Cooling Down to Level Up: Does Interset Palm or Sole Cooling Enhance Resistance Training Performance?

by ptfadmin | Jan 19, 2026 | Health Tips

Reviewed by John Baur, PT, DPT, OCS, CSCS, FAAOMPT

This article examines whether cooling the palms of the hands or the soles of the feet between sets (“interset distal cooling”) enhances resistance‑training (RT) performance. The authors focus on both mechanistic rationales and experimental evidence, ultimately finding mixed results and notable methodological limitations across the literature.

Proposed mechanisms

Two broad mechanism families are discussed. First are neural/perceptual mechanisms: several experiments report greater EMG amplitude, lower ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), and/or higher perceived arousal with interset cooling; these outcomes have led to the hypothesis that cooling may augment central nervous system (CNS) drive, increase motor‑unit recruitment, reduce sensations of distress, and thereby permit more work to be performed in subsequent sets.

Second are temperature‑related mechanisms, grounded in the high density of arteriovenous anastomoses in glabrous skin (palms/soles) that promote heat exchange. Distal cooling can reduce core temperature during endurance work and might also lower blood temperature delivered to working muscles, benefiting temperature‑sensitive enzymes (e.g., pyruvate kinase) and limiting lactate accumulation, which could help sustain contractile function. The authors note, however, that short, high‑intensity RT bouts (e.g., heavy bench press) in thermoneutral settings rarely produce large core‑temperature rises, making temperature‑centric explanations for RT less clear.

Evidence for palm cooling

Early bench‑press studies by Kwon et al. used 2.5‑min interset palm treatments at 10 °C (cooling), 45 °C (heating), or 22 °C (thermoneutral), finding higher total volume, lower RPE during one set, and greater EMG activation in synergists (e.g., triceps) with cooling (pectoralis major EMG showed no difference). Collectively, these findings suggest interset palm cooling may acutely increase volume capacity and some muscle activation.

In contrast, McMahon et al. used shorter applications—1 minute of 10–15 °C cooling within a 3‑min interset rest—and reported no differences in volume, EMG, or other outcomes versus thermoneutral control. The review highlights duration (1 min vs 2.5 min) as a key methodological difference and notes that despite different application strategies, the mean palm temperatures during rest were similar (~22 °C), muddying the interpretation of why results diverged.

The review also synthesizes physiological indices across five studies (Caruso; Kwon; McMahon & Kennedy): heart rate showed no between‑condition differences with palm cooling. Blood lactate responses are inconsistent—some work showed lower lactate with cooling in a concentric‑only flywheel leg press (Caruso), while others found no differences. These inconsistencies weaken simple global physiological explanations for improved reps to failure.

Longer‑term evidence is scarce but notable. Grahn et al. reported faster pull‑up improvements in both trained and untrained subjects and a 22% bench‑press 1RM increase in plateaued lifters after switching to interset palm cooling. Yet the review flags serious limitations: no random allocation to starting conditions, unclear control of outside training, absent washout periods, and an uncontrolled pre/post 1RM comparison during a multi‑phase design. These concerns limit causal inference.

Evidence for sole (foot) cooling

Cai et al. used 2.5‑min 10 °C foot immersion between sets of heavy leg press and found more repetitions across the final three sets and higher vastus lateralis EMG with cooling, suggesting improved lower‑body volume capacity under these conditions.

Similarly, Wu et al. reported ~7% higher 1RM leg‑press load with interset foot cooling and higher perceived arousal and EMG in final sets. However, the review notes a key limitation: strength testing was built around a predicted 1RM and only three attempts, raising issues about whether a true 1RM was reached and opening the door to day‑to‑day learning effects across separate sessions.

In contrast, Garg & Batra used ice packs (∼10.8 °C) on the soles between sets of back squats and found no differences in total volume or quadriceps EMG vs control, despite ~18% lower RPE with cooling. The article points out that the very low average RPEs cast doubt on whether sets were actually to failure, and that ice packs introduce temperature‑control problems compared with circulating‑water devices or ice‑maintained buckets.

Methodological issues and EMG normalization

A major theme is heterogeneity in cooling modalities (glove devices, water baths, buckets, ice packs), application durations (1–3 min), and EMG normalization strategies. Most studies normalized EMG differently; the review notes MVICs are generally considered superior to DMVCs for normalization because they are more likely to maximally activate the involved musculature, though a recent review found slightly better reliability for DMVCs in weighted tasks. Only McMahon et al. reported reliability statistics and used MVICs; Kwon’s approach—comparing a single early rep vs a single late rep—also raises concerns given high EMG variability under fatigue.

The authors also caution that many trials did not blind participants; with water baths or glove devices, placebo effects are possible unless a sham temperature (e.g., thermoneutral) is used in a blinded fashion for both participants and investigators. Some recent work did blind both groups; the review encourages this approach going forward.

Practical takeaways

Across studies summarized in Table 1 (pp. 719–722), interset distal cooling at 10–15 °C for about 2–3 minutes sometimes improved acute volume capacity and, in limited longitudinal data, maximal strength; however, contradictory findings and design limitations warrant skepticism about consistent ergogenic effects. The authors advise that coaches and athletes may experiment with distal cooling because it appears safe and does not impair dexterity, but they should temper expectations and prioritize well‑designed future research that uses standardized devices, application durations, proper EMG methods, and blinded conditions. 

1. What has been found in studies that employed interset cooling?

   Answer: A. Greater electromyography amplitude. Several studies observed higher EMG amplitude, lower RPE, and/or higher arousal with cooling vs noncooling.

2. What is theorized to occur as a result of interset cooling?

   Answer: B. Restricted lactate accumulation during resistance exercises. Distal cooling may limit lactate buildup, helping sustain contractile function (though findings are mixed).

3. What was the primary difference in methodology between Kwon et al. and McMahon et al.?

   Answer: B. McMahon et al. used a shorter duration for the palm cooling group. Kwon: 2.5 min at 10 °C; McMahon: 1 min within a 3‑min rest.

4. What effect on heart rate was found between palm cooling and nonpalm cooling across five previous studies?

   Answer: A. No difference was found between conditions. Across studies by Caruso, Kwon, and McMahon & Kennedy, HR did not differ between conditions.

5. What methodological concern was found in the Grahn et al. pull‑up studies?

   Answer: C. There was no random assignment to starting conditions. Additional concerns include absent washout and unclear control of external training.

6. What was the effect of sole cooling on leg‑press performance?

   Answer: A. More reps were performed across the final three sets in the cooling condition. Cai et al. reported more repetitions and higher VL EMG with foot cooling.

7. What cooling method did the Garg and Batra study use?

   Answer: C. Ice packs. The study applied ice packs to the soles, which may have introduced temperature‑control issues.

8. What limitation was present in the Wu et al. study?

   Answer: B. Maximal strength testing was based on predicted 1RM. The design allowed only three attempts, potentially missing a true 1RM and inviting learning effects across days.

9. Why are MVICs more generally accepted as superior to DMVCs for EMG normalization?

   Answer: A. Greater likelihood of maximally activating the involved musculature. (While some reliability data favor DMVCs, MVICs are broadly accepted in this context.)

10. What recommendation is given for future research to rule out placebo confounding?

    Answer: B. Blinding of conditions. Use sham/thermoneutral temperatures and blind both participants and investigators when possible.

References:

Burke R, McMahon G, Schoenfeld BJ. Cooling Down to Level Up: Does Interset Palm or Sole Cooling Enhance Resistance Training Performance? Strength Cond J. 2024;46(6):714‑724.

Practical Application of Respiratory Muscle Training in Endurance Sports

by ptfadmin | Jan 12, 2026 | Health Tips

Reviewed by John Baur, PT, DPT, OCS, CSCS, FAAOMPT

Why train the breathing muscles?

The authors argue that conventional sport training does not sufficiently stress the respiratory musculature to drive meaningful adaptation. In elite endurance athletes, the respiratory system—particularly the muscles of breathing—can become a relative limiter because the ventilatory work and oxygen cost rise steeply at race intensities. At V̇O₂max, respiratory muscles may demand ~15–20% of total oxygen consumption and cardiac output in trained athletes (vs ~8–10% in untrained), making fatigue of these muscles a plausible constraint on whole‑body performance. A key mechanism is the respiratory metaboreflex: metabolite accumulation and fatigue in the inspiratory muscles evoke sympathetic vasoconstriction in the locomotor limbs, reducing their blood flow and hastening peripheral fatigue. Improving the efficiency and fatigue resistance of respiratory muscles can therefore blunt this reflex and support better endurance performance.

What improves with respiratory muscle training (RMT)?

Synthesizing recent reviews and trials, the paper concludes that RMT can (1) improve time‑trial and constant‑load performance, (2) increase respiratory muscle strength and endurance, and (3) lower perceived exertion or dyspnea. Benefits extend to hypoxic exercise where RMT reduces respiratory fatigue and helps maintain oxygen saturation.

How to train the breathing muscles—methods and devices.

Three methods have robust support in sport settings:

– Inspiratory Pressure Threshold Loading (IPTL): breaths against a constant pressure load (often 50–80% of maximal inspiratory pressure), typically 30 forceful inspirations, twice daily.

– Tapered Flow Resistive Loading (TFRL): resistance decreases during the inspiratory phase to allow full vital‑capacity inspirations while maintaining substantial load.

 Voluntary Isocapnic Hyperpnea (VIH): sustained hyperventilation (≈60–90% of maximal voluntary ventilation) for 15–40 minutes with a rebreathing circuit to keep CO₂ constant; this primarily targets endurance of the respiratory muscles.

Key visuals.

 Table 1 (p. 6) catalogs commonly used devices and price points, from basic mechanical trainers (e.g., Philips Threshold IMT ≈$26; POWERbreathe Plus ≈$65) to electronic systems (e.g., POWERbreathe K4 ≈$675; Airofit PRO 2.0 ≈$349) and hyperpnea devices (e.g., Idiag/SpiroTiger P100 ≈$1,639). This table also lists inspiratory/expiratory resistance ranges, useful when matching device capability to athlete needs.

 Table 2 (p. 6) summarizes protocols that improved performance across sports: e.g., rowing with IPTL (30 inspirations, twice daily, 4–11 wks); cycling with VIH (30 min, 5×/wk, 4–6 wks) or IPTL (30 inspirations, twice daily, 6 wks); swimming with IPTL (various 4–8‑wk protocols); and running with VIH (30 min, 5×/wk, 4 wks) or TFRL (36 inspirations, 3×/wk, 6 wks).

 Figures 1–2 (p. 5) illustrate IPTL with a POWERbreathe device and VIH with an Isocapnic BWB system; Figure 3 (p. 10) shows real‑time S‑Index testing output for inspiratory strength.

Programming principles.

Respiratory muscles adapt like other striated muscles, so apply progressive overload, specificity, periodization, and reversibility. Many athletes plateau in RMT gains at ~6–9 weeks, after which altering method or loading is advised (e.g., switch from VIH to IPTL every ~8 weeks or alternate high‑resistance/low‑repetition and lower‑resistance/higher‑repetition phases). Detraining over 2–4 weeks produces minimal loss, but more substantial decline appears by 8–12 weeks—yet values may remain above pre‑training baselines. Practical “classic” protocols include 30 fast forceful inspiratory efforts twice per day, 5–6 days per week (resistance devices) or 3–5 VIH sessions of 15–40 minutes per week.

Sport‑specific applications.

 Rowing. Extreme ventilatory demands, constrained body positions, and entrainment between stroke and breathing load the inspiratory muscles heavily. Trials show inspiratory training improves inspiratory strength (e.g., ~34–45% over 11 weeks) and produces small but decisive gains: ~3.5% greater distance in a 6‑min test and ~3.1% faster 5000 m vs placebo. The literature favors inspiratory‑only training for performance gains; adding expiratory work may improve pulmonary function but not race outcomes. An IPTL‑based respiratory warm‑up can also acutely improve maximal rowing performance.

 Cycling. Both IPTL and VIH can raise ventilatory capacity (~12–16%) and improve time‑trial outcomes by ~2.1–4.75% over 4–6 weeks (not always statistically significant). Benefits appear larger as event duration increases, suggesting particular utility for longer time trials or stage racing. RMT may also help riders sustain aero positions by improving comfort and the efficiency of locomotor‑respiratory coupling.

 Swimming. Among studied sports, swimmers exhibit the greatest inspiratory fatigue after single race‑pace efforts (≈17–21% drop in inspiratory strength), likely due to breath timing constraints, resisting hydrostatic pressure, and potential co‑contraction patterns. RMT has produced performance gains of ~1.2–7.3% over 50–200 m in several studies; even when inspiratory strength does not rise in highly trained swimmers (whose base programs already strengthen respiratory muscles), performance may still improve via reduced fatigue and a delayed metaboreflex. Divers and finswimmers also benefit; disabled swimmers show marked improvements in pulmonary function and ventilation disorders resolution.

 Triathlon. Wetsuits increase chest/abdominal resistance to breathing, and bike‑to‑run transitions elevate respiratory fatigue relative to running alone; fatigue can persist >24 h post‑race. RMT can be particularly helpful in multi‑race formats where recovery windows are short.

 Hypoxia. In 4–8‑week pre‑exposure protocols, RMT reduces respiratory fatigue, delays metaboreflex activation, improves buffering/clearance of anaerobic metabolites, and helps preserve oxygenation and limb blood flow during hypoxic exercise. Use caution layering RMT on top of altitude/cold training loads due to heightened systemic stress and infection risk.

Assessment and technique.

Before RMT, assess respiratory muscle strength/endurance and (where regulations permit) pulmonary function. In practice, many coaches use device‑embedded tests such as the POWERbreathe S‑Index—8 dynamic inspirations from residual volume to full capacity after a brief warm‑up—to quantify inspiratory strength and to track pre‑ vs post‑session decrements as a field estimate of fatigue (a 10–15% drop is often used as a working threshold). As with any strength work, emphasize movement quality first: teach an efficient breathing pattern and thoracic mobility. Evidence does not conclusively favor a particular breathing technique (e.g., nasal vs diaphragmatic) during exercise, though diaphragmatic breathing may reduce psychological/physiological stress; still, technique instruction is a sensible foundation before loading. RMT is generally safe, with occasional transient headache or dizziness reported. It integrates easily into warm‑ups, recoveries, or brief standalone sessions.

1. The back extensors. (The three groups are diaphragm, rib‑cage muscles, abdominal muscles; back extensors are not one of them; see p. 4.)
2. Inspiratory muscles. (They expand the lungs during inhalation; primary muscle is the diaphragm; p. 4.)
3. Hypertrophied inspiratory muscles. (Benefits stem from enhanced mechanical efficiency and fatigue resistance—not hypertrophy per se; p. 4.)
4. Flow volume loop tracing. (Proven training methods are IPTL, TFRL, and VIH; p. 4–5.)
5. 6–9 weeks. (Benefits tend to plateau after about 6–9 weeks, prompting periodization; p. 5.)
6. Inspiratory training. (Preferred for rowing performance; expiratory or combined approaches improve lung function but not rowing results; p. 7.)
7. Swimming. (Shows the most substantial respiratory muscle fatigue among studied sports; p. 8.)
8. Women. (The respiratory system may limit performance to a greater extent in women; p. 9.)
9. 10–15%. (No universal consensus, but thresholds of ~10–15% decline are commonly used to mark inspiratory fatigue; p. 10.)
10. Scientific evidence is inconclusive. (No clear advantage for specific techniques like nasal or diaphragmatic breathing during exercise; p. 10–11.)

References:

Kowalski T, Granda D, Klusiewicz A. Practical Application of Respiratory Muscle Training in Endurance Sports. Strength Cond J. 2024;46(6):686‑695.

Systematizing glute training: NSCA Personal Trainers Virtual Conference session

by ptfadmin | Jan 5, 2026 | Health Tips

Reviewed by John Baur, PT, DPT, OCS, CSCS, FAAOMPT

What the session is about.

Ashley Hodge’s talk (part of the 2023 NSCA Personal Trainers Virtual Conference) aims to replace “random glute work” with a repeatable framework that coaches can plug into any program. The session highlights common programming mistakes and then builds a system around anatomy, biomechanics, and progressive overload so you can choose the right exercise type, organize weekly frequency and volume, and progress loading over time. ([NSCA TV][1])

Why systematize glute training?

The gluteal complex (gluteus maximus, medius, and minimus) is central to hip extension, external rotation, abduction, and pelvic control. In practice, athletes and clients often either (1) over‑rely on banded accessory drills or (2) only do sagittal‑plane “big lifts,” leaving key vectors and ranges undertrained. A system improves carryover to performance and aesthetics while managing fatigue so the work is sustainable across the week or season. The session explicitly promises to cover “program design considerations for optimally building the glutes” and “the biggest mistakes in glute training and how to avoid them.” ([NSCA TV][1])

Three exercise buckets to cover all functions.

Hodge organizes glute training around three complementary exercise types/vectors so that all fiber orientations and movement roles are addressed across the week:

1. Vertical hip‑extension exercises – Squats, deadlifts, and their variations. These impose higher axial loading and tend to bias the lower subdivision of the gluteus maximus due to the hip‑extension demand through larger ranges under load. They are excellent for high mechanical tension but are also more systemically fatiguing; you’ll program them heavier and a bit less often. ([nsca.com][2])
2. Horizontal hip‑extension exercises – Hip thrusts, glute bridges, and similar thrusting/bridge variations. These provide strong peak tension in more flexed hip positions and are friendlier for frequent exposures with lower spinal load, making them ideal for accumulating quality work and practicing progressive overload without as much soreness. ([nsca.com][2])
3. Lateral/rotary glute exercises – Abduction/external‑rotation and frontal/transverse‑plane patterns (e.g., cable abduction, lateral step‑downs, Cossack/lateral lunges, banded walks when used with intent). These bias the upper fibers of gluteus maximus plus gluteus medius/minimus and round out pelvic control and change‑of‑direction capacities that vertical/horizontal drills may miss. ([nsca.com][2])

Force–length positioning and setup.

A central coaching point is training the glutes where they can produce the most active force—slightly stretched (not maximally lengthened). In the gym that means using ranges and joint angles that load the glutes in modest hip flexion, maintaining pelvic neutrality and a solid ribcage‑over‑pelvis stack so the target muscle carries the work rather than lumbar extension or hamstrings taking over. Getting these angles right improves both performance and sensation of the muscle working (“feel”). ([nsca.com][2])

Primary driver of hypertrophy.

Hodge underscores that while “mind–muscle connection” can help technique and intent, mechanical tension is the non‑negotiable stimulus for growth. The system therefore anchors all programming to progressive overload—adding reps, load, or density at a given rep target—while using mind–muscle strategies to support good reps, not replace overload. As the quiz phrases it: progressive overload > mind–muscle connection for hypertrophy. ([nsca.com][2])

Secondary drivers and how to use them.

Metabolic stress can augment hypertrophy, but it’s most influenced by short rest periods and continuous time‑under‑tension sets (e.g., finishers, higher‑rep hip thrusts, or pump‑style abduction work). Muscle damage is not the goal and is counterproductive if it limits weekly quality work. The system uses short‑rest “pump” sets strategically—often with horizontal and lateral/rotary drills that recover quickly—while letting vertical lifts focus on heavier, lower‑rep tension. ([nsca.com][2])

Weekly frequency and recoverability.

Beginners are guided toward ~2 focused glute sessions per week, each touching the three vectors to some extent. As experience rises, frequency can move to 3–4 exposures by micro‑dosing thrust/bridge or abduction/ER work because those patterns recover faster. Many trainees tolerate fairly high glute volume simply because they haven’t yet learned to take work sets close to task‑appropriate proximity to failure; when effort is still developing, volume can be used to accumulate practice without excessive fatigue. Horizontal loading (thrust/bridge) is especially repeatable across the week. ([nsca.com][2])

Common mistakes Hodge warns against (and fixes). ([NSCA TV][1])

• Chasing novelty over progression. Bands and variety aren’t a substitute for getting stronger within a progression model (e.g., same load for more reps, or more load for the same reps).
• Ignoring vectors or planes. Only doing squats/deadlifts or only doing band work leaves results on the table; program all three buckets.
• Poor setup/ROM. Over‑arching the low back in thrusts, under‑loading the bottom of squats, or using excessive anterior pelvic tilt all blunt glute contribution.
• Fatigue mismanagement. Putting all heavy vertical work on the same day or taking every accessory set to failure compromises total weekly quality.
• Vague intent. Use mind–muscle strategies to maintain deliberate, target‑muscle contraction and clean reps—but remember that intent is there to support progressive overload, not replace it.

A sample “systematized” week (beginner template).

 Day 1 (Heavy vertical emphasis): Back squat or trap‑bar deadlift (mechanical tension focus); thrust/bridge for moderate reps; lateral/rotary finisher (controlled tempo).

 Day 2 (Horizontal emphasis): Barbell hip thrust (progressive overload driver); single‑leg hinge or split squat (moderate load); abduction/ER cable or machine series with shorter rests (metabolic stress accessory).

  Across the two days, you’ve hit vertical, horizontal, and lateral/rotary functions, applied both high‑tension and moderate‑stress stimuli, and left recoverability to keep progressing in the next microcycle. Frequency and volume scale up from here as the lifter’s effort, technique, and tolerance improve. ([nsca.com][2])

Key takeaways.

1. Organize by vector (vertical, horizontal, lateral/rotary) to cover fiber orientation and function. 2) Train in slightly stretched positions with good pelvic control. 3) Use mechanical tension as the pillar and progress it deliberately; let mind–muscle cues polish execution. 4) Leverage metabolic stress with short‑rest accessories, not at the expense of your tension work. 5) Program 2 sessions/week for beginners and increase exposures with recoverable horizontal work as experience grows. ([nsca.com][2])
2. At what position do the glutes produce the most active force?

   Answer: A. Slightly stretched.

2. What is one reason most individuals can handle a high volume of glute training?

   Answer: B. They have not learned to push their work sets very hard.

3. What is the recommended amount of glute training sessions per week for beginners?

   Answer: B. 2.

4. What exercise type targets the lower subdivision of the gluteus maximus?

   Answer: C. Horizontal hip extension exercises.

5. What is the most important mechanism for muscular hypertrophy?

   Answer: C. Mechanical tension.

6. What contributes to metabolic stress?

   Answer: A. Short rest periods.

7. Which is an example of progressive overload?

   Answer: C. Lifting the same load for a greater number of repetitions.

8. What is more important for muscular hypertrophy: progressive overload or the mind–muscle connection?

   Answer: A. Progressive overload is more important.

9. What is the mind–muscle connection?

   Answer: A. Conscious and deliberate muscle contraction.

10. Which exercise type can be performed more frequently?

    Answer: C. Horizontal loading exercises.

Reference:

Systematizing glute training: NSCA Personal Trainers Virtual Conference session Hodge A. Systematizing glute training  NSCA TV; 2023.

The Use of Acute Exercise Interventions as Priming Strategies to Improve Physical Performance During Track‑and‑Field Competitions

by ptfadmin | Dec 31, 2025 | Health Tips

Reviewed by John Baur, PT, DPT, OCS, CSCS, FAAOMPT

This systematic review asks a practical game‑day question: which short, exercise‑based “priming” activities meaningfully sharpen performance for track‑and‑field athletes? The authors searched PubMed and Scopus (to May 26, 2023) using PRISMA methods, screened 182 papers, and ultimately included 15 randomized, pre–post studies in athletes with ≥1 year of track‑and‑field training where an exercise intervention was implemented within ~3 hours of the measured performance. Interventions clustered into four buckets: (1) resistance training, (2) plyometric/ballistic exercise, (3) resisted sprints, and (4) modified warm‑ups. Methodological quality, scored with the TESTEX tool, averaged “good” (mean 10.9/15), with most studies reporting clear between‑group statistics but lacking blinding and allocation concealment. The PRISMA flow diagram on page 4 and the TESTEX table on page 9 (Table 2) visualize these processes and quality judgements.

Key takeaways by modality

Resistance training (RT). Heavy, low‑volume isotonic squats (e.g., 3–5 reps at 85–90% 1RM) acutely improved sprint performance when athletes rested 4–10 minutes before their run. Across studies, improvements ranged ~1–3% over 20–40 m, with the >85% 1RM back squat consistently producing the largest sprint gains versus lighter loading. Isometric “push” variants are logistically simpler (e.g., 3×3 s knee extension or squat against an immovable bar) and can elicit post‑activation performance enhancement (PAPE) with less fatigue than dynamic lifts; notably, a 6‑s isometric push‑up improved shot‑put distance by ~4.5% with only a 2‑minute recovery. The authors emphasize that, while older guidance suggested only “strong” athletes benefit, one included study showed no clear difference in PAPE response between stronger and weaker sprinters under the tested conditions.

Plyometric and ballistic exercise. Plyometrics were the most common and competition‑friendly priming choice because they require little equipment and can be performed track‑side. Drop jumps (e.g., 2×5 from ~70 cm) and loaded/unloaded jump squats often enhanced subsequent sprinting—e.g., ~2.4–2.7% faster 50‑m after 10–15 minutes of rest, and faster 20‑ and 40‑m splits after 5 minutes. Effects are not uniform; some cohorts showed non‑significant changes at 10–30 m, highlighting typical “responder/non‑responder” variability. A nuanced finding is that “faster male” sprinters (<~4.09 s 30‑m) benefitted most from loaded jump squats during warm‑ups, suggesting an interaction between training status and exercise selection. On the field‑event side, three maximal countermovement jumps (CMJs) performed before the second, fourth, and sixth throws improved mean distances across shot, hammer, discus, and javelin—with larger gains in lighter implements (discus, javelin)—and plyometric push‑ups boosted shot‑put performance by ~3.6% after a 10‑minute rest. The study summary table on pages 6–7 (Table 1) lays out these protocols and intervals at a glance.

Jumping events. In a simulated competition, a brief CMJ protocol improved long‑jump results from the third attempt onward (~3–5%): analysis attributed the enhancement to progressively higher vertical take‑off velocity from jumps 3–6, with run‑up speed unchanged—meaning the priming likely improved rate‑of‑force development at the board rather than approach mechanics.

Resisted sprints. One trial contrasted 20‑yard sled pulls at 10–30% bodyweight as a priming stimulus before a 40‑yard sprint. Sprint times improved regardless of sled load, but technique can degrade more as sled load increases (e.g., greater forward lean and altered hip/shoulder mechanics), a practical caution for coaches trying to balance stimulus with technical fidelity.

Modified warm‑ups. Two “race‑like” tweaks stood out. First, a single 200‑m run at 800‑m race pace before an 800‑m time trial yielded a modest but significant performance gain versus a lower‑intensity striding warm‑up after 20 minutes of rest. Second, a high‑intensity sequence (e.g., 3×250 m at 100% of modelled pace) improved 5,000‑m time‑trial outcomes after 10 minutes rest and increased early‑race speed. For throws, using heavier‑than‑competition implements during warm‑ups yielded meaningful acute distance gains—but coaches should match overweight implements to athlete competence to avoid timing/rhythm disruption.

Timing, recovery, and durability of the effect

Across studies, effective recovery windows between the priming stimulus and the event ranged from immediate (field events) to ~4–15 minutes for sprints and ~10–20 minutes for middle‑ and long‑distance efforts. Stronger athletes may realize their PAPE “sweet spot” earlier (≈5–7 minutes), whereas weaker athletes may need ≥8 minutes, reflecting differences in fatigue resistance. Importantly, although this review targeted same‑day strategies, the broader literature indicates that some acute exercise effects persist for 24–48 hours, opening the door to pre‑competition‑day priming when call‑room logistics or long staging delays make same‑day application impractical.

Mechanisms and magnitude

Across modalities, benefits are attributed to PAPE—greater myofibrillar calcium sensitivity and motor‑unit recruitment leading to transient increases in peak force and rate of force development. In pooled reports, resistance‑based priming produced ~0.9–3.3% performance improvements (estimated PAPE effect size ≈0.41), while plyometric/ballistic approaches showed similar or slightly larger effects (effect size ≈0.47) with typically lower fatigue—one reason they are attractive in call‑room settings.

Limitations and practice points

The evidence base is small (15 studies), heterogenous in protocols, and only three trials were conducted in actual competition, limiting ecological certainty. Individual responses vary by exercise, loading, rest interval, athlete strength/training age, sex, and the performance metric tested. Still, the “practical applications” section argues convincingly for high‑intensity, low‑volume priming paired with adequate recovery (e.g., 3×3–5 heavy squats or 2–3 short sets of drop jumps, then 5–15 minutes of rest) as a workable default. Coaches should anticipate longer in‑stadia delays and consider less fatiguing options (e.g., isometrics or plyometrics), or deploy priming 24–48 hours earlier when race‑day logistics are prohibitive.

1. A. 48 hr. Benefits can manifest within 24–48 hours post‑intervention.
2. C. >85% 1RM. High‑intensity back squats (>85% 1RM) produced greater sprint enhancement.
3. B. 6‑second isometric push‑ups improved shot‑put distance significantly.
4. C. Countermovement jump priming significantly improved mean hammer‑throw performance (and other throws).
5. A. Gradual increase in take‑off velocity from the third to the sixth long jumps explained the improvement pattern.
6. C. Improved sprint times regardless of sled load in 40‑yd sprints; technique is more disrupted with heavier loads.
7. B. Elicit PAPE with less fatigue than dynamic protocols, and they’re easier to set up.
8. C. Equivocal. No clear difference in PAPE effects between stronger and weaker athletes in the included work.
9. A. Loaded jump squats are recommended for faster male sprinters as an effective PAPE stimulus.

10. B. Heavier loads disrupt sprint technique more than lighter loads in resisted‑sprint priming

References:

Tan K, Kakehata G, Lim J. The Use of Acute Exercise Interventions as Priming Strategies to Improve Physical Performance During Track‑and‑Field Competitions: A Systematic Review. Strength & Conditioning Journal. 2024;46(5):587‑597.

Velocity‑Based Training—A Critical Review

by ptfadmin | Dec 28, 2025 | Health Tips

Reviewed by John Baur, PT, DPT, OCS, CSCS, FAAOMPT

Guppy, Kendall, and Haff review the strengths, limitations, and best‑use cases of velocity‑based training (VBT) for strength and conditioning. They focus on three core programming strategies that use barbell velocity: (1) predicting daily 1‑repetition maximum (1RM) from a load–velocity profile (LVP), (2) adjusting training loads set‑by‑set from deviations in the LVP, and (3) controlling within‑set volume using velocity‑loss thresholds. Importantly, the review emphasizes evidence from free‑weight conditions to ensure ecological validity for real‑world practice.

Why autoregulation with velocity?

Traditional loading by fixed percentages of a prior 1RM or by repetition‑maximum (RM) zones can misalign training with an athlete’s day‑to‑day status. Percentage prescriptions do not account for changes in strength driven by life stress, concurrent training, and accumulated fatigue, while train‑to‑failure models increase strain and can compromise adaptation when combined with other modalities. These drawbacks motivated interest in objective autoregulation using the actual speed achieved with a given load in real time. A lower‑than‑usual velocity at a given %1RM indicates either a drop in maximal strength and/or higher fatigue; higher velocity at that same % indicates the opposite. Adjusting loads from these signals can keep the stimulus appropriate without over‑ or under‑shooting on any given day.

The load–velocity profile (LVP).

The LVP models the relationship between bar speed and relative load for a given lift. After early work used polynomial fits, later studies showed linear regression works as well and is simpler. However, LVPs are individual (athlete‑specific) and exercise‑specific; generalized group profiles miss meaningful differences in velocity at a given %1RM, and profiles do not transfer across lifts. Figure 1 on page 5 illustrates distinct LVPs for bench press, squat, and deadlift, underscoring that each exercise requires its own profile if velocity will guide loading.

Can LVPs predict daily 1RM?

This was an early, attractive idea: measure velocities across a few warm‑up loads, plug them into the LVP, and infer today’s 1RM (using an assumed or measured minimum velocity threshold at 1RM, “v1RM”). In practice, this approach performs poorly in free‑weight contexts. Multiple studies show systematic overestimation of free‑weight 1RM (e.g., back squat and bench press), with error growing as athlete strength increases and with “two‑point” shortcuts. Even using a generalized v1RM (instead of an individualized one) does not fix precision; it can double the standard error. Some machine‑learning models and Smith‑machine data look promising, but they lack evidence of agreement (not just correlation) and do not generalize to free weights. The authors conclude that day‑to‑day 1RM prediction via LVP is not yet feasible for free‑weight lifting and risks misprogramming by assigning loads beyond current capacity. Directly testing 1RM at planned time points remains the sound choice.

Using the LVP to modulate loads set‑by‑set.

A more defensible use is to compare today’s measured velocity to the profiled velocity for the planned %1RM and adjust external load accordingly. A common heuristic is to change the load by ±5% when the observed mean concentric velocity deviates by more than ±0.06 m·s⁻¹ from the profile. Short‑term studies show this can reduce perceptual stress and time‑under‑tension while maintaining or improving jump and strength outcomes—useful when fatigue management is paramount. The review recommends this approach primarily in‑season, when the priority is keeping form high and fatigue low rather than maximizing volume. A key, often‑overlooked limitation is logistics: building accurate LVPs for multiple athletes and lifts entails dedicated testing (1RM plus loads up to ~90% 1RM), rest between sessions, and ongoing monitoring, which can be time‑consuming in team environments.

Velocity‑loss thresholds to control within‑set volume.

Another popular VBT tool is to terminate a set once velocity drops by a set percentage from the first (or fastest) rep. Lower thresholds (≈10–20%) align with strength/power emphasis and less overall fatigue; higher thresholds (≈30–40%) allow more volume and favor hypertrophy. Evidence indicates 10% velocity‑loss can produce greater strength gains than percentage‑based, to‑failure work, and that 20% can improve jump outcomes with less volume than 40%, while 40% tends to drive larger hypertrophy but also a high rate of sets to failure (≈56% in one study)—counterproductive in phases where fatigue control matters. The review cautions that unconstrained sets to a fixed velocity‑loss can yield very different rep counts between athletes (e.g., 2–11 reps at 10% loss; 4–24 at 30% loss; see Figure 2 on page 9), risking accidental drift of the session’s focus. Best practice: use velocity‑loss alongside traditional set‑rep caps so neither fatigue nor intent strays from the mesocycle’s goals.

Monitoring fatigue with the LVP.

Declines in mean velocity during submaximal squats 24–48 hours after a heavy bout track neuromuscular fatigue and typically return to baseline by 72 hours. This suggests practitioners can monitor recovery using velocity during standard training sets (sometimes in concert with countermovement‑jump metrics). The same constraints apply: you need valid, reliable velocity data and exercise‑specific profiles to interpret small changes meaningfully.

Devices: accuracy matters.

All VBT strategies depend on measurement quality. The review summarizes device validity and reliability (Table 1 on page 11). In general, linear position transducers (LPTs) (e.g., GymAware, Vitruve/Speed4Lifts, Tendo) provide stronger validity and lower error than bar‑mounted accelerometers/IMUs, many of which show fixed/proportional bias, poor sensitivity, or only work at slow velocities. A newer laser‑optic device (FLEX) shows promise but needs more research. Figure 3 on page 10 overlays a back‑squat LVP with the smallest detectable difference at each load, reinforcing that device noise can exceed the thresholds coaches use to change loads (e.g., ±0.06 m·s⁻¹), making dependable hardware non‑negotiable. Cost, tether placement, and exercise feasibility also influence tool choice.

Where VBT fits in the year.

Because off‑season aims (high volume, moderate intensity, building capacity) do not require fine‑tuned fatigue mitigation, the review positions VBT—especially load modulation via LVP and velocity‑loss thresholds—as most useful pre‑season and in‑season, when managing fatigue and raising “sporting form” matter most. Use velocity‑loss with hard set‑rep caps (e.g., 3–5×4–6 for strength blocks, cut the set at 20–25% loss or the rep cap, whichever comes first) to keep proximity‑to‑failure within plan.

Motivation and feedback effects.

Beyond loading, real‑time kinematic feedback can enhance intent to move fast, motivation, and competitiveness, leading to superior gains compared with subjective RIR‑based autoregulation at similar volumes in some studies. Still, coaches must guard against technique drift as athletes “chase speed.” VBT augments, but does not replace, good coaching.

Bottom line.

Use VBT where it shines: (a) do not rely on LVPs to predict daily 1RM in free‑weight lifts; (b) do consider set‑by‑set load adjustments from LVP deviations during periods when fatigue control is key; (c) do use velocity‑loss thresholds with set‑rep caps to align the stimulus with block goals; and (d) do invest in accurate measurement (prefer LPTs) if you plan to let velocity drive decisions.

5. B. Changes in strength levels. Percentage‑based loading does not account for daily/ongoing changes in strength from stress, training, and adaptation.
6. C. Training experience. Novices misestimate RIR more than experienced lifters; accuracy depends on experience.
7. A. Increase in maximal strength. Higher‑than‑usual velocity at a given %1RM indicates increased max strength and/or less fatigue.
8. B. They are exercise‑specific. LVPs are specific to the lift (and also individual), not transferable across exercises.
9. A. Lower‑body exercises. Most free‑weight LVP→1RM studies center on squat/deadlift.
10. B. Overestimates 1RM. LVP‑based predictions typically overestimate free‑weight 1RM vs direct tests.
11. A. ±5%. Common practice is to change the load by ~±5% when measured velocity departs by >±0.06 m·s⁻¹.
12. C. In‑season. Best used in‑season to regulate load and mitigate fatigue without heavy volume.
13. A. The time needed to calculate the profile. Building/maintaining athlete‑ and exercise‑specific LVPs is time‑consuming.
14. C. 10–20%. Lower velocity‑loss thresholds suit phases with reduced volume and an emphasis on preparedness.

References:

Guppy SN, Kendall KL, Haff GG. Velocity‑Based Training—A Critical Review. Strength Cond J. 2024;46(3):295‑307.