RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VELOCITY LOSS AND
REPETITIONS IN RESERVE IN THE BENCH PRESS
BACK SQUAT EXERCISES
DAVID RODRÍGUEZ-ROSELL,1 JUAN MANUEL YÁÑEZ-GARCÍA,1 LUIS SÁNCHEZ-MEDINA,2
RICARDO MORA-CUSTODIO,1 AND JUAN JOSÉ GONZÁLEZ-BADILLO1
1
Physical Performance and Sports Research Center, Pablo de Olavide University, Seville, Spain; and 2Studies, Research and
Sports Medicine Center, Government of Navarre, Pamplona, Spain
ABSTRACT
Rodrı́guez-Rosell, D, Yáñez-Garcı́a, JM, Sánchez-Medina, L,
Mora-Custodio, R, and González-Badillo, JJ. Relationship
between velocity loss and repetitions in reserve in the bench
press and back squat exercises. J Strength Cond Res XX(X):
000–000, 2019—This study aimed to compare the pattern of
repetition velocity decline during a single set to failure per-
formed against 4 relative loads in the bench press (BP) and
full back squat (SQ) exercises. After an initial test to determine
1 repetition maximum (1RM) strength and load-velocity rela-
tionships, 20 men performed one set of repetitions to failure
(MNR test) against loads of 50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM in BP
and SQ, on 8 random order sessions performed every 6–7
days. Velocity against the load that elicited a ;1.00 m$s21
(V1 m$s21 load) was measured before and immediately after
each MNR test, and it was considered a measure of acute
muscle fatigue. The number of repetitions completed against
each relative load showed high interindividual variability in both
BP (coefficient of variation [CV]: 15–22%) and SQ (CV: 26–
34%). Strong relationships were found between the relative
loss of velocity in the set and the percentage of performed
repetitions in both exercises (R2 = 0.97 and 0.93 for BP and
SQ, respectively). Equations to predict repetitions left in
reserve from velocity loss are provided. For a given magnitude
of velocity loss within the set (15–65%), the percentages of
performed repetitions were lower for the BP compared with the
SQ for all loads analyzed. Acute fatigue after each set to failure
was found dependent on the magnitude of velocity loss (r =
0.97 and 0.99 for BP and SQ, respectively) but independent
of the number of repetitions completed by each participant (p
. 0.05) for both exercises. The percentage of velocity loss
against the V1 m$s21 load decreased as relative load
Address correspondence to David Rodrı́guez-Rosell,
davidrodriguezrosell@gmail.com.
00(00)/1–11
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AND
increased, being greater for BP than SQ. These findings indi-
cate that monitoring repetition velocity can be used to provide
a very good estimate of the number (or percentage) of repe-
titions actually performed and those left in reserve in each
exercise set, and thus to more objectively quantify the level
of effort incurred during resistance training.
KEY WORDS level of effort, muscle failure, degree of fatigue
INTRODUCTION
C
onfiguration of the exercise stimulus during resis-
tance training (RT) depends on the manipulation
of several acute variables such as exercise type and
order, loading magnitude, number of repetitions
and sets, rests duration, and movement velocity (1,8). Among
these variables, training volume has been considered a critical
factor in achieving a specific training outcome (8), as it has
been shown to affect neural (6), hypertrophic (22), metabolic
(14), and hormonal responses (10) and subsequent functional
and neuromuscular adaptations to RT.
Training volume is generally determined from the total
number of sets and repetitions performed during a training
session (1,8). Thus, in most studies, it is prescribed using
a specific number of repetitions to be completed in each
exercise set by all participants. However, the maximum (to
failure) number of repetitions that can be completed against
a given relative load (percentage of 1 repetition maximum, %
1RM) has been found to present a large variability between
individuals (5,20). Thus, several studies (5,15,20,21) have re-
ported coefficients of variation (CVs) ranging from ;20 to
;50% for the maximum number of repetitions completed
against different relative loads (50–90% 1RM), with
the minimum number of completed repetitions representing
;50% of the maximum repetitions number in both upper-
(5,20) and lower-limb (15,20,21) exercises. Therefore, if dur-
ing a training session, all participants perform the same num-
ber of repetitions per set against a given relative load, it is
possible that they are exerting a different level of effort or
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2019 | 1
 Velocity Loss for Monitoring Resistance Exercises
degree of fatigue, as the number of repetitions that remains
undone or repetitions left in reserve (5,9,16) in each set
might considerably differ between individuals. In this regard,
instead of performing a fixed, predetermined, number of rep-
etitions, it has been suggested to stop or terminate each
training set as soon as a predetermined magnitude or per-
centage of velocity loss is reached (5,9,13,16).
Research has shown that monitoring repetition velocity is
an objective, practical, and noninvasive indicator of muscle
fatigue during RT (3,5,12,16). In addition, the magnitude of
velocity loss incurred during RT has also been shown as an
objective indicator of metabolic and hormonal stress induced
by different exercise protocols (3,9,13,16). A very recent
study (9) showed that the absolute velocities associated to
stopping a set before failure, leaving a certain number of
repetitions in reserve (2, 4, 6, or 8 repetitions), were very
similar for loads of 65%, 75%, and 85% 1RM and showed
a high reliability (CV: 4.4–8.0%) in 4 RT exercises. Another
study has recently reported (5) a strong relationship (R2 =
0.96–0.97; SEE = 4.69–5.75%) between the relative loss of
velocity in a set and the percentage of performed repetitions
with respect to the maximum number that can be completed
in the bench press (BP) exercise against 8 different loads (50–
85% 1RM, in 5% increments). In this study (5), it was also
observed that the percentage of performed repetitions for
a given magnitude of velocity loss was very similar for all
loads used, especially for those ranging between 50 and 70%
1RM, although the maximum number of repetitions com-
pleted against each relative load was significantly different
(;25 2 12 repetitions). Moreover, the percentage of per-
formed repetitions for a given magnitude of velocity loss in
the set showed a high absolute reliability (CV: 2.1–6.6%) (5).
This novel finding is of great practical application because by
monitoring repetition velocity during training, it is possible
to estimate how many repetitions are left in reserve
(i.e., repetitions that remain undone) in a BP set (5). How-
ever, considering that several differences exist in terms of
muscle mass, fiber type distribution, duration of muscle con-
traction, and biomechanics between upper- and lower-limb
muscles (23), it is likely that a different pattern of repetition
velocity decline may exist between the BP and the full back
squat (SQ). Furthermore, although the relationship between
the percentage of velocity loss in the set (e.g., 30% loss in
repetition velocity) and the percentage of performed repeti-
tions (e.g., 50% of the maximum possible number) against
a given relative load was found independent of the maximum
number of possible repetitions (5), it is unclear whether the
number of repetitions completed until reaching a certain
percentage of velocity loss in the set influences the degree
of induced fatigue.
In an attempt to find answers to the questions raised
above, the main aim of this study was to analyze the
relationship between repetitions performed and velocity
decline during a single set to failure performed against 4
different submaximal loads (50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM) in the
the TM
2 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
BP and SQ exercises. Secondarily, we also aimed to quantify
the percentage of velocity loss attained against an individual
reference load after each set to failure as an indicator of the
acute degree of fatigue.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
A descriptive, cross-sectional research design was used to
analyze the magnitude of velocity loss incurred during and
after a single set to failure performed against 4 different loads
in the BP and SQ exercises. Participants performed 9 sessions,
separated by a period of 6–7 days. During the first session,
a progressive loading test for the determination of 1RM
strength and individual load-velocity relationships in the BP
and SQ was conducted. During the remaining 8 sessions, 4
tests of maximum number of repetitions to failure (MNR test)
in each exercise (BP and SQ) were performed against loads of
50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM. Sessions were performed in random
order for each participant. Relative loads were determined
from the load-velocity relationship for the BP and SQ
(4,17,18). The percentage change in mean propulsive velocity
(MPV) pre-post exercise (i.e., before and after each MNR
test) against an individual reference load was used as an indi-
cator of acute fatigue after each MNR test. Thus, this study
design allowed for the determination of: (a) differences in the
percentage of completed repetitions for different magnitudes
(percentages) of velocity loss in the set against each load; (b)
the percentage of performed repetitions when a given veloc-
ity loss is reached in the BP compared with the SQ; and (c)
differences in the degree of fatigue between subgroups of
participants who completed a higher vs. a lower number of
repetitions per set during the MNR tests. In the preceding 2
weeks of this study, 4 preliminary familiarization sessions
were undertaken with the purpose of emphasizing proper
execution technique in the BP and SQ. The participants were
required to refrain from any type of RT during the 2 days
preceding each testing session.
Subjects
A group of 20 young healthy men (mean 6 SD: age 25.0 6
3.5 years; height 1.77 6 0.06 m; and body mass 76.0 6 7.2
kg) volunteered to participate in this study. Participants were
physically active sport science students with at least 8
months of RT experience (1–3 sessions$wk21) and were
accustomed to performing the BP and SQ exercises with
correct technique. No physical limitations, health problems,
or musculoskeletal injuries that could affect testing were re-
ported. None of the participants were taking drugs, medica-
tions, or substances expected to affect physical performance.
The investigation was conducted in accordance with the
Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Research
Ethics Committee of Pablo de Olavide University. After
being informed of the purpose and experimental procedures,
the participants signed a written informed consent form
before participation.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

Procedures
Anthropometric assessments and medical examinations
were conducted during the first session. Testing sessions
were performed at the same time of day (61 hour) for each
participant and under similar environmental conditions
(;20–228 C and ;55–65% humidity). Strong verbal
encouragement was provided during all tests to motivate
subjects to give a maximal effort.
Isoinertial Progressive Loading Tests in the Bench Press and Full
Squat Exercises. These tests were mainly performed: (a) to
estimate the mass (kg) that each subject had to use, so that
the lifting velocity of the first repetition matched the
specified target MPV of each of the 4 relative loads to be
used; and (b) to make a description of the subjects’ charac-
teristics. The BP testing protocol was performed following
the exact protocol described elsewhere (4,5,19). Participants
laid supine on a flat bench, with their feet resting flat on the
floor and hands placed on the bar slightly wider (2–3 cm)
than shoulder width. The position on the bench was care-
fully adjusted, so that the vertical projection of the bar cor-
responded with each participant’s intermammary line.
Participants were not allowed to bounce the bar off their
chests or raise the shoulders or trunk off the bench. Two
telescopic bar holders with a precision scale were placed at
the left and right sides of the Smith machine to: (a) precisely
replicate the individual eccentric range of movement
between trials and (b) impose a pause or delay between
the eccentric and concentric phases of the BP exercise.
The bar holders were positioned, so that the bar stopped
;1 cm above each participant’s chest. After lowering the
bar at a controlled mean eccentric velocity (;0.30–0.50
m$s21), participants stopped for ;1.0 seconds at the bar
holders (momentarily releasing the weight but keeping con-
tact with the bar), and thereafter, they performed a purely
concentric push at maximal intended velocity. This momen-
tary pause between phases was imposed to minimize the
contribution of the rebound effect and allow for more reli-
able, consistent measures (11). Similarly, a detailed descrip-
tion of the SQ testing protocol has been recently provided
elsewhere (18). Participants started from an upright position,
descending in a continuous motion until the posterior thighs
and calves made contact with each other, then immediately
reversed motion and ascended back to the starting position.
Unlike the eccentric phase, which was performed at a nor-
mal, controlled velocity, subjects were required to always
execute the concentric phase of either the BP or SQ at max-
imal intended velocity. The individual position for the BP
(position on the bench as well as grip widths) and SQ exer-
cise (feet position and placement of the hands on the bar)
was measured for each participant, so that they could be
reproduced in all testing sessions. The warm-up consisted
of 5 minutes of running at a self-selected easy pace, 5 minutes
of upper- or lower-body joint mobilization exercises, fol-
lowed by 2 sets of 8 and 6 repetitions (3-minute rest) with
loads of 20 and 30 kg, respectively. The initial load was set at
20 kg and 30 kg for all participants in the BP and SQ exer-
cise, respectively, and was gradually increased in 10-kg

Figure 1. Velocity-based methods of quantifying neuromuscular fatigue in this study. The example corresponds to a test of maximal number of repetitions to
failure against a load of ;60% 1RM in the BP exercise for a representative participant. Mean propulsive velocity loss against the V1 m$s21 load (246.8%) and
MPV loss over the set (282.7%) are calculated. See text for details. 1RM = 1 repetition maximum; BP = bench press; MPV = mean propulsive velocity.

VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2019 | 3

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Velocity Loss for Monitoring Resistance Exercises

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the

TABLE 1. Descriptive variables for the exercise sets to failure performed against the 4 loading magnitudes under study in the bench press and squat exercises.*†

50% 1RM 60% 1RM 70% 1RM 80% 1RM

BP SQ BP SQ BP SQ BP SQ
(;0.93 m$s21) (;1.13 m$s21) (;0.79 m$s21) (;0.98 m$s21) (;0.62 m$s21) (;0.82 m$s21) (;0.48 m$s21) (;0.68 m$s21)
TM

MPVBEST (m$s21) 0.93 6 0.01§k¶# 1.13 6 0.02§k¶ 0.79 6 0.01k¶# 0.99 6 0.01k¶ 0.62 6 0.01¶# 0.82 6 0.01¶ 0.47 6 0.01# 0.69 6 0.02
(0.91–0.94) (1.10–1.16) (0.77–0.81) (0.96–1.01) (0.60–0.64) (0.79–0.85) (0.45–0.49) (0.66–0.71)
MPVLAST (m$s21) 0.14 6 0.03# 0.28 6 0.04 0.13 6 0.02# 0.26 6 0.07 0.13 6 0.03# 0.29 6 0.04 0.12 6 0.02# 0.27 6 0.04
(0.09–0.22) (0.19–0.35) (0.09–0.19) (0.16–0.42) (0.06–0.18) (0.24–0.37) (0.08–0.16) (0.21–0.34)
Velocity loss (%)z 84.8 6 3.8k¶# 75.5 6 3.9k¶ 83.7 6 3.0k¶# 73.6 6 6.6k¶ 79.3 6 4.8¶# 64.6 6 4.7¶ 73.9 6 5.3# 60.2 6 6.7
(76.1–90.5) (68.9–83.1) (76.3–88.1) (56.6–87.9) (70.5–90.3) (55.8–70.7) (65.9–82.9) (48.9–70.2)
Rep 25.2 6 5.5§k¶# 23.4 6 7.7§k¶ 19.3 6 2.8k¶# 16.2 6 5.0k¶ 12.3 6 2.3¶# 9.6 6 3.3¶ 7.7 6 1.5# 6.0 6 1.5
(19–40) (15–44) (15–24) (10–31) (9–18) (5–18) (5–10) (4–10)
Load (kg) 38.0 6 5.2§k¶# 60.5 6 11.3§k¶ 44.6 6 6.8k¶# 72.0 6 11.8k¶ 54.4 6 7.8¶# 84.8 6 12.6¶ 63.1 6 7.8# 92.6 6 14.4
(27.5–45) (47.5–90) (30–55) (57.5–99) (34–65) (67.5–111) (44–74) (73.0–122.5)

*1RM = 1 repetition maximum; BP = bench press; SQ = full squat; MPVBEST = mean propulsive velocity of the fastest (usually first) repetition in the set; MPVLAST = mean
propulsive velocity of the last completed repetition in the set; Rep = number of completed repetitions in the set.
†Data are mean 6 SD (range).
zStatistically significant “exercise 3 load magnitude” interaction: p , 0.01.
§Statistically significant differences with respect to: 60% 1RM.
kStatistically significant differences with respect to: 70% 1RM.
¶Statistically significant differences with respect to: 80% 1RM.
#SQ exercise.
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

TABLE 2. Percentage of completed repetitions out of the maximum possible number when a given magnitude of mean propulsive velocity (MPV) loss is reached
in each set to failure in the bench press and squat exercises.*†

Percentage of repetitions completed

50% 1RM 60% 1RM 70% 1RM 80% 1RM

BP SQ BP SQ BP SQ BP SQ
Velocity loss (%) (;0.93 m$s21) (;1.13 m$s21) (;0.79 m$s21) (;0.98 m$s21) (;0.62 m$s21) (;0.82 m$s21) (;0.48 m$s21) (;0.68 m$s21)

10 23.0 6 2.8 25.6 6 6.2 21.3 6 3.5 26.9 6 5.7¶ 23.4 6 3.3 32.6 6 6.6z§¶ 29.7 6 3.4z§k 36.6 6 5.6z§k¶
15 31.4 6 3.4 34.7 6 7.0 29.0 6 3.5 35.6 6 6.8¶ 31.0 6 3.5 41.2 6 7.8z§¶ 37.1 6 4.0z§k 44.4 6 6.7z§k¶
20 39.4 6 4.1 43.3 6 7.7 37.4 6 3.7 43.8 6 7.6¶ 38.4 6 3.8 49.3 6 8.7z§¶ 44.2 6 4.6z§k 51.9 6 7.8z§¶
25 46.8 6 4.7 51.2 6 8.2¶ 44.4 6 3.8 51.4 6 8.2¶ 45.4 6 4.2 56.9 6 9.3z§¶ 51.0 6 5.2z§k 59.0 6 8.7z§¶
30 53.7 6 5.1 58.6 6 8.5¶ 51.1 6 4.0 58.6 6 8.5¶ 52.2 6 4.5 63.9 6 9.5z§¶ 57.4 6 5.6z§k 65.7 6 9.4z§¶
35 60.2 6 5.5 65.4 6 8.5¶ 57.5 6 4.1 65.3 6 8.5¶ 58.6 6 4.7 70.4 6 9.4z§¶ 63.5 6 5.9§k 72.0 6 9.9z§¶
40 66.1 6 5.7 71.7 6 8.2¶ 63.5 6 4.1 71.4 6 8.2¶ 64.7 6 4.7 76.4 6 8.9¶ 69.3 6 6.1§ 77.9 6 10.3z§¶
45 71.5 6 5.7 77.3 6 7.7¶ 69.2 6 4.1 77.1 6 7.7¶ 70.5 6 4.7 81.8 6 8.0¶ 74.7 6 6.1§ 83.4 6 10.7z§¶

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the
50 76.5 6 5.6 82.4 6 6.9¶ 74.6 6 4.0 82.3 6 6.9¶ 75.9 6 4.6 86.7 6 6.9¶ 79.8 6 5.9 88.5 6 11.0z§¶
55 80.9 6 5.3 86.9 6 5.8¶ 78.6 6 3.8 86.9 6 6.1¶ 81.1 6 4.5 91.1 6 5.6¶ 84.5 6 5.6 93.3 6 11.3z§¶
60 84.8 6 4.9 90.8 6 4.6¶ 83.2 6 3.6 91.1 6 5.3¶ 85.9 6 4.3 94.9 6 4.4¶ 88.9 6 5.2 97.6 6 11.8z§¶
65 88.3 6 4.4 94.1 6 3.3¶ 87.6 6 3.4 94.8 6 5.1¶ 90.5 6 4.1 98.2 6 4.2¶ 93.0 6 4.8 101.6 6 12.5z§¶

*1RM = 1 repetition maximum; BP = bench press; SQ = full squat.

†Data are mean 6 SD.
zStatistically significant differences with respect to: 50% 1RM.
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2019 |

§Statistically significant differences with respect to: 60% 1RM.

kStatistically significant differences with respect to: 70% 1RM.
¶BP exercise.

TM
| www.nsca.com
5
 Velocity Loss for Monitoring Resistance Exercises

Figure 2. Relationships between the magnitude of velocity loss experienced over the set and the number of repetitions performed (out of the maximum, to
failure, possible number) for the 4 loads under study (50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM) in the BP and SQ exercises. 1RM = 1 repetition maximum; BP = bench press;
MPV = mean propulsive velocity; SQ = full squat.

increments until the attained MPV was lower than 0.4 m$s21
for the BP or 0.7 m$s21 for the SQ exercise. Thereafter, the
load was individually adjusted with smaller increments (5
down to 1 kg), so that 1RM could be precisely determined.
During the test, 3 repetitions were executed for light (,50%
1RM), 2 for medium (50–80% 1RM), and only one for the
heaviest (.80% 1RM) loads. Interset rests were 3 minutes
for the light and medium loads and 5 minutes for the heavi-
est loads.
Tests of Maximum Number of Repetitions to Failure. Participants
performed 8 MNR tests (4 in each exercise) against loads of
50, 60, 70, and 80% of 1RM, respectively. As indicated above,
relative loads were determined from the load-velocity
relationship for the BP and SQ (4,18). Equations used to
estimate the MPV corresponding to each load were the fol-
lows: MPV = (0.00003 3 %1RM) 2 (0.0204 3 %1RM) +
1.889, and MPV = (20.00006977 3 %1RM) 2 (0.005861 3
%1RM) + 1.608, for BP and SQ, respectively (4,18). Thus,
the TM
a target MPV to be attained in the first (usually the fastest)
repetition of the set in each session was used as an estima-
tion of %1RM, as follows: (a) ;0.93 m$s21 (50% 1RM),
;0.79 m$s21 (60% 1RM), ;0.62 m$s21 (70% 1RM), and
;0.47 m$s21 (80% 1RM) for BP (4); and (b) ;1.13 m$s21
(50% 1RM), ;0.98 m$s21 (60% 1RM), ;0.82 m$s21 (70%
1RM), and ;0.68 m$s21 (80% 1RM) for SQ (18). Thus,
before starting each set to failure, the absolute load (kg) for
each participant was individually adjusted to match the
velocity associated (60.02 and 60.03 m$s21 for the BP
and SQ exercises, respectively) with the %1RM intended
for each session. Participants were required to move the
bar as fast as possible during the concentric phase of each
repetition, from the first repetition until reaching muscle
failure. Specifically, for the BP exercise, the participants were
required to perform each repetition descending the bar in
a controlled manner and maintain a static position during
;1.0 seconds at the end of the eccentric phase (stopped on
the bar holders) before lifting the bar as fast as possible on

6 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

hearing a verbal command, exactly as performed in the pro-

gressive loading test for this exercise.

Determination of the Load That Elicited a 1-m$s21 Mean Pro-

pulsive Velocity. In each session, participants warmed up by
performing 3 sets of 6 down to 3 repetitions (3-minute rests)
with increasing loads up to the individual load that elicited
a ;1.00-m$s21 (1.00 6 0.02 m$s21 for BP and 1.00 6 0.02
m$s21 for SQ) MPV (V1 m$s21 load). This value was chosen
because it is a sufficiently high velocity, which is attained
against medium loads (;45 and ;60% 1RM for BP and
SQ, respectively), and it allows a good expression of the
effect of loading on velocity, besides being a relatively easy
to move and well-tolerated load (16). The V1 m$s21 load
(kg) was thus taken as a pre-exercise reference measure
against which to compare the velocity loss experienced after
each of the MNR tests. The pre-post exercise decline of
velocity against this V1 m$s21 load was considered as a mea-
sure of acute muscle fatigue (3,12,16). Participants executed 3
maximal effort consecutive repetitions against the V1 m$s21
load right before starting each MNR test and again imme-
diately after completing the last repetition of the MNR test
(load was changed in 5–10 seconds with the help of spot-
ters). Strong verbal encouragement and velocity feedback in
every repetition were provided throughout all testing ses-
sions to motivate participants to give a maximal effort.

Velocity Measures. Several velocity outcome measures were

used as performance variables in this study: (a) MPV of each
repetition; (b) MPV of the fastest (usually first) repetition in
the set (MPVBEST); (c) MPV of the last completed repetition
in the set (MPVLAST); (d) loss of MPV over each exercise
set, defined as: 100 (MPVLAST 2 MPVBEST)/MPVBEST; and
(e) the percentage change in MPV pre-post exercise attained
against the V1 m$s21 load. The average MPV of the 3 rep-
Figure 3. Mean loss of MPV against the V1 m$s21 load corresponding
etitions before exercise was compared with the average to each loading magnitude (A) and relationships between mean loss of
MPV of the 3 repetitions performed immediately after the MPV over the set and mean loss of MPV against the V1 m$s21 load (B).
exercise set (i.e., 100 [average MPVpost 2 average MPVpre]/ Significant differences between the BP and SQ exercises: *p , 0.05;
***p , 0.001. Significant differences with respect to ;80% 1RM: #p ,
average MPVpre) (16). Figure 1 shows an example of these 2 0.05, ###p , 0.001. Significant differences with respect to ;70%
ways of calculating the magnitude of velocity loss (over the 1RM: †††p , 0.001. 1RM = 1 repetition maximum; BP = bench press;
set and pre-post exercise against the V1 m$s21 load) for MPV = mean propulsive velocity; SQ = full squat.

a representative participant and MNR test in the BP

exercise.
Measurement Equipment and Data Acquisition. Height and
body mass were determined using a medical stadiometer and
scale (Seca 710; Seca Ltd., Hamburg, Germany) with the
participants wearing only underclothes. All sessions were
performed using a Smith machine with no counterweight
mechanism (Multipower Fitness Line, Peroga, Spain). A
linear velocity transducer with its associated software (T-
Force Dynamic Measurement System, Version 3.60, Ergo-
tech, Murcia, Spain) was used to measure and register the
bar velocity of each repetition, which was sampled at 1,000
Hz. The reliability of this system has been reported
elsewhere (16). The velocity measures used in this study
correspond to the mean velocity of the propulsive phase
(MPV) of each repetition (19). The propulsive phase was
defined as that portion of the concentric phase during which
the measured acceleration (a) is greater than acceleration
due to gravity (i.e., a $ 29.81 m$s22) (19).
Statistical Analyses
Standard statistical methods were used for the calculation of
the mean, SD, CV, and Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r).
Relationships between the percentage loss of MPV over the
set and the percentage of performed repetitions against the

VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2019 | 7

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Velocity Loss for Monitoring Resistance Exercises

RESULTS
TABLE 3. Number of repetitions completed by each group (LRG vs. HRG) against The values for 1RM strength
the 4 loading magnitudes under study.*† were 79.6 6 11.05 and 115.6 6
16.9 kg for the BP and SQ ex-
BP SQ
ercises, respectively. The MPV
Load LRG (n = 10) HRG (n = 10) LRG (n = 10) HRG (n = 10) values corresponding to 1RM
were 0.14 6 0.06 m$s21 for
50% 1RM 21.2 6 1.2 29.2 6 5.1z 17.7 6 2.0 29.0 6 7.1z BP and 0.31 6 0.04 m$s21 for
60% 1RM 16.9 6 1.2 21.7 6 1.5z 12.5 6 1.6 19.9 6 4.5z
70% 1RM 10.7 6 1.3 13.9 6 2.0z 7.2 6 1.1 12.0 6 2.9z SQ.
80% 1RM 6.6 6 1.0 8.8 6 1.0z 4.8 6 0.6 7.1 6 1.3z Characteristics of MNR Tests
Table 1 summarizes the char-
*BP = bench press; SQ = full squat; LRG = low number of repetitions group; HRG = high
number of repetitions group; 1RM = 1 repetition maximum. acteristics of each set to failure
†Data are mean 6 SD. performed against the 4 loads
zStatistically significant differences between-groups: p , 0.001.
under study in the BP and SQ.
A significant “exercise 3 load
magnitude” interaction (p ,
different load magnitudes were studied by fitting second- 0.01) was observed for velocity loss in the set, whereas there
order polynomials to data. Similarly, relationships between was no such interaction in the other variables analyzed. No
the relative load and the percentage loss of MPV against the significant differences were found between the expected or
21 targeted MVP values and the fastest MPV value (MPVBEST)
V1 m$s load were studied by fitting second-order polyno-
of each set for any of the loads used in any exercise. Average
mials to data. A 2 (exercise: BP vs. SQ) 3 4 (load magnitude:
MPV values of the last completed repetition of each set
50 vs. 60% vs. 70 vs. 80% 1RM) repeated-measures analysis
(MPVLAST) were very similar for all the loads used (Table 1),
of variance was conducted to analyze the intraexercise and
and no significant differences were found between the aver-
between-exercise differences for all variables (MPVBEST,
age MPVLAST of each MNR test and the average MPV value
MPVLAST, percentage velocity loss, number of repetitions, of 1RM for any exercise. As loading magnitude increased,
and percentage of repetitions performed). Bonferroni post both the number of performed repetitions and the magni-
hoc procedures were performed to locate the pairwise differ- tude of MPV loss progressively decreased for the BP and SQ
ences between the mean values. A t-test for independent (Table 1). The number of repetitions and the loss of MPV
samples was used to compare the changes in the percentage over the set were significantly greater in the BP compared
loss of MPV pre-post exercise against the V1 m$s21 load with the SQ for the 4 loads examined. The number of rep-
between those participants who performed a low vs. a high etitions performed against each load showed a high interin-
number of repetitions in each set to failure. Significance was dividual variability in both exercises, with greater variability
accepted at p # 0.05. All analyses were performed using in the SQ (CV: 25.9–33.9%) compared with the BP (CV:
SPSS software version 17.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). 14.5–21.8%).

Figure 4. Comparison of the loss of MPV pre-post exercise against the V1 m$s21 load experienced by 2 groups of participants: those who completed a high
(HRG) vs. a low number of repetitions (LRG) in each set to failure against the 4 loads under study (50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM) in the BP (A) and the SQ (B)
exercises. See text for details. BP = bench press; SQ = full squat.

the TM

8 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Relationship Between the Percentage of Performed
Repetitions and the Percentage of Mean Propulsive
Velocity Loss
In the BP, the percentages of performed repetitions when
a given percentage of MPV loss (10–65%) was reached were
very similar for loads ranging from 50 to 70% 1RM, whereas
these percentages of performed repetitions were slightly
greater for 80% 1RM (Table 2). In the SQ, these percentages
were very similar for 50 and 60% 1RM but were progres-
sively greater for 70 and 80% 1RM, respectively (Table 2).
Prediction equations to estimate the percentage of per-
formed repetitions when a given magnitude of velocity loss
is reached in an exercise set, for the 4 loads under study, are
provided in Figure 2 for the SQ and BP. There was a signif-
icant “exercise 3 load magnitude” interaction in the percent-
age of performed repetitions when the magnitude of velocity
loss in the set ranged from 10 to 30%, whereas no significant
“exercise 3 load magnitude” interactions were observed
when the magnitude of velocity loss was higher than 30%.
Comparisons between both exercises showed that for the
same magnitude of MPV loss over the set, the percentage
of performed repetitions was always greater for the SQ than
for the BP for all loads used (Table 2 and Figure 2).
Mean Propulsive Velocity Loss Against the V1 m$s21 Load
The loss of MPV pre-post exercise against the V1 m$s21
load was statistically significant (p , 0.05–0.001) for all
MNR tests. This loss of MPV against the V1 m$s21 load
gradually decreased as the load magnitude increased in both
exercises (Figure 3A). A significant “exercise 3 load magni-
tude” interaction (p , 0.01) was found for this variable, with
the loss of MPV against the V1 m$s21 load being signifi-
cantly greater in the BP compared with the SQ for all 4
loads. When data from both exercises were pooled, a signif-
icant positive correlation (r = 0.930; p , 0.001) was found
between the loss of MPV over the set and the loss of MPV
against the V1 m$s21 load (Figure 3B).
Mean Propulsive Velocity Loss Against the V1 m$s21 Load:
Comparison Between Groups That Perform a Low vs. a High
Number of Repetitions per Set
To study whether the percentage loss of MPV pre-post
exercise against the V1 m$s21 load was dependent on indi-
vidual differences in the maximum (to failure) number of
repetitions that could be performed per set, participants were
ranked according to the number of repetitions completed.
Thus, the total sample of 20 participants was further divided
into 2 subgroups of 10 participants each, for each load mag-
nitude used: a low number of repetitions group (LRG) and
a high number of repetitions group (HRG). The number of
repetitions completed by each group is reported in Table 3.
No significant differences in the average loss of MPV pre-
post exercise against the V1 m$s21 load were found between
groups for any of the load magnitudes used in the BP or SQ
(Figure 4).
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
DISCUSSION
The main aim of this study was to compare the pattern of
repetition velocity decline during a set to failure performed
against different loads (50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM) in the BP
and SQ exercises to assess whether the magnitude of velocity
loss incurred during an exercise set could be used as an
indicator or predictor of the number of repetitions left in
reserve. The results of the current study extend and confirm
those found in a recent study (5) by showing that the magni-
tude of MPV loss and the percentage of performed repetitions
against each load are strongly related in both the BP (R2 =
0.97 for all 4 loads) and the SQ (R2 = 0.93 for all 4 loads)
exercises (Figure 2), regardless of the number of repetitions
to failure completed by each participant (Table 1). This find-
ing enables us to estimate with a high precision the percentage
of repetitions that has already been completed in an exercise
set (and therefore how many repetitions are left in reserve) as
soon as a given magnitude of velocity loss is incurred in any of
these 2 exercises (Table 2 and Figure 2). Using the velocity loss
within the set as a tool for prescribing and monitoring RT
volume, rather than prescribing a fixed number of repetitions
to perform against a given load, seems an important step for-
ward toward a more rational and comprehensive character-
ization of the resistance exercise stimulus compared with
a traditional volume configuration (repetitions per set).
Therefore, using this novel approach, instead of establishing
a given, fixed, number of repetitions to be performed for each
participant, each training set should be terminated as soon as
a given percentage of velocity loss is reached.
This study also seems to indicate that the relationship
between the percentage of velocity loss in the set and the
percentages of performed repetitions depends on the relative
load being lifted and the type of exercise used. Thus, in the
BP exercise, the percentages of performed repetitions
corresponding to the different velocity losses reached (from
10 to 65%) were very similar for loads of 50–70% 1RM,
whereas these percentages were slightly (;5%) greater for
80% 1RM (Table 2). These results are very similar to those
recently reported for loads between 50 and 85% 1RM in the
BP (5). Unlike the BP, the percentage of performed repeti-
tions in the SQ in each set to failure when the magnitude of
MPV loss ranged from 10 to 65% was very similar for 50 and
60% 1RM, whereas it was progressively higher for 70% 1RM
and 80% 1RM (;4.2 and ;5%, respectively) (Table 2).
These results are partially in contrast with those showed
by Izquierdo et al. (7) who reported that the pattern of
repetition velocity decline and the relative number of repe-
titions performed was similar for loads of 60–75% 1RM in
both the SQ and BP exercises. Several methodological differ-
ences that could explain these contrasting results include the
following: (a) monitoring first’s repetition velocity to deter-
mine the relative load; (b) use of different exercises (parallel
squat vs. full squat); (c) particular way of performing the BP
exercise (including or not a pause between the eccentric and
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2019 | 9
 Velocity Loss for Monitoring Resistance Exercises
concentric phases); and (d) lifting velocity in each repetition
(controlled by means of a metronome vs. maximal intended
velocity).
Interestingly, the comparison between both training exer-
cises used in this study (BP vs. SQ) showed that a given
percentage of velocity loss over the set resulted in a greater
percentage of repetitions being completed (and, therefore, less
repetitions left in reserve) in the SQ compared with the BP for
all loads analyzed (Table 2 and Figure 2). As already indicated,
this finding could be explained by the smaller range of veloc-
ity loss over the set achievable for the SQ compared with the
BP, which is a direct consequence of the mean velocity of the
1RM of each exercise (16) (considerably slower velocities can
be reached in the BP compared with the SQ). A deeper anal-
ysis of the results revealed that, for each loading magnitude,
these differences between exercises in the percentage of per-
formed repetitions were greater as the magnitude of velocity
loss over the set increased. In addition, the difference in the
percentage of repetitions completed between the BP and SQ
exercise was higher as the load increased (Table 2 and Fig-
ure 2). These results seem to indicate that the prescription of
RT volume by means of the magnitude (percentage) of veloc-
ity loss in the set should be specific for each exercise and
relative load used. Thus, to complete the same percentage
of repetitions in both exercises, a greater magnitude of MPV
loss over the set should be allowed in the BP compared with
the SQ, as follows: ;5, ;6, ;8, and ;7% higher velocity loss
for 50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM, respectively.
Because muscle fatigue has been traditionally defined as
a loss of force-generating capability with an eventual
inability to sustain exercise at the required or expected level
(2), the percentage velocity loss attained against the V1
m$s21 load can be considered a good expression of the
degree of fatigue experienced during exercise (16). In this
study, the loss of MPV pre-post exercise against the V1
m$s21 load gradually decreased as the loading magnitude
increased in both exercises (Figure 3A). In fact, both opera-
tional methods of quantifying muscle fatigue in this study
(MPV loss against the V1 m$s21 load and MPV loss over
the set) were strongly related in both the BP (r = 0.930; p ,
0.001) and SQ (r = 0.989; p , 0.001) exercises (Figure 3B).
Thus, it seems that the greater the magnitude of MPV loss
experienced over an exercise set, the greater is the degree of
fatigue being incurred. This is in agreement with previous
results from Sánchez-Medina and González-Badillo (16)
who compared the percentage of MPV loss against the V1
m$s21 load when performing sets to failure against loads of
12RM, 10RM, 8RM, 6RM, and 4RM. In this study (16),
a very high correlation was also found between percentage
loss of MPV over 3 sets and the percentage loss of MPV pre-
post exercise against the V1 m$s21 load for both SQ (r =
0.91) and BP (r = 0.97) exercises.
Finally, another important finding of this study was that
the average loss of MPV pre-post exercise against the V1
m$s21 load was very similar between those participants who
the TM
10 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
performed a high or a low number of repetitions (LRG vs.
HRG) during each set to muscle failure for all loads used in
both the BP and SQ (Figure 4). To the best of our knowl-
edge, this is the first study showing that the degree of fatigue
induced during an exercise set (measured by the percentage
loss of MPV against the V1 m$s21 load) is not related to the
maximal number of repetitions completed. In agreement
with a previous study (5), the present results emphasize
the validity of using the percentage of MPV loss over the
set as a variable for monitoring training volume during RT
rather than prescribing a fixed number of repetitions to per-
form against a given load because the percentage of MPV
loss over the set seems to be a remarkably accurate and
objective indicator of the number of repetitions left in
reserve, regardless of the number of repetitions that each
participant is able to complete against a given relative load.
In conclusion, our results provide relevant practical infor-
mation for coaches and strength and conditioning professio-
nals for monitoring and prescribing training volume during
RT in 2 fundamental training exercises such as the BP and SQ.
The main findings of this study were that: (a) a higher number
of repetitions was performed, and a higher magnitude of MPV
loss over the set was experienced for each of the exercise sets
to failure performed in the BP compared with the SQ against
all loads under study (50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM); (b) there was
a strong relationship between the relative loss of MPV over
the set and the percentage of performed repetitions (out of the
maximum possible number) against all loads used in both
exercises; (c) for a given magnitude of MPV loss (from 15 to
65%) reached in the set, the percentages of performed
repetitions were lower for the BP compared with the SQ for
all 4 loads analyzed; (d) the acute fatigue after a single set to
failure depends on the magnitude of MPV loss experienced
over the set; (e) the loss of MPVpre-post exercise decreased as
the loading magnitude increased, being greater for the BP
than the SQ for all loads used; and (f ) the percentage of MPV
loss attained against the V1 m$s21 load after a single set to
muscle failure is independent of the number of repetitions
completed by each participant in both the BP and SQ
exercises.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The current study provides novel insight into the monitoring
and prescription of the resistance exercise stimulus. Because
of the strong relationship observed between the percentage of
velocity loss over the set and the percentage of repetitions
completed, and considering that the degree of fatigue is
similar for all participants regardless of the number of
repetitions performed to achieve a certain velocity loss in
the set, coaches and strength and conditioning professionals
should consider using the magnitude of velocity loss attained
in each exercise set as a tool for monitoring training volume
during RT. In this regard, the training volume during each
exercise set should be configured using a certain magnitude of
velocity loss to be allowed (expressed as a relative loss in

repetition velocity from the fastest to the slowest repetition of
each set) rather than prescribing a fixed number of repetitions
to perform by all athletes with a given load. This novel
approach for monitoring training volume during RTallows us:
(a) to determine the actual degree or level of effort (relation-
ship between the repetitions actually performed and those left
in reserve) being incurred by an athlete during each exercise
set and (b) to equalize the level of effort for each subject during
RT, although, for that purpose, each subject might need to
perform a different number of repetitions per set against
a given relative load. The limit of velocity loss to be reached in
each set (e.g., 15, 30, or 40%) should be set in advance
depending on the training goal being pursued, the particular
exercise to be performed, the loading magnitude chosen, as
well as the training experience and performance level of the
athlete. Our results have also shown that there exist some
small differences in terms of the percentage of repetitions that
can be completed for a given magnitude of velocity loss over
the set which depend on the particular exercise (BP vs. SQ)
and load used. These differences should be taken into account
when prescribing training volume by means of the magnitude
of repetition velocity loss experienced during a training set in
different exercises.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors greatly appreciate the commitment and dedi-
cation of all participants of this study who performed
a maximum effort in each of the testing sessions. The
authors have no professional relationships with companies
or manufacturers that might benefit from the results of this
study. There was no financial support for this project. The
results of this study do not constitute endorsement of any
product by the authors or by the National Strength and
Conditioning Association.
REFERENCES
1. Bird, SP, Tarpenning, KM, and Marino, FE. Designing resistance
training programmes to enhance muscular fitness: A review of the
acute programme variables. Sports Med 35: 841–851, 2005.
2. Enoka, RM and Duchateau, J. Muscle fatigue: What, why and how
it influences muscle function. J Physiol 586: 11–23, 2008.
3. González-Badillo, JJ, Rodrı́guez-Rosell, D, Sánchez-Medina, L,
Ribas, J, López-López, C, Mora-Custodio, R, et al. Short-term
recovery following resistance exercise leading or not to failure. Int J
Sports Med 37: 295–304, 2016.
4. González-Badillo, JJ and Sánchez-Medina, L. Movement velocity as
a measure of loading intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports Med
31: 347–352, 2010.
5. González-Badillo, JJ, Yáñez-Garcı́a, JM, Mora-Custodio, R, and
Rodrı́guez-Rosell, D. Velocity loss as a variable for monitoring
resistance exercise. Int J Sports Med 38: 217–225, 2017.
6. Häkkinen, K, Komi, PV, Alen, M, and Kauhanen, H. EMG, muscle
fibre and force production characteristics during a 1 year training
period in elite weight-lifters. Eur J Appl Physiol 56: 419–427, 1987.
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
7. Izquierdo, M, González-Badillo, JJ, Häkkinen, K, Ibanez, J, Kraemer,
WJ, Altadill, A, et al. Effect of loading on unintentional lifting
velocity declines during single sets of repetitions to failure during
upper and lower extremity muscle actions. Int J Sports Med 27: 718–
724, 2006.
8. Kraemer, WJ and Ratamess, NA. Fundamentals of resistance
training: Progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc
36: 674–688, 2004.
9. Morán-Navarro, R, Martı́nez-Cava, A, Sánchez-Medina, L, Mora-
Rodrı́guez, R, González-Badillo, JJ, and Pallarés, J. Movement
velocity as a measure of level of effort during resistance exercise.
J Strength Cond Res, 2017. Epub ahead of print.
10. Mulligan, SE, Fleck, SJ, Gordon, SE, Koziris, LP, Triplett-McBride,
NT, and Kraemer, WJ. Influence of resistance exercise volume on
serum growth hormone and cortisol concentrations in women.
J Strength Cond Res 10: 256–262, 1996.
11. Pallarés, JG, Sánchez-Medina, L, Pérez, CE, De La Cruz-Sánchez, E,
and Mora-Rodrı́guez, R. Imposing a pause between the eccentric
and concentric phases increases the reliability of isoinertial strength
assessments. J Sports Sci 32: 1165–1175, 2014.
12. Pareja-Blanco, F, Rodrı́guez-Rosell, D, Sánchez-Medina, L, Ribas-
Serna, J, López-López, C, Mora-Custodio, R, et al. Acute and
delayed response to resistance exercise leading or not leading to
muscle failure. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 37: 630–639, 2017.
13. Pareja-Blanco, F, Rodrı́guez-Rosell, D, Sánchez-Medina, L, Sanchı́s-
Moysi, J, Dorado, C, Mora-Custodio, R, et al. Effects of velocity loss
during resistance training on athletic performance, strength gains
and muscle adaptations. Scand J Med Sci Sports 27: 724–735, 2017.
14. Ratamess, NA, Falvo, MJ, Mangine, GT, Hoffman, JR, Faigenbaum,
AD, and Kang, J. The effect of rest interval length on metabolic
responses to the bench press exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol 100: 1–17,
2007.
15. Richens, B and Cleather, DJ. The relationship between the number
of repetitions performed at given intensities is different in endurance
and strength trained athletes. Biol Sport 31: 157–161, 2014.
16. Sánchez-Medina, L and González-Badillo, JJ. Velocity loss as an
indicator of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 43: 1725–1734, 2011.
17. Sánchez-Medina, L, González-Badillo, JJ, Pérez, CE, and Pallarés,
JG. Velocity- and power-load relationships of the bench pull vs.
bench press exercises. Int J Sports Med 35: 209–216, 2014.
18. Sánchez-Medina, L, Pallarés, JG, Pérez, CE, Morán-Navarro, R, and
González-Badillo, JJ. Estimation of relative load from bar velocity in
the full back squat exercise. Sports Med Int Open 1: E80–E88, 2017.
19. Sánchez-Medina, L, Pérez, CE, and González-Badillo, JJ.
Importance of the propulsive phase in strength assessment. Int J
Sports Med 31: 123–129, 2010.
20. Shimano, T, Kraemer, WJ, Spiering, BA, Volek, JS, Hatfield, DL,
Silvestre, R, et al. Relationship between the number of repetitions
and selected percentages of one repetition maximum in free weight
exercises in trained and untrained men. J Strength Cond Res 20: 819–
823, 2006.
21. Terzis, G, Spengos, K, Manta, P, Sarris, N, and Georgiadis, G. Fiber
type composition and capillary density in relation to submaximal
number of repetitions in resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res 22:
845–850, 2008.
22. Tesch, PA, Komi, PV, and Häkkinen, K. Enzymatic adaptations
consequent to long-term strength training. Int J Sports Med 8(Suppl
1): 66–69, 1987.
23. Thornell, LE, Lindstrom, M, Renault, V, Mouly, V, and Butler-
Browne, GS. Satellite cells and training in the elderly. Scand J Med
Sci Sports 13: 48–55, 2003.
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2019 | 11