.06
T20M-FL (s) 3.60 6 0.18 3.56 6 0.21 20.21 (20.5 to 0.02) 20.04 6 0.05
*ES 5 effect size with group; CI 5 confidence interval; Meandiff 5 mean difference; PL10 5 the group that trained with a mean power loss of 10% in each set (n 5 12); PL20 5 the group that trained with a
mean power loss of 20% in each set (n 5 12); FL 5 standardized fixed-load prescription (n 5 11); LBM 5 lean body mass; 1RM 5 1 repetition maximum; CMJA 5 countermovement jump with arms; RSI 5
reactive strength index; MVJ 5 maximum vertical jump; LCOD 5 left-dominant leg in the 505 change-of-direction test; RCOD 5 right-dominant leg in the 505 change-of-direction test; T20M 5 20-m sprint
time.
†Data are mean 6 SD and significant results are in bold, p values calculated using Bonferroni adjustment.
‡Intragroup significant differences from Pre to Post: *p , 0.05, **p , 0.01, ***p , 0.001.

RSI and strength measurements. It is important to note that the specific adaptations to motor performance. Research (38) has
development of underlying kinetic and kinematic parameters in shown that subtle differences in maximal strength gains among
RT, such as mean power (22), is critical for improving RSI. En- groups can contribute to understanding these differences, as can
hancing individual strength and its potential effects can contrib- differences in the degree to which strength gains transfer to
ute to optimizing force-time characteristics, general motor skill jumping performance. The extent to which strength gains trans-
performance, and specific performance (38). Several evidence- late to actual sports performance may depend on various training
based studies (23,24) have shown that VL10 can effectively im- stimuli monitored by PL-based autoregulation, including the de-
prove the ability for early RFD, whereas higher VL (25–50%) gree of fatigue and effort generated in each group. After 10 weeks
improves late RFD but impairs early RFD (23,24). Another re- of preseason periodization, it can be concluded that PL20 induced
view (38) has reported a moderate-to-high correlation between more favorable jump performance adaptations compared with
maximal strength and jump performance. The second factor is the PL10 and FL. The adaptation mechanism behind the higher total
mechanism for the differences in training volume across RT training volume, which did not cause excessive fatigue, favored
programs. High training volume not only limits the ability of athletes with schedule-intensive specific training and additional
muscle fibers to generate maximal strength because of fatigue but training schedules. These findings may be limited to some extent
also reduces the maximum speed and relaxation speed, resulting by the fact that the study only involved basketball players. Future
in decreased training power output, and may even impair RFD at studies on this topic with different subject groups are therefore
higher speeds (1). Conversely, too little training volume is in- recommended.
sufficient to induce the expected resistance stimulation and level Significant differences (group 3 time, p , 0.05) were observed
of fatigue (24). These findings are consistent with the conclusions in COD performance, which may be partially due to improve-
of the aforementioned meta-analysis (19), which emphasizes that ments in 1RM, RSI, and LBM. In team sports, COD performance
a low-to-moderate loss threshold (VL0-30%) in RT is a feasible during high-speed sprints is essential for success (35). There are
strategy to optimize jumping performance. In fact, it is imprecise several possible explanations for the results of COD performance.
to draw conclusions about adaptations based solely on the Most research suggested that there is a strong relationship be-
monitored threshold range. Even small differences in the amount tween muscle strength (including maximal strength, power, and
of VL, accurate to just 10%, could result in different chronic reactive strength) and COD performance (35,38), with some

667
 Application of Power Loss During Squat Training (2024) 38:4
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 11/13/2024

Figure 5. Individual mean change in maximal strength and sports performance variables from Pre to Post. A) Back squat 1RM,
(B) reactive strength index in the drop jump test, (C) 20-m sprint time, (D) 505 change-of-direction test with left-dominant and
right-dominant leg, and (E) countermovement jump with arms height and maximum vertical jump height for the PL10, PL20, and
FL groups.

suggesting that strength is a major factor. Recent reviews have limit (approximately VL20%) in a set may lead to invalid repe-
also shown that there is a negative connection between RSI and titions, fatigue, and impaired sprint performance because of ex-
COD speed (38). In addition, the body composition and physical cessive training volume (25). In this regard, only PL20 was found
adaptations of athletes can affect their ability to change direction to significantly improve T20M in the present study. Similar with
quickly (35). For example, elite female basketball players require jumping performance, there might also exist a training dose of
different types of strength for deceleration and maintaining body chronic neuromuscular adaptation that improved sprinting abil-
position, with more agile players having greater LBM and lower ity. PL20 achieved this without excessive fatigue and unnecessary
overall body mass (35), which means they must produce more repetition by monitoring neuromuscular fatigue. On the other
force per unit of LBM to achieve specific changes in speed or hand, there was no significant difference in T20M for PL10,
direction. These findings highlighted the importance of de- which had the least total training volume (p 5 0.06 . 0.05).
veloping overall strength and increasing LBM to improve COD However, it is important to note that there is some uncertainty
performance (9,35). The negative results in COD performance in because of differences in baseline T20M values and within-group
the FL group were partly because of baseline body mass and ESs for PL10, which could lead to bias and type II errors. The
changes in lean mass. The literature suggested that stronger ath- uncertainty surrounding how the chronic effects of PL thresholds
letes typically exhibit better RFD and power, resulting in better may be modulated presents an intriguing avenue for further
COD performance (38). This helped to explain why PL10 saw a research.
beneficial effect in COD gains than the other groups. In addition, The present study aimed not only to analyze the improvement
a practical study (9) has shown a higher correlation between of strength and power during the preseason but also to clarify
nondominant leg and strength gain in the 505 test. As most ath- the relationship between body composition and neuromuscular
letes view their left leg as nondominant, LCOD showed signifi- adaptations. Athletes benefit from increasing their LBM and
cant time effects instead of RCOD, supporting this claim. Further muscle mass because it serves as a foundation for specific tech-
research is necessary to provide a more definitive explanation for nical skills and sports performance (36). A previous study (28)
these interesting findings. has shown a correlation between high LBM and athletic per-
Previous studies (30,31) have shown that low VL (VL5-10%) formance, particularly in strength and explosive power, jump-
and moderate VL (VL15-25%) during RT with full squat using ing, and sprinting ability. Therefore, most athletes include these
the Smith machine can have similar or even better effects on short- parameters in their primary strength and conditioning training
distance sprint performance compared with higher VL thresholds programs. Marx et al. (21) found that women who engaged in
(VL $ 30%). This viewpoint has been supported by previous multiple sets of high-volume RT for 12 weeks experienced a
direct studies and recent reviews (16,19). Exceeding a certain VL greater increase in resting serum testosterone, IGF-1, and LBM

668
 Application of Power Loss During Squat Training (2024) 38:4 | www.nsca.com

while simultaneously reducing body fat, as compared to low-

volume single-set training. The evidence is similar with the ex- Practical Applications
perimental design of the present study, where the only difference
Athletes in both individual and team sports frequently train
between the 2 groups is the total number of repetitions per week.
and compete during the season, requiring effective manage-
Limited research (27) has confirmed that RT with exercise
ment of RT fatigue to meet the demands of event performance
autoregulation may provide a slight advantage in LBM and
and sport-specific training. By monitoring PL, conditioning
upper-body maximal strength compared with predetermined
coaches can autoregulate individual fatigue and level of effort,
fixed training. The subjects using autoregulation were allowed
avoid unnecessary repetitions and excessive training volume
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

to determine their repetition range or choice of motion (13),

that do not contribute to desired training effects, and optimize
optimizing the adaptation process of strength training through
RT programs to maximize chronic neuromuscular adaptation
the manipulation of different training variables (4,27,39). Ob-
and sports performance, as well as result in a more efficient
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 11/13/2024

jective volume autoregulation enables real-time monitoring and

dose response. Therefore, strength and conditioning profes-
adjustment of training volume based on an athlete’s strength
sionals should consider specific training goals and choose an
performance, mechanical training stress, recovery, and prepa-
appropriate PL during RT to objectively quantify individual
ration (13,17,41), offering more potential benefits than stan-
fatigue and effort. Current research suggested that using a
dardized training volume protocols. These adaptations did not
moderate PL threshold of 20% (PL20) may be a superior and
follow an inverted “U”-shaped relationship, and the improve-
comprehensive training program for maximizing training
ment in LBM explained the underlying physiological adaptation
adaptations. In addition, reasonably increasing high-intensity
mechanisms that contribute to the differences in the magnitude
repetitions may replicate the effects of objective autor-
of improvement in performance in other sports. A plausible
egulation in long-term RT. However, the interpretation of fit
explanation for the observed increase in LBM with PL20
model is limited by sample size. If the model is proven effective
training was muscle hypertrophy (24) and specific remodeling of
in future studies, an improved training prescription may be an
muscle types, such as the transformation from IIX to IIA fibers
alternative to autoregulated training with monitoring, which
(43). However, this interesting finding indicated differences in
is beneficial for a large population of training individuals who
the dose response of PL10 and FL. Therefore, it is possible that
cannot afford expensive monitoring devices. As sports science
the dose-response relationship between PL-based volume
advances and velocity-based training becomes more popular,
autoregulation and standardized volume prescription may not
practitioners should be aware that power-based RT may soon
be the same concept. These findings should be interpreted with
become prevalent. Further research on movement power may
caution and will require further scrutiny in future research.
refine power-based RT. Future research should explore load
There were some inherent limitations in the study. First, the
autoregulation based on load-power relationships, volume
sample size may not have been representative of the pop-
autoregulation with different PL thresholds, the differences
ulation, thereby restricting the scope and applicability of the
between PL-based autoregulation and VL-based autor-
research findings. Second, muscular endurance and hypertro-
egulation, and the application of PL autoregulation to differ-
phy tests were not conducted during the preseason preparatory
ent sports populations. Monitoring power during RT is an
period, where the primary goal was to gain strength and focus
important aspect of strength training program, and the con-
on power. Finally, it should be noted that the power data
cept of power monitoring is not confined solely to RT but can
obtained in this study were based on barbells because there is
also be extended to nonstatic training modalities beyond
currently no technological device available for monitoring RT
strength training. By integrating power output monitoring
by measuring power. Therefore, future studies should consider
into RT routines, individuals can enhance their performance
improving the experimental design and increasing the sample
to a new level and benefit from novel and promising
size. For example, including more diverse sports populations
autoregulation.
and off-season athletes could help validate the long-term effect
of the fitted model and the feasibility of monitoring training
based on PL.
The present study provided new evidence on the effects of Acknowledgments
objectively autoregulating volume and standardized FL pre-
scription on sports performance and LBM. In addition, the study J. Sun and D. Li are considered as co-corresponding authors. M.
demonstrated the feasibility of power-based RT. Our main find- Zhang and Z. Huang contributed to the work equally and should
ing suggested that PL10 autoregulation resulted in a more effi- be regarded as co-first authors. We would like to express our
cient dose response and neuromuscular performance compared gratitude to the players from basketball team at Guangzhou Sport
with standardized FL prescriptions, especially with a magnitude University for their invaluable contributions as participants in
of 10% PL. Furthermore, PL-based autoregulation showed this study.
greater improvements in LBM and various sports performance
measures, with slight advantages in 1RM strength. Specifically, References
PL10 autoregulation was beneficial for enhancing COD ability,
whereas PL20 autoregulation tended to improve sprint perfor- 1. Allen DG, Lamb GD, Westerblad H. Skeletal muscle fatigue: Cellular
mechanisms. Physiol Rev 88: 287–332, 2008.
mance and vertical jump performance. Consequently, it is es- 2. Askow AT, Stone JD, Arndts DJ, et al. Validity and reliability of a
sential to continuously monitor PL during RT because it allows commercially-available velocity and power testing device. Sports 6: 170,
for the identification of acute neuromuscular fatigue. This ap- 2018.
proach enables individuals to receive a more specific and optimal 3. Banyard HG, Tufano JJ, Weakley JJ, Wu S, Jukic I, Nosaka K. Superior
changes in jump, sprint, and change-of-direction performance but not
RT stimulus while minimizing unnecessary repetitions, thus maximal strength following 6 weeks of velocity-based training compared
aligning stimulation with real-time individual performance and with 1-repetition-maximum percentage-based training. Int J Sports
RT goals. Physiol Perform 16: 232–242, 2021.

669
 Application of Power Loss During Squat Training (2024) 38:4

4. Bird SP, Tarpenning KM, Marino FE. Designing resistance training pro- 25. Pareja-Blanco F, Rodriguez-Rosell D, Sanchez-Medina L, et al. Effects of
grammes to enhance muscular fitness: A review of the acute programme velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance, strength
variables. Sports Med 35: 841–851, 2005. gains and muscle adaptations. Scand J Med Sci Sports 27: 724–735, 2017.
5. Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, et al. Muscular adaptations in 26. Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA. Applications of the dose-response for
response to three different resistance-training regimens: Specificity of muscular strength development: A review of meta-analytic efficacy and re-
repetition maximum training zones. Eur J Appl Physiol 88: 50–60, liability for designing training prescription. J Strength Cond Res 19: 950–958,
2002. 2005.
6. Colquhoun RJ, Gai CM, Walters J, et al. Comparison of powerlifting 27. Rauch JT, Ugrinowitsch C, Barakat CI, et al. Auto-regulated exercise
performance in trained men using traditional and flexible daily undulating selection training regimen produces small increases in lean body mass and
periodization. J Strength Cond Res 31: 283–291, 2017. maximal strength adaptations in strength-trained individuals. J Strength
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

7. Cormie P, McBride JM, McCaulley GO. Power-time, force-time, and Cond Res 34: 1133–1140, 2020.
velocity-time curve analysis of the countermovement jump: Impact of 28. Ribeiro BG, Mota HR, Sampaio-Jorge F, Morales AP, Leite TC. Corre-
training. J Strength Cond Res 23: 177–186, 2009. lation between body composition and the performance of vertical jumps in
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 11/13/2024

8. Cronin J, Sleivert G. Challenges in understanding the influence of maximal basketball players. J Exerc Physiol Online 18: 69–79, 2015.
power training on improving athletic performance. Sports Med 35: 29. Richens B, Cleather DJ. The relationship between the number of repeti-
213–234, 2005. tions performed at given intensities is different in endurance and strength
9. Delaney JA, Scott TJ, Ballard DA, et al. Contributing factors to change-of- trained athletes. Biol Sport 31: 157–161, 2014.
direction ability in professional Rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res 30. Rodrı́guez-Rosell D, Yáñez-Garcı́a JM, Mora-Custodio R, et al. Velocity-
29: 2688–2696, 2015. based resistance training: Impact of velocity loss in the set on neuromus-
10. Dorrell HF, Moore JM, Gee TI. Comparison of individual and group- cular performance and hormonal response. Appl Physiol Nutr Metabol
based load-velocity profiling as a means to dictate training load over a 6- 45: 817–828, 2020.
week strength and power intervention. J Sports Sci 38: 2013–2020, 2020. 31. Rodrı́guez‐Rosell D, Yáñez‐Garcı́a JM, Mora‐Custodio R, Sánchez‐Me-
11. Fonseca FS, Costa BDdV, Ferreira MEC, et al. Acute effects of equated dina L, Ribas‐Serna J, González‐Badillo JJ. Effect of velocity loss during
volume-load resistance training leading to muscular failure versus non-failure squat training on neuromuscular performance. Scand J Med Sci Sports 31:
on neuromuscular performance. J Exerc Sci Fitness 18: 94–100, 2020. 1621–1635, 2021.
12. González-Badillo JJ, Yañez-Garcı́a JM, Mora-Custodio R, Rodrı́guez- 32. Sanchez-Medina L, González-Badillo JJ. Velocity loss as an indicator of
Rosell D. Velocity loss as a variable for monitoring resistance exercise. Int neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc
J Sports Med 38: 217–225, 2017. 43: 1725–1734, 2011.
13. Greig L, Stephens Hemingway BH, Aspe RR, Cooper K, Comfort P, 33. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Strength and hypertrophy
Swinton PA. Autoregulation in resistance training: Addressing the in- adaptations between low-vs. High-load resistance training: A systematic
consistencies. Sports Med 50: 1873–1887, 2020. review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 31: 3508–3523, 2017.
14. Hedges L, Olkin I. Estimation of a single-effect size: Parametric and non- 34. Sheppard JM, Triplett NT: Program Design for Resistance Training in
parametric methods. In: Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. New Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (4th ed.). Champaign,
York, NY: Academic Press, 1981. pp. 75–106. IL: Human kinetics, 2015.
15. Held S, Hecksteden A, Meyer T, Donath L. Improved strength and re- 35. Spiteri T, Newton RU, Binetti M, Hart NH, Sheppard JM, Nimphius S.
covery after velocity-based training: A randomized controlled trial. Int J Mechanical determinants of faster change of direction and agility per-
Sports Physiol Perform 16: 1185–1193, 2021. formance in female basketball athletes. J Strength Cond Res 29:
16. Held S, Speer K, Rappelt L, Wicker P, Donath L. The effectiveness of 2205–2214, 2015.
traditional vs. velocity-based strength training on explosive and maximal 36. Stanforth PR, Crim BN, Stanforth D, Stults-Kolehmainen MA. Body
strength performance: A network meta-analysis. Front Physiol 13: composition changes among female NCAA division 1 athletes across the
926972, 2022. competitive season and over a multiyear time frame. J Strength Cond Res
17. Hickmott LM, Chilibeck PD, Shaw KA, Butcher SJ. The effect of load and 28: 300–307, 2014.
volume autoregulation on muscular strength and hypertrophy: A sys- 37. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Bellon CR, Hornsby WG, Stone MH. Training
tematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med Open 8: 9, 2022. for muscular strength: Methods for monitoring and adjusting training
18. Jarvis P, Turner A, Read P, Bishop C. Reactive strength index and its intensity. Sports Med 51: 2051–2066, 2021.
associations with measures of physical and sports performance: A sys- 38. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Stone MH. The importance of muscular
tematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Med 52: 301–330, 2022. strength in athletic performance. Sports Med 46: 1419–1449, 2016.
19. Jukic I, Castilla AP, Ramos AG, Van Hooren B, McGuigan MR, Helms 39. Tan B. Manipulating resistance training program variables to optimize
ER. The acute and chronic effects of implementing velocity loss thresholds maximum strength in men: A review. J Strength Cond Res 13: 289–304, 1999.
during resistance training: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and critical 40. Vieira AF, Umpierre D, Teodoro JL, et al. Effects of resistance training
evaluation of the literature. Sports Med 53: 177–214, 2023. performed to failure or not to failure on muscle strength, hypertrophy, and
20. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: Progression power output: A systematic review with meta-analysis. J Strength Cond
and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 674–688, 2004. Res 35: 1165–1175, 2021.
21. Marx JO, Ratamess NA, Nindl BC, et al. Low-volume circuit versus high- 41. Vieira JG, Sardeli AV, Dias MR, et al. Effects of resistance training to
volume periodized resistance training in women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: muscle failure on acute fatigue: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
635–643, 2001. Sports Med 52: 1103–1125, 2022.
22. McMahon JJ, Jones PA, Suchomel TJ, Lake J, Comfort P. Influence of the 42. Williams TD, Tolusso DV, Fedewa MV, Esco MR. Comparison of per-
reactive strength index modified on force–and power–time curves. Int J iodized and non-periodized resistance training on maximal strength: A
Sports Physiol Perform 13: 220–227, 2018. meta-analysis. Sports Med 47: 2083–2100, 2017.
23. Pareja-Blanco F, Alcazar J, Cornejo-Daza PJ, et al. Effects of velocity loss 43. Wilson JM, Loenneke JP, Jo E, Wilson GJ, Zourdos MC, Kim JS. The
in the bench press exercise on strength gains, neuromuscular adaptations, effects of endurance, strength, and power training on muscle fiber type
and muscle hypertrophy. Scand J Med Sci Sports 30: 2154–2166, 2020. shifting. J Strength Cond Res 26: 1724–1729, 2012.
24. Pareja-Blanco F, Alcazar J, Sánchez-Valdepeñas J, et al. Velocity loss as a 44. Ziv G, Lidor R. Physical attributes, physiological characteristics, on-court
critical variable determining the adaptations to strength training. Med Sci performances and nutritional strategies of female and male basketball
Sports Exerc 52: 1752–1762, 2020. players. Sports Med 39: 547–568, 2009.

670