Time Course of Recovery From Different Velocity Loss Thresholds and Set Configurations During Full-Squat Training

Abstract Cornejo-Daza, PJ, Villalba-Fernández, A, González-Badillo, JJ, and Pareja-Blanco, F. Time course of recovery from different velocity loss thresholds and set configurations during full-squat training. J Strength Cond Res 38(2): 221–227, 2024—The aims of the research were to examine the effects of (a) velocity loss (VL) thresholds and (b) set configuration, traditional or cluster, on time-course recovery. A randomized cross-over research design was conducted, in which 15 resistance-trained men performed 4 protocols consisting of 3 sets of 70% 1RM in full squat (SQ), differing in the VL incurred during the set assessed with a linear velocity transducer: (a) 20% (70-20), (b) 30% (70-30), (c) 40% (70-40), and in the set configuration (d) 20% of VL using a cluster methodology (70-CLU). Movement velocity against the load that elicited a 1 m·s −1 velocity at baseline measurements (V1-load) in SQ, countermovement jump (CMJ) height, and sprint time in 20 m (T20) were assessed at baseline (Pre) and postintervention (Post, 6 hour-Post, 24 hour-Post, and 48 hour-Post). The 70-20 protocol resulted in fewer total repetitions than the other protocols ( p = 0.001), whereas 70-CLU, 70-30, and 70-40 completed similar total repetitions. The 70-30 protocol significantly worsened T20 at 6 hours-Post, CMJ at 48 hours-Post, and V1-load at 6 hours-Post ( p < 0.05). The 70-40 protocol significantly impaired T20 at 6 hours-Post, and CMJ and V1-load at 24 hours-Post ( p < 0.05). No significant performance reductions were observed for 70-20 and 70-CLU at 6 hours-Post, 24 hours-Post, and 48 hours-Post. Protocols with higher VL resulted in more pronounced fatigue and a slower rate of recovery. Cluster sets (70-CLU) resulted in higher volume than protocols with a similar level of fatigue (70-20) and a quicker recovery than protocols with a similar volume (70-30 and 70-40).