EFFORT INDEX AS A NOVEL VARIABLE FOR
MONITORING THE LEVEL OF EFFORT DURING
RESISTANCE EXERCISES
DAVID RODRÍGUEZ-ROSELL,1 JUAN M. YÁÑEZ-GARCÍA,1 JULIO TORRES-TORRELO,1 RICARDO MORA-
CUSTODIO,1 MÁRIO C. MARQUES,2,3 AND JUAN J. GONZÁLEZ-BADILLO1
1
Physical Performance and Sports Research Center, Pablo de Olavide University, Seville, Spain; 2Department of Sport Sciences,
University of Beira Interior, UBI, Covilha˜, Portugal; and 3Research Center in Sport Sciences, Health Sciences and Human
Development, CIDESD, Portugal
ABSTRACT
Rodrı́guez-Rosell, D, Yáñez-Garcı́a, JM, Torres-Torrelo, J, Mora-
Custodio, R, Marques, MC, and González-Badillo, JJ. Effort
index as a novel variable for monitoring the level of effort during
resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000,
2018—This study aimed to analyze the acute mechanical and
metabolic response to resistance exercise protocols (REPs)
defined by 2 variables: the first repetition’s mean velocity and
the percentage of velocity loss (%VL) over the set. The product
of these 2 variables was termed the effort index (EI) and was
used as an indicator of the degree of fatigue induced during
each REP. Twenty-one resistance-trained men (11 in full squat
[SQ] and 10 in bench press [BP]) performed 16 REPs sepa-
rated by 72 hours. Relative loads used (50, 60, 70, and 80% 1-
repetition maximum) were determined from the load-velocity
relationship for the SQ and BP, whereas volume was objec-
tively determined using the %VL attained over the set (10, 20,
30, and 45% for SQ, and 15, 25, 40, and 55% for BP). Lactate
concentration and velocity against the load that elicited
a ;1.00 m$s21 (V1 m$s21 load) were measured before and
after each REP. Post-exercise velocity with the V1 m$s21 load
and lactate concentration were significantly different (P ,
0.01–0.001) from pre-exercise after all REPs. A very close
relationship was found between the proposed EI and %VL with
the V1 m$s21 load (r = 0.92–0.98) and post-exercise lactate
concentration (r = 0.91–0.95) in both exercises. The correla-
tions between this new index and fatigue indicators such as VL
allow us to gain further insight into the actual degree of effort
incurred during resistance exercise. In addition to being a valu-
able addition for training monitoring, the proposed EI could
Address correspondence to David Rodrı́guez-Rosell,
davidrodriguezrosell@gmail.com.
00(00)/1–15
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
also be used as an independent variable in training studies
by equalizing the effort between different interventions.
KEY WORDS neuromuscular fatigue, velocity loss, lactate
concentration, velocity-based resistance training, training
prescription
INTRODUCTION
D
esigning a resistance training (RT) program is
a complex process, which requires adequate
monitoring and manipulation of the variables
that define the training stimulus (e.g., intensity,
volume, movement velocity, rest periods, exercise type, and
order and frequency), because the different combinations of
these RT variables directly influence the type and magnitude
of acute responses of the neural, endocrine and musculoskel-
etal systems, and consequently, long-term neuromuscular
adaptations (3,16,35). Therefore, knowledge of the mechan-
ical and physiological aspects underlying the different RT
protocols is essential to improve our understanding of the
processes that cause changes in neuromuscular perfor-
mance (4,5,26).
It is traditionally assumed that RT should always be
performed to muscular failure to maximize strength gains
(3,7,20). It is for this reason that most studies are analyzing
acute mechanical and physiological responses after RT pro-
grams in which the maximum number of repetitions have
been completed in each training set (1,2,14,19,36). However,
increasing evidence seems to indicate that it is uncertain that
RT should be performed to muscle failure for muscular
strength to be enhanced (7,18,24). In this regard, more
recent studies (10,13,23,26) have focused on comparing the
effect of manipulating the number of repetitions actually
performed in each set with respect to the maximum number
that can be completed on mechanical, endocrine, sympa-
thetic, parasympathetic, metabolic, and neuromuscular re-
sponses. Although these studies (10,13,23,26) have made it
possible to ascertain (a) the physiological meaning of the so-
called level of effort and (b) the relevance of velocity loss
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 | 1
 2

Effort Index as an Indicator of Muscle Fatigue

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the

TABLE 1. Descriptive characteristics of the resistance exercise protocols performed by the SQ group.*†

50%1RM 50%1RM 50%1RM 50%1RM 60%1RM 60%1RM 60%1RM 60%1RM

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Scheduled _10%VL _20%VL _30%VL _45%VL _10%VL _20%VL _30%VL _45%VL

Sets 3 VL (%) 3 3 10% 3 3 20% 3 3 30% 3 3 45% 3 3 10% 3 3 20% 3 3 30% 3 3 45%
Target MPV ;1.13 (50% ;1.13 (50% ;1.13 (50% ;1.13 (50% ;0.98 (60% ;0.98 (60% ;0.98 (60% ;0.98 (60%
(m$s21) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM)
Actually
performed
VL (%) 9.9 6 1.0 20.0 6 0.9 30.8 6 2.2 46.9 6 2.5 11.5 6 1.6 20.2 6 1.7 29.7 6 1.7 47.4 6 2.4
Reference MPV 1.13 6 0.03 1.14 6 0.02 1.13 6 0.02 1.12 6 0.02 0.99 6 0.03 0.99 6 0.03 1.00 6 0.03 0.99 6 0.03
TM

(m$s21) (;52% 1RM) (;51% 1RM) (;52% 1RM) (;52% 1RM) (;61% 1RM) (;61% 1RM) (;61% 1RM) (;61% 1RM)
Load used (kg) 61.6 6 6.8 61.2 6 7.9 60.3 6 8.6 61.5 6 6.3 73.0 6 7.5 74.1 6 8.1 73.2 6 8.0 74.7 6 5.6
EI 11.2 6 1.3 22.8 6 1.0 34.7 6 2.7 52.7 6 3.3 11.4 6 1.6 20.0 6 1.8 29.5 6 1.7 46.8 6 3.1
Rep 5.0 6 1.4 8.2 6 2.2 10.5 6 2.9 13.4 6 3.7 3.8 6 1.0 5.3 6 1.6 6.9 6 1.7 9.2 6 2.2

70%1RM 70%1RM 70%1RM 70%1RM 80%1RM 80%1RM 80%1RM 80%1RM

Scheduled _10%VL _20%VL _30%VL _45%VL _10%VL _20%VL _30%VL _45%VL

Sets 3 VL (%) 3 3 10% 3 3 20% 3 3 30% 3 3 45% 3 3 10% 3 3 20% 3 3 30% 3 3 45%
Target MPV ;0.82 (70% ;0.82 (70% ;0.82 (70% ;0.82 (70% ;0.68 (80% ;0.68 (80% ;0.68 (80% ;0.68 (80%
(m$s21) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM)
Actually
performed
VL (%) 10.7 6 2.3 19.8 6 2.0 29.9 6 2.0 45.8 6 2.9 11.0 6 1.2 21.1 6 2.5 30.9 6 2.3 48.1 6 4.5
Reference MPV 0.84 6 0.03 0.85 6 0.03 0.83 6 0.01 0.84 6 0.02 0.71 6 0.02 0.70 6 0.02 0.71 6 0.02 0.70 6 0.03
(m$s21) (;70% 1RM) (;70% 1RM) (;71% 1RM) (;70% 1RM) (;78% 1RM) (;79% 1RM) (;78% 1RM) (;79% 1RM)
Load used (kg) 85.6 6 7.3 87.7 6 9.6 87.6 6 8.7 86.1 6 8.4 93.7 6 8.2 93.4 6 8.9 94.5 6 10.3 93.5 6 9.9
EI 9.0 6 1.8 16.8 6 1.6 24.9 6 1.6 38.5 6 2.4 7.8 6 0.8 14.8 6 1.6 22.0 6 1.2 33.5 6 3.4
Rep 2.5 6 0.6 3.5 6 1.0 4.4 6 1.0 5.8 6 1.1 1.9 6 0.2 2.5 6 0.7 3.2 6 0.6 3.8 6 0.9

*RM = repetition maximum; VL = loss of MPV over the set; MPV = mean propulsive velocity; EI = effort index (see text for details); Rep = number of repetitions performed in each
set.
†Data are mean 6 SD. SQ: full back-squat exercise (n = 11).
 TABLE 2. Descriptive characteristics of the resistance exercise protocols performed in each session for the PB group.*†
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

50%1RM 50%1RM 50%1RM 50%1RM 60%1RM 60%1RM 60%1RM 60%1RM

Scheduled _15%VL _25%VL _40%VL _55%VL _15%VL _25%VL _40%VL _55%VL

Sets 3 VL (%) 3 3 15% 3 3 25% 3 3 40% 3 3 55% 3 3 15% 3 3 25% 3 3 40% 3 3 55%
Target MPV ;0.93 (50% ;0.93 (50% ;0.93 (50% ;0.93 (50% ;0.79 (60% ;0.79 (60% ;0.79 (60% ;0.79 (60%
(m$s21) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM)
Actually
performed
VL (%) 15.1 6 1.3 25.3 6 0.9 40.2 6 1.5 54.9 6 1.6 15.3 6 0.9 25.3 6 1.3 40.9 6 1.3 55.1 6 1.9
Reference MPV 0.92 6 0.03 0.93 6 0.03 0.93 6 0.02 0.93 6 0.02 0.80 6 0.02 0.80 6 0.02 0.80 6 0.02 0.79 6 0.02
(m$s21) (;52% 1RM) (;51% 1RM) (;51% 1RM) (;51% 1RM) (;59% 1RM) (;59% 1RM) (;59% 1RM) (;59% 1RM)
Load used (kg) 44.7 6 9.7 44.8 6 9.8 45.0 6 10.0 45.1 6 10.2 51.5 6 11.8 52.1 6 11.9 52.2 6 12.3 53.4 6 12.4
EI 14.0 6 1.4 23.4 6 1.1 37.2 6 1.8 50.9 6 2.0 12.3 6 0.9 20.3 6 1.3 32.9 6 1.3 43.7 6 1.6
Rep 4.8 6 1.0 7.7 6 1.4 10.9 6 1.8 13.2 6 2.1 4.2 6 0.6 5.6 6 0.8 8.1 6 1.6 9.6 6 1.4

70%1RM 70%1RM 70%1RM 70%1RM 80%1RM 80%1RM 80%1RM 80%1RM

Scheduled _15%VL _25%VL _40%VL _55%VL _15%VL _25%VL _40%VL _55%VL

Sets 3 VL (%) 3 3 15% 3 3 25% 3 3 40% 3 3 55% 3 3 15% 3 3 25% 3 3 40% 3 3 55%

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Target MPV ;0.63 (70% ;0.63 (70% ;0.63 (70% ;0.63 (70% ;0.47 (80% ;0.47 (80% ;0.47 (80% ;0.47 (80%

the
(m$s21) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM) 1RM)
Actually
performed
VL (%) 15.5 6 1.8 25.2 6 1.4 40.0 6 2.8 54.1 6 2.5 15.3 6 1.7 25.0 6 2.7 40.3 6 2.5 56.8 6 4.0
Reference MPV 0.63 6 0.03 0.63 6 0.02 0.62 6 0.02 0.63 6 0.02 0.48 6 0.02 0.49 6 0.02 0.49 6 0.02 0.49 6 0.02
(m$s21) (;69% 1RM) (;69% 1RM) (;70% 1RM) (;69% 1RM) (;79% 1RM) (;79% 1RM) (;78% 1RM) (;78% 1RM)
Load used (kg) 60.7 6 16.5 61.2 6 16.9 62.0 6 16.9 62.1 6 16.4 70.5 6 19.2 70.2 6 19.2 70.9 6 19.1 70.6 6 19.1
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 |

EI 9.8 6 1.2 15.9 6 1.1 24.8 6 1.6 34.1 6 1.6 7.4 6 0.8 12.3 6 1.4 19.8 6 1.5 27.8 6 1.6
Rep 3.1 6 0.6 4.1 6 0.7 6.1 6 1.5 7.6 6 1.5 2.2 6 0.2 3.3 6 0.3 4.4 6 0.7 5.4 6 1.2

*RM = repetition maximum; VL = loss of MPV over the set; MPV = mean propulsive velocity; EI = effort index (see text for details); Rep = number of repetitions performed in each
set; BP = bench press exercise (n = 10).
†Data are mean 6 SD.

TM
| www.nsca.com
3
 4

Effort Index as an Indicator of Muscle Fatigue

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

TABLE 3. Load (kg) that elicited a mean propulsive velocity of ;1 m$s21 before each REP in the SQ and BP exercises.*†
the

SQ BP

MPVBEST MPVpre MPVpost MPVBEST MPVpre MPVpost

REP Load (kg) (m$s21) (m$s21) (m$s21) REP Load (kg) (m$s21) (m$s21) (m$s21)

50% 1RM_10% 70.5 6 6.9 1.02 6 0.02 0.98 6 0.02 0.85 6 0.08 50% 1RM_15% 40.9 6 9.3 1.00 6 0.03 0.96 6 0.04 0.83 6 0.07
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

VL VL
50% 1RM_20% 70.2 6 9.4 1.01 6 0.03 0.97 6 0.02 0.82 6 0.06 50% 1RM_25% 41.0 6 9.5 1.00 6 0.03 0.97 6 0.03 0.77 6 0.05
VL VL
50% 1RM_30% 69.7 6 11.1 1.01 6 0.03 0.98 6 0.03 0.73 6 0.08 50% 1RM_40% 41.4 6 9.2 0.99 6 0.02 0.95 6 0.02 0.59 6 0.10
VL VL
50% 1RM_45% 69.6 6 6.1 1.01 6 0.02 0.97 6 0.03 0.67 6 0.08 50% 1RM_55% 42.1 6 10.2 1.00 6 0.02 0.95 6 0.04 0.51 6 0.12
VL VL
60% 1RM_10% 70.7 6 7.2 1.01 6 0.02 0.97 6 0.02 0.83 6 0.06 60% 1RM_15% 41.5 6 9.3 1.00 6 0.03 0.96 6 0.04 0.83 6 0.04
TM

VL VL
60% 1RM_20% 73.4 6 7.7 1.00 6 0.01 0.96 6 0.03 0.81 6 0.07 60% 1RM_25% 41.8 6 9.2 1.01 6 0.02 0.97 6 0.03 0.79 6 0.05
VL VL
60% 1RM_30% 72.5 6 8.0 1.01 6 0.02 0.96 6 0.03 0.77 6 0.07 60% 1RM_40% 41.8 6 9.2 1.00 6 0.03 0.97 6 0.03 0.73 6 0.08
VL VL
60% 1RM_45% 74.0 6 5.3 1.01 6 0.01 0.97 6 0.03 0.74 6 0.10 60% 1RM_55% 42.3 6 9.5 1.00 6 0.03 0.96 6 0.03 0.61 6 0.13
VL VL
70% 1RM_10% 74.1 6 5.3 1.01 6 0.02 0.96 6 0.03 0.86 6 0.07 70% 1RM_15% 41.1 6 10.2 1.01 6 0.02 0.98 6 0.02 0.86 6 0.04
VL VL
70% 1RM_20% 75.3 6 7.1 1.00 6 0.02 0.96 6 0.03 0.82 6 0.08 70% 1RM_25% 41.4 6 10.2 1.00 6 0.03 0.95 6 0.03 0.78 6 0.07
VL VL
70% 1RM_30% 75.2 6 7.1 1.00 6 0.03 0.96 6 0.04 0.80 6 0.07 70% 1RM_40% 41.5 6 10.3 1.01 6 0.02 0.97 6 0.03 0.73 6 0.07
VL VL
70% 1RM_45% 74.7 6 6.2 0.99 6 0.02 0.95 6 0.04 0.80 6 0.12 70% 1RM_55% 42.1 6 9.9 1.00 6 0.02 0.96 6 0.02 0.66 6 0.07
VL VL
80% 1RM_10% 74.6 6 4.9 1.00 6 0.03 0.96 6 0.03 0.85 6 0.07 80% 1RM_15% 42.6 6 10.3 1.00 6 0.03 0.96 6 0.03 0.86 6 0.03
VL VL
80% 1RM_20% 74.4 6 6.2 1.00 6 0.03 0.96 6 0.04 0.81 6 0.06 80% 1RM_25% 42.5 6 10.3 1.01 6 0.03 0.97 6 0.02 0.83 6 0.08
VL VL
80% 1RM_30% 74.9 6 8.2 1.00 6 0.02 0.96 6 0.03 0.82 6 0.06 80% 1RM_40% 43.0 6 10.6 1.00 6 0.03 0.96 6 0.04 0.79 6 0.08
VL VL
80% 1RM_45% 75.2 6 7.6 1.00 6 0.02 0.97 6 0.03 0.77 6 0.10 80% 1RM_55% 42.7 6 10.3 1.01 6 0.02 0.96 6 0.02 0.72 6 0.07
VL VL

*MPV = mean propulsive velocity; SQ = full back-squat exercise (n = 11); BP = bench press exercise (n = 10); REP = resistance exercise protocol; MPVBEST = mean propulsive
velocity of the fastest (usually first) repetition in the set; MPVpre = average MPV of 3 repetitions before exercise; MPVpost = average MPV of 3 repetitions after exercise; RM =
repetition maximum.
†Data are mean 6 SD.

Figure 1. Schematic representation of study design: (A) general structure of descriptive study of the acute response to 16 different REPs; (B) scheme of each
REP indicating the mechanical and metabolic measurements to analyze the degree of induced fatigue. REP = resistance exercise protocol.
(VL) within the set as a noninvasive indicator of the degree
of fatigue induced during resistance exercise, the RT proto-
cols used in these studies (10,13,23,26) were prescribed ac-
cording to the maximal load (kg) that could be lifted
a determined number of maximum repetitions (e.g., 4-, 6-,
8-, 10-, and 12-repetition maximum [RM]). This approach is
used under the assumption that all individuals are receiving
a similar stimulus on completing the protocol (6). However,
it does not take into account that the number of repetitions
that can be completed against a given relative load (%1RM)
shows a large variability between individuals (12,32,34). This
variation means that if different subjects are required to per-
form the same number of repetitions per set, it is likely that
they will be exercising with different levels of effort (12).
Therefore, rather than prescribing a given and arbitrary
number of repetitions (be it maximal or not) to be com-
pleted, training sets should be performed until a certain
degree of fatigue is achieved to ensure that a more similar
stimulus is applied on the completion of each set for all
individuals (6,12,26).
Several studies have indicated that exercise intensity and
volume are the most important training variables in deter-
mining the type and extent of acute and chronic responses to
RT (3,8,33). As a consequence, monitoring these variables is
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
a key factor in configuring optimal training stimuli for
improving neuromuscular performance. In this regard,
recent studies have highlighted the importance of using
movement velocity as a valid and objective method for
real-time monitoring of exercise intensity (11,28) and vol-
ume (12). Very strong relationships (R2 = 0.94–0.98) have
been observed between movement velocity and percentage
of 1RM in different exercises (11,27,28,30), as well as
between the relative loss of velocity in a set and the percent-
age of performed repetitions (12,17,30) against different rel-
ative loads. As a result, in this context of a velocity-based RT
approach, instead of a certain amount of weight to be lifted
a given number of repetitions per set, it has been proposed to
prescribe resistance exercise in terms of 2 variables: (a) first
repetition’s mean velocity and (b) the maximum percentage
of VL allowed in each set (26).
Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the acute
mechanical (percentage of VL attained against an individual
reference load) and metabolic (blood lactate concentration)
response to 16 types of resistance exercise protocols (REPs)
defined by the first repetition’s mean velocity and the per-
centage of VL over the set in 2 popular multijoint RT exer-
cises such as the full back squat (SQ) and the bench
press (BP).
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 | 5
Effort Index as an Indicator of Muscle Fatigue

Figure 2. Example of monitoring velocity loss (VL) during the training sets and quantification of percentage of change in MPV pre-post exercise attained against
the V1 m$s21 load after 3 sets with 60% 1RM and 30% VL in the set (3 3 ;0.98 [30%] REP) for a representative participant in the SQ exercise. MPV = mean
propulsive velocity; RM = repetition maximum; REP = resistance exercise protocol; SQ = squat.

METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
A cross-sectional research design was used to analyze the
degree of fatigue induced by different REPs in which training
intensity and volume were objectively monitored by means
of movement velocity. Over a period of approximately 10
weeks, 17 testing sessions were conducted by each partici-
pant in the following order: (a) an initial test with increasing
loads for the individual determination of full load-velocity
relationships in the SQ or BP exercise and (b) 16 REPs
determined by the best mean propulsive velocity (MPV,
usually the first repetition) over the set (MPVBEST) and the
relative magnitude of MPV loss (%VL) within the set (S). For
each exercise, 4 different loading magnitudes (;50, ;60,
;70, and ;80% 1RM) and 4 magnitudes of MPV loss
(;10, ;20, ;30, and ;45% of VL in the SQ; and ;15,
;25, ;40, and ;55% of VL in the BP exercise) were used.
Table 1 and Table 2 show in detail the characteristics of each
REP performed in the SQ and BP exercises, respectively.
Changes in blood lactate concentration and MPV attained
against the individual load that elicited a ;1.00 m$s21
(60.03 m$s21) (V1 m$s21 load) were used to analyze the
acute mechanical and metabolic response to each REP. All
REPs were randomized for each participant and were con-
ducted on separate days, with at least 72 hours of recovery
time between sessions. This period between testing sessions
the
was sufficient to ensure that the participants were fully recov-
ered before performing the following REP as indicated by the
V1 m$s21 load (Table 3) and load used during each REP (Table
1 and Table 2). Sessions were performed at the same time of
day for each participant (61 hour) and under similar environ-
mental conditions (;20–228 C and 55–65% humidity). During
the experimental period of this study, participants were asked
to refrain from any other RT apart from some abdominal and
lower-back strengthening exercises.
Subjects
Twenty-one young healthy men (mean 6 SD [age range:
,18 years old]age: 23.5 6 3.6 years, body mass: 77.9 6
14.9 kg, height: 1.78 6 0.07 m) volunteered to take part in
this study. Participants were physically active sport science
students with RT experience ranging from 2 to 4 years (2–3
sessions per week). They were randomly divided into 2
groups depending on the exercise to be performed: full squat
(SQ, n = 11), or BP (n = 10). Initial estimated 1RM (1RMest)
strength was 111.5 6 14.2 kg (relative strength ratio: 1.52 6
0.17) for the SQ and 90.7 6 18.0 kg (relative strength ratio:
1.13 6 0.23) for the BP group. No physical limitations,
health problems, or musculoskeletal injuries that could affect
the testing were reported. None of the participants were
taking drugs, medications, or dietary supplements known
to influence physical performance. The study was conducted
according to the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved
TM

6 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

TABLE 4. Mechanical and metabolic measurements of fatigue after each REP in the SQ and BP exercises.*†

SQ BP

Loss of MPV with V1 Loss of MPV with V1

REP m$s21 load (%) Lactate (mmol$L21) REP m$s21 load (%) Lactate (mmol$L21)

50% 1RM_10% VL 14.0 6 7.7 3.5 6 1.9 50% 1RM_15% VL 14.0 6 5.3 2.6 6 0.5
50% 1RM_20% VL 16.0 6 7.2 6.7 6 2.8z 50% 1RM_25% VL 20.5 6 5.0 3.3 6 0.9
50% 1RM_30% VL 25.1 6 8.2§ 8.3 6 3.1z 50% 1RM_40% VL 37.7 6 9.9 4.5 6 1.1
50% 1RM_45% VL 31.5 6 8.5§ 9.7 6 2.7z 50% 1RM_55% VL 46.0 6 11.7 5.4 6 0.9
60% 1RM_10% VL 14.4 6 5.1 3.9 6 1.6k 60% 1RM_15% VL 13.1 6 5.5 2.6 6 0.4
60% 1RM_20% VL 15.9 6 6.7 4.6 6 1.7k 60% 1RM_25% VL 18.5 6 5.9 3.1 6 0.5
60% 1RM_30% VL 20.4 6 6.9k 5.2 6 2.1k 60% 1RM_40% VL 24.1 6 7.4 4.0 6 0.7
60% 1RM_45% VL 24.0 6 10.1k 7.5 6 2.0z 60% 1RM_55% VL 37.1 6 12.3 4.6 6 0.9
70% 1RM_10% VL 10.2 6 5.9 2.9 6 0.9 70% 1RM_15% VL 12.3 6 4.0 2.6 6 0.4
70% 1RM_20% VL 14.9 6 7.5 4.2 6 1.5k 70% 1RM_25% VL 18.2 6 7.2 2.9 6 0.4
70% 1RM_30% VL 16.5 6 7.6k 4.6 6 1.7 70% 1RM_40% VL 24.5 6 7.8 3.8 6 0.5
6 6 6 6

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

70% 1RM_45% VL 18.0 9.3z 5.4 1.6 70% 1RM_55% VL 31.2 5.6 4.9 1.1

the
80% 1RM_10% VL 11.6 6 6.3 2.5 6 0.8 80% 1RM_15% VL 10.3 6 3.4 2.4 6 0.4
80% 1RM_20% VL 15.0 6 5.4 3.2 6 1.0 80% 1RM_25% VL 14.2 6 7.6 2.9 6 0.6
80% 1RM_30% VL 14.6 6 5.0k 3.8 6 2.0 80% 1RM_40% VL 18.1 6 7.9 3.5 6 0.5
80% 1RM_45% VL 18.6 6 6.7k 4.7 6 2.0 80% 1RM_55% VL 25.3 6 6.8 4.5 6 0.8

*SQ = full back-squat exercise (n = 11); BP = bench press exercise (n = 10); REP = resistance exercise protocol; MPV = mean propulsive velocity; V1 m$s21 = load that elicited
a MPV of ;1 m$s21; RM = repetition maximum.
†Data are mean 6 SD. Post-exercise lactate significantly different (P , 0.001) from pre-exercise for all REPs.
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 |

zSignificantly different than BP: p , 0.001.

§Significantly different than BP: p , 0.01.
kSignificantly different than BP: p , 0.05.

TM
| www.nsca.com
7
Effort Index as an Indicator of Muscle Fatigue

Figure 3. Loss of MPV pre-post exercise against the V1 m$s21 load and post-exercise lactate concentration after each REP for the SQ (A and C) and the BP (B
and D) exercises. Different symbols are used to differentiate between the different relative intensities analyzed: 50% 1RM (black triangle), 60% 1RM (white
circle), 70% 1RM (white triangle), and 80% 1RM (black circle). Statistically significant differences between relative intensities: a50% and 80% 1RM; b50% and
70% 1RM; c50% and 60% 1RM; d60% and 80% 1RM; e60% and 70% 1RM; and f70% and 80% 1RM. MPV = mean propulsive velocity; RM = repetition
maximum; REP = resistance exercise protocol; SQ = squat; BP = bench press.

by the Research Ethics Committee of Pablo de Olavide Uni-
versity. After being informed of the purpose and experimen-
tal procedures, the participants and their parents/guardians
signed a written informed consent form before participation.
Procedures
Initial Session and Progressive Loading Test in the Squat and
Bench Press Exercises. An introductory session was used for
anthropometric assessments, medical examination, and famil-
iarization with testing protocols. In this session, participants
arrived at the laboratory in a well-rested condition and a fasted
state. After being medically screened and having their
standing height and body mass measured, participants
performed an exercise session with light loads (;40% 1RM)
and a low magnitude of VL over the set (;10–15%), whereas
researchers emphasized proper technique to ensure that they
were familiarized with the protocol to be used in each testing
session. Three days later, individual load-velocity relationships
and estimated 1RM (1RMest) strength in the SQ and BP ex-
the TM
ercises were determined for each participant using a progres-
sive loading test. This test was mainly performed (a) to
estimate the weight (kg) that each subject had to use so that
the lifting velocity of the first repetition matched the specified
target MPVof each of the 4 relative loads to be used and (b) to
make a description of the subjects’ characteristics. All sessions
were performed using a Smith machine (Multipower Fitness
Line, Peroga, Murcia, Spain). The BP testing protocol has
been detailed elsewhere (11,12,29). The BP was performed
imposing a momentary pause (;1.0 seconds) at the chest
between the eccentric and concentric actions to minimize
the contribution of the rebound effect and allow for more
reproducible, consistent measurements (22). Similarly,
a detailed description of the SQ testing protocol has been
recently provided elsewhere (9,26,28). 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

8 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 the TM

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

Figure 4. Relationships between effort index and loss of MPV pre-post exercise against the V1 m$s21 load and post-exercise lactate concentration for the SQ
(A and B) and the BP (C and D) exercises. Each data point corresponds to one of the 16 different REPs analyzed. Different symbols are used to differentiate
between the different relative intensities analyzed: 50% 1RM (black triangle), 60% 1RM (white circle), 70% 1RM (white triangle), and 80% 1RM (black circle).
MPV = mean propulsive velocity; RM = repetition maximum; REP = resistance exercise protocol; SQ = squat; BP = bench press.

performed at a normal, controlled velocity, subjects were
required to always execute the concentric phase of either
BP or SQ at maximal intended velocity. The individual posi-
tion for the BP (position on the bench as well as grip widths)
and SQ exercise (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 initial load was set at
20 and 30 kg for all participants in the BP and SQ exercise,
respectively, and was gradually increased in 10-kg increments.
The test ended for each participant when the attained con-
centric MPV was ,0.4 m$s21 in the BP and ,0.6 m$s21 in
the SQ group (which corresponds to ;85% 1RM in both
exercises (11,28)). The 1RMest was calculated for each indi-
vidual from the MPV attained against the heaviest load (kg)
lifted in the progressive loading test, as follows: (100 3 load)/
(25.961 3 MPV2) 2 (50.71 3 MPV) + 117 for the SQ (28),
and (100 3 load)/(8.4326 3 MPV2) 2 (73.501 3 MPV) +
112.33 for the BP exercise (11).
Acute Resistance Exercise Protocol. Descriptive characteristics
of the 16 REPs for the SQ and BP groups are presented in
Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. The 16 types of REPs were
always performed using 3 sets and 4-minute interset recov-
ery periods. Relative loads were determined from the load-
velocity relationship for the SQ and BP because it has
recently been shown that there is a close relationship
between percentage of 1RM and MPV in both exercises
(11,28). Thus, a target MPV to be attained in the first (usually
the fastest) repetition of the first exercise set in each REP
was used as an estimation of percentage of 1RM, as follows:
;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 the SQ exercise; and ;0.93 m$s21 (;50%
1RM), ;0.79 m$s21 (;60% 1RM), ;0.63 m$s21
(;70% 1RM), and ;0.47 m$s21 (;80% 1RM) for the BP
exercise. Consequently, before starting each REP, adjust-
ments in the proposed load (kg) were made when needed,

VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 | 9

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Effort Index as an Indicator of Muscle Fatigue

Figure 5. Relationships between percentage of MPV loss over 3 training sets and loss of MPV pre-post exercise against the V1 m$s21 load and post-exercise
lactate concentration for the SQ (A and B) and the BP (C and D) exercises. Each data point corresponds to one of the 16 different REPs analyzed. Different
symbols are used to differentiate between the different relative intensities analyzed: 50% 1RM (black triangle), 60% 1RM (white circle), 70% 1RM (white
triangle), and 80% 1RM (black circle). MPV = mean propulsive velocity; RM = repetition maximum; REP = resistance exercise protocol; SQ = squat; BP =
bench press.

so that the velocity of the first repetition matched the pro-
grammed velocity (60.03 m$s21). Once the load (kg) was
adjusted, it was maintained for the 3 training sets. Volume in
each training set was objectively determined through the
magnitude of VL attained over the set (calculated as the
percent loss in MPV from the fastest to the slowest repeti-
tion) (12,24). Thus, the training set was terminated when the
prescribed VL limit was reached (12,26). For each load mag-
nitude (50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM), 4 magnitudes of VL in the
set were allowed: 10, 20, 30, and 45% for the SQ (Table 1),
and 15, 25, 40, and 55% for the BP (Table 2), resulting in 16
REPs being undertaken in each exercise. Different %VLs in
the set were used for the SQ and BP exercises because we
have recently observed (unpublished data) that a given mag-
nitude of repetition VL over the set results in a greater per-
centage of repetitions being completed (and, therefore, less
the TM
repetitions left in reserve) in the SQ compared with the BP
for loads of 50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM. Thus, to complete the
same percentage of repetitions in both exercises, a greater
magnitude of MPV loss over the set should be allowed in the
BP compared with the SQ exercise as follows: ;5, ;6, ;8,
and ;7% higher VL for 50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM, respec-
tively. During each REP, participants received immediate
movement velocity feedback while being encouraged to per-
form each repetition at maximal intended velocity.
A schematic representation of each REP (both in the SQ
and BP groups) is provided in Figure 1. In each testing
session, the warm-up consisted of 5 minutes of jogging at
a self-selected easy pace and 5 minutes of joint mobilization
exercises. This was followed by the determination of the V1
m$s21 load. For this purpose, participants performed 3 sets
of 6 down to 3 repetitions (3-minute rests) with increasing

10 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association


Figure 6. Comparisons of relationships between effort index and loss of
MPV pre-post exercise against the V1 m$s21 load (A) and post-exercise
lactate concentration (B) in the BP and the SQ exercises. Each data
point corresponds to one of the 16 different REPs analyzed. MPV =
mean propulsive velocity; REP = resistance exercise protocol; SQ =
squat; BP = bench press.
loads up to V1 m$s21 load (60.03 m$s21). This value was
chosen because it is a sufficiently high velocity, which is
attained against a medium load (;60% RM in the SQ and
;45% in the BP), and it allows for a good expression of the
effect of loading on velocity, besides being a relatively easy to
move and well-tolerated load when the subject is fatigued
(26). The mean value of 3 repetitions with the V1 m$s21 load
(kg) was thus taken as a pre-exercise reference measure
against which to compare the VL experienced after the 3
exercise sets. This procedure has been used in several pre-
vious studies (10,23,26) to quantify fatigue after different
resistance exercise configurations. Finally, adjustments in
the proposed load (kg) were made, so that the velocity of
the first repetition matched the programmed target velocity
(60.03 m$s21). The 3 sets of the corresponding REP were
performed next. Immediately after completing the last repe-
tition of the third training set, the participants executed 3
maximal-effort consecutive repetitions against the V1 m$s21
load (the load was changed in less than 10 seconds with the
help of trained spotters). The V1 m$s21 load mean values
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
were taken as the immediate post-exercise measures. After
a 1-minute rest, capillary blood samples were taken for the
analysis of lactate.
Quantification of the “Effort Index”. Several studies (3,33) have
suggested that the interplay between training intensity and vol-
ume is the critical factor in determining the optimal range of
training stimuli to promote the neuromuscular adaptations
associated with RT. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that any
index used to quantify the level of effort (or degree of fatigue)
should include both variables. Because movement velocity has
been considered a valid and objective method for monitoring
exercise intensity (11,28) and volume (12,17,24) during resis-
tance exercises, the effort index (EI) was defined as the product
of the fastest MPV of the first exercise set (usually the first
repetition) and the average MPV loss (%) over the 3 training
sets in each REP (EI = MPVBEST 3 average %VL over 3 sets).
The EI was calculated as an indicator of the degree of fatigue
induced by each REP.
Measurement of Fatigue and Metabolic Stress. Fatigue was
quantified by means of the percent change in MPV pre-
post exercise attained against the V1 m$s21 reference load.
The average MPV of 3 repetitions before exercise was
compared with the average MPV of 3 repetitions after exer-
cise, i.e., 100 3 ([average MPVpost 2 average MPVpre]/
average MPVpre). Figure 2 shows an example of this VL
for a representative participant and protocol (3 sets with
60% 1RM and 30% VL in the SQ exercise). Blood lactate
concentration was used as an indicator of the metabolic
stress induced by each REP. Capillary whole blood samples
were drawn from the earlobe before exercise and again
1 minute after completing the last repetition of the V1 m$s21
load in each REP.
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 in a morning fasting state and wearing only
underclothes. A Smith machine (Multipower Fitness Line,
Peroga, Spain), which ensured a smooth vertical displace-
ment of the bar along a fixed pathway, was used for all
sessions. A cable-extension linear velocity transducer (T-
Force Dynamic Measurement System; Ergotech, Murcia,
Spain) was attached to one end of the bar and used to
measure bar velocity. Instantaneous velocity was sampled at
1,000 Hz and smoothed using a fourth order low-pass
Butterworth filter with no phase shift and 10-Hz cutoff
frequency. The system’s software automatically calculated
the relevant kinematics of every repetition, provided audi-
tory and visual velocity feedback in real time, and stored data
on disk for analysis. The reliability of this system has been
reported elsewhere (26). All velocity values reported in this
study correspond to the MPV of the concentric phase of
each repetition. The propulsive phase was defined as that
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 | 11
Effort Index as an Indicator of Muscle Fatigue

(SQ vs. BP). Statistical significance was accepted at P ,

0.05. Analyses were performed using SPSS software version
17.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).

RESULTS
Descriptive characteristics of each REP actually performed
in both the SQ and BP groups are reported in Table 1 and
Table 2, respectively. No significant differences were found
between the expected or targeted MVP values and the fastest
MPV values (MPVBEST) of each REP for any group. Simi-
larly, the average magnitude of MPV loss over the set
matched that intended in all REPs performed for both
groups.

Velocity Loss and Blood Lactate Concentration

Figure 7. Relationships between loss of MPV pre-post exercise against
the V1 m$s21 load and post-exercise lactate concentration for the SQ
(A) and the BP (B) exercises. Each data point corresponds to one of the
16 different REPs analyzed. Different symbols are used to differentiate
between the different relative intensities analyzed: 50% 1RM (black
triangle), 60% 1RM (white circle), 70% 1RM (white triangle), and 80%
1RM (black circle). MPV = mean propulsive velocity; RM = repetition
maximum; REP = resistance exercise protocol; SQ = squat; BP = bench
press.
Post-exercise MPV attained against the V1 m$s21 load, and
post-exercise lactate concentration was significantly differ-
ent (P , 0.01–0.001) from pre-exercise values after all
REPs. Both the percent loss of MPV pre-post exercise with
the V1 m$s21 load and post-exercise lactate concentration
gradually increased as the magnitude of VL in the set
increased for all 4 load magnitudes used (Table 4 and Fig-
ure 3). For the same percentage of VL in the set, both
variables (loss of MPV pre-post exercise with the V1 m$s21
load and post-exercise lactate concentration) were greater
as the relative load decreased (Table 4 and Figure 3). Com-
parison between exercises revealed that the MPV loss
against the V1 m$s21 load was significantly greater (P ,
0.05–0.001) for BP than SQ in those REPs where the MPV
loss over the set was greater than 30% for SQ and 40% for
BP exercise (Table 4). Mean post-exercise lactate concen-
tration was significantly greater for the SQ compared with
the BP group in those REPs performed against 50 and 60%
1RM (Table 4).

Relationship Between the “Effort Index” and Loss of MPV

portion of the concentric phase during which the measured
acceleration (a) is greater than acceleration due to gravity
(i.e., a $ 29.81 m$s22) (29). The Lactate Pro 2 LT-1730
(Arkray, Kyoto, Japan) portable lactate analyzer was used
for lactate measurements. The suitability and reproducibility of
this analyzer has been previously established throughout the
physiological range of 1.0–18.0 mmol$L21 (25).
Statistical Analyses
Standard statistical methods were used for the calculation of
mean values and SDs. Correlations are reported using Pear-
son product-moment correlation coefficients (r). A 1-way
repeated-measures analysis of variance was performed for
each variable to analyze the VL against the V1 m$s21 load,
as well as to compare pre-exercise and post-exercise lactate
levels between REPs. Independent sample t-tests were used
to compare the percentage of MPV loss against the V1
m$s21 load and lactate concentration between groups
the
Against the V1 m$s21 Load and Blood Lactate
A very strong relationship was found between EI and
relative loss of MPV pre-post exercise against the V1 m$s21
load for both SQ (r = 0.92, P , 0.001; Figure 4A) and BP
(r = 0.98, P , 0.001; Figure 4C) exercises. Similarly, the EI
showed strong linear correlation coefficients with post-
exercise lactate concentration for both SQ (r = 0.91, P ,
0.001; Figure 4B) and BP (r = 0.95, P , 0.001; Figure 4D)
exercises. These correlations were greater than those
observed between the percentage VL over the 3 sets and
MPV loss with the V1 m$s21 load (r = 0.74 and 0.84 for
SQ and BP, respectively) and post-exercise lactate concen-
tration (r = 0.69 and 0.93 for SQ and BP, respectively) in
both exercises (Figure 5). Comparisons between both exer-
cises showed that, for a given EI value, the loss of MPV pre-
post exercise against the V1 m$s21 load was greater in the
BP compared with the SQ exercise, whereas the post-
exercise lactate concentration was greater in the SQ than
the BP exercise (Figure 6).
TM

12 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association


Relationship Between Velocity Loss and Blood
Lactate Concentration
Very large correlations were also found between the
magnitude of MPV loss pre-post exercise and the V1 m$s21
load and post-exercise blood lactate concentration for
SQ (r = 0.96, P , 0.001; Figure 7A) and BP (r = 0.95,
P , 0.001) (Figure 7B).
DISCUSSION
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to
analyze acute mechanical and metabolic responses to 16
different types of REPs, in which training intensity and
volume were objectively quantified and monitored using
the fastest MPV (usually the first repetition of each set)
and the magnitude of MPV loss within the set, respectively
(11,12,26). The main finding of this study was that the
proposed EI (the product of the fastest MPV of the first
exercise set and the mean percent loss of MPV over the 3
training sets) showed very strong relationships with the
mechanical variable (MPV loss attained against V1 m$s21
load) used to estimate the degree of fatigue during each
REP. In addition, very large relationships were also found
between the EI and the post-exercise lactate concentra-
tion in both exercises. The high relationship shown by this
new index with a valid fatigue indicator as the relative loss
of MPV pre-post exercise against the V1 m$s21 load
allows us to advance in our knowledge of the prescribed
training load (understood as a degree of effort) and inter-
nal load experienced by each individual during resistance
exercise.
As expected, our results indicated that, for a given relative
load, the percent loss of MPV pre-post exercise against the
V1 m$s21 load and post-exercise lactate concentration pro-
gressively increased as the magnitude of MPV loss in the set
increased for both exercises (Table 4 and Figure 3). In accor-
dance with these results, previous studies (10,23,26) have
also shown similar pre-post changes in these variables after
different types of RT protocols as the number of performed
repetitions in a set approached the maximum predicted
number (i.e., as the MPV loss experienced during the set
increased). However, to the authors’ knowledge, this is the
first study in which mechanical and metabolic stress after 15
REPs (50–80% 1RM) were quantified by monitoring repeti-
tion velocity and adjusting the loads to be lifted using the
load-velocity relationship for the SQ and BP (11,28). Thus,
we made sure that all participants used a very similar relative
load (%1RM) and degree of effort (VL in the set) in each
training session (12,24) (Table 1 and Table 2). The results of
this study also showed that, for the same magnitude of MPV
loss incurred in the set, the loss of MPV pre-post exercise
with the V1 m$s21 load and post-exercise lactate concentra-
tion clearly differed between relative loads, with a greater
degree of fatigue experienced as loads decreased (Table 4
and Figure 3). These findings complement those of previous
studies (10,23,26), which suggested that VL in the set was
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
a valid, objective, and practical indicator of neuromuscular
fatigue during resistance exercise. Thus, based on the results
of the current study, it seems that, for the same relative load
(% 1RM), VL is the variable that determines the degree of
induced fatigue during the exercise sets. However, our results
further suggest that the relative load used also influences
induced muscle fatigue. For this reason, because the MPV
of the first repetition (i.e., relative load) and the magnitude of
VL incurred in the set (i.e., volume) seem to have a consider-
able impact on the degree of fatigue, the main aim of this
study was to analyze whether the product of both variables
(proposed here as a new variable, the “Effort Index”) showed
an association with muscle fatigue, which was quantified by
the percent loss of MPV pre-post exercise against the V1
m$s21 load and the post-exercise lactate concentration after
each REP.
In connection with the above, very strong and significant
correlations were found between the EI and relative loss of
MPV pre-post exercise with the V1 m$s21 load (Figure 4A,
C) and post-exercise blood lactate concentration (Figure 4B,
D) for both the SQ and BP exercises. These relationships
indicate that, for the same EI, the degree of fatigue induced is
equivalent, regardless of the MPV of the first repetition and
the percentage of VL incurred in the set. These results rep-
resent a novel and important finding for quantifying muscle
fatigue during resistance exercise, and consequently, they
constitute a considerable advance for the prescription and
monitoring of the training load during RT with respect to
previous research (10,23,26), which indicated that the mus-
cle fatigue was only determined by percentage VL in the set.
Indeed, it can be observed that, when the REPs are config-
ured and monitored by means of repetition velocity so that
all participants perform each session with the same relative
load, the percent VL over the 3 sets alone showed a lower
correlation (and lower percentage of explained variance)
with the relative loss of MPV pre-post exercise against the
V1 m$s21 load (Figure 5A, C) and post-exercise lactate (Fig-
ure 5B, D) when compared with the EI, in both the SQ and
BP exercises. In addition, the fact that the EI showed a high
correlation with the relative loss of MPV pre-post exercise
against the V1 m$s21 load and post-exercise lactate in 2
exercises such as the SQ and BP supports the use of this
new index as (a) an indicator of degree of effort or fatigue
and (b) an accurate predictor of metabolic stress during
resistance exercise. This last proposal is further supported
by the high correlations (Figure 7) found between the
mechanical variable used to assess the degree of effort
induced during each REP (relative loss of MPV pre-post
exercise with the V1 m$s21 load) and metabolic stress (lac-
tate concentration). Therefore, by measuring repetition
velocity during RT and monitoring these 2 variables (MPV
of the first repetition and loss of MPV over the sets), it is
possible to obtain an accurate index (EI) for prescribing RT,
which represents a substantial improvement on previous
procedures.
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 | 13
Effort Index as an Indicator of Muscle Fatigue
Another important finding of this study was that higher
correlations between the EI and the loss of MPV against the
V1 m$s21 load, as well as between the EI and post-exercise
lactate, were observed for the BP compared with the SQ
(Figure 4). These results may be related to the greater move-
ment control in the BP (lower range of motion, concentric-
only action, and imposed pause between concentric and
eccentric phases) compared with the SQ exercise. Another
aspect to highlight is that, for the same EI, greater MPV
losses against the V1 m$s21 load were experienced in the
BP compared with the SQ, whereas post-exercise lactate
values were higher in the SQ than the BP (Figure 6). These
differences between exercises were evident for EI values
higher than ;15 and became greater as the EI value
increased. Therefore, these results suggest that the use of
the EI as a variable to quantify muscle fatigue is specific to
each exercise. Previous studies (10,23,26) analyzing acute
responses to manipulating the number of repetitions actually
performed in each training set with respect to the maximum
number of repetitions that can be completed against a given
absolute load in SQ and BP exercise have shown similar
results, although neither the exercise intensity nor the vol-
ume was matched between exercises in these studies
(6,11,12). Therefore, to our knowledge, this is also the first
study comparing the acute mechanical and metabolic
response in upper- and lower-limb exercises in which, by
monitoring movement velocity, the relative load (% 1RM)
and volume (the percentage of performed repetitions out of
the maximum possible number that can be completed in the
set) were very similar for both the SQ and BP exercises
(11,12,28). Thus, because the main variables related to train-
ing load were matched between exercises, differences in the
neuromuscular fatigue between exercises could be explained
by (a) the smaller muscle groups involved in the BP exercise
(more localized fatigue) compared with the SQ (fatigue dis-
tributed among a greater amount of muscle mass) and (b)
the greater percentage of type II fibers in upper compared
with lower limbs (21,31), which have a higher fatigability
index (15).
In conclusion, the main finding of the current study
was that the proposed EI showed a close relationship
with the mechanical and metabolic response to different
REP, which supports the use of this index as a variable to
objectively quantify muscle fatigue during RT (at least
when the MPV of the first repetition ranges between
;1.13–0.68 m$s 21 in the SQ and ;0.93–0.47 m$s21 in
the BP, and the MPV loss over the set ranges between
;10–45% in the SQ and ;15–55% in the BP). Other
notable findings of this study were (a) for the same MPV
loss in the set, the lower the relative load used, the
greater the fatigue experienced (the magnitude of MPV
loss against the V1 m$s 21 load and post-exercise lactate
concentration); (b) for the same EI value, the degree of
fatigue induced is equivalent, regardless of the MPV of
the first repetition and the percent VL incurred in the set;
the TM
14 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
and (c) for the same EI value, the induced fatigue was
different between the SQ and BP exercises.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The novel findings of the current study provide several
key implications for coaches and strength and condition-
ing professionals who wish to optimize the monitoring
and quantification of RT programs. The strong relation-
ships found between the EI and the pre-post changes in
the mechanical and metabolic variables used to estimate
the muscle fatigue indicate that, to induce a certain degree
of effort, the training load should be prescribed taking as
a reference the MPV of the first (fastest) repetition and the
percentage VL in the set. In addition to being a valuable
addition for RT monitoring, the proposed EI might also
serve as an independent variable in training studies. By
equalizing the EI between training interventions, a better
knowledge could be gained about the acute and chronic
effects of a given training design. Finally, our results also
showed that the muscle fatigue induced by a given EI is
specific to the exercise used. These differences should be
taken into account when prescribing training programs
because the same EI (even against the same relative load)
will probably involve a different training stimulus and thus
different neuromuscular adaptations, depending on the
exercise used.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors greatly appreciate the commitment and
dedication of all participants of this study who performed
maximum efforts in each of the exercise protocols. The
authors have no professional relationships with compa-
nies 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. Ahtiainen, JP and Hakkinen, K. Strength athletes are capable to
produce greater muscle activation and neural fatigue during high-
intensity resistance exercise than nonathletes. J Strength Cond Res 23:
1129–1134, 2009.
2. Ahtiainen, JP, Pakarinen, A, Kraemer, WJ, and Hakkinen, K. Acute
hormonal responses to heavy resistance exercise in strength athletes
versus nonathletes. Can J Appl Physiol 29: 527–543, 2004.
3. 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.
4. Crewther, B, Cronin, J, and Keogh, J. Possible stimuli for strength
and power adaptation: Acute mechanical responses. Sports Med 35:
967–989, 2005.
5. Crewther, B, Keogh, J, Cronin, J, and Cook, C. Possible stimuli for
strength and power adaptation: Acute hormonal responses. Sports
Med 36: 215–238, 2006.

6. Dankel, SJ, Jessee, MB, Mattocks, KT, Mouser, JG, Counts, BR,
Buckner, SL, and Loenneke, JP. Training to fatigue: The answer for
standardization when assessing muscle hypertrophy? Sports Med 47:
1021–1027, 2017.
7. Davies, T, Orr, R, Halaki, M, and Hackett, D. Effect of training
leading to repetition failure on muscular strength: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Sports Med 46: 487–502, 2016.
8. Fry, AC. The role of resistance exercise intensity on muscle fibre
adaptations. Sports Med 34: 663–679, 2004.
9. González-Badillo, JJ, Pareja-Blanco, F, Rodrı́guez-Rosell, D, Abad-
Herencia, JL, Del Ojo-López, JJ, and Sánchez-Medina, L. Effects of
velocity-based resistance training on young soccer players of
different ages. J Strength Cond Res 29: 1329–1338, 2015.
10. González-Badillo, JJ, Rodrı́guez-Rosell, D, Sánchez-Medina, L,
Ribas, J, López-López, C, Mora-Custodio, R, Yáñez-Garcı́a, JM, and
Pareja-Blanco, F. Short-term recovery following resistance exercise
leading or not to failure. Int J Sports Med 37: 295–304, 2016.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Gorostiaga, EM, Navarro-Amezqueta, I, Calbet, JA, Hellsten, Y,
Cusso, R, Guerrero, M, Granados, C, González-Izal, M, Ibáñez, J,
and Izquierdo, M. Energy metabolism during repeated sets of leg
press exercise leading to failure or not. PLoS One 7: e40621, 2012.
14. Hakkinen, K. Neuromuscular fatigue and recovery in women at
different ages during heavy resistance loading. Electromyogr Clin
Neurophysiol 35: 403–413, 1995.
15. Hamada, T, Sale, DG, MacDougall, JD, and Tarnopolsky, MA.
Interaction of fibre type, potentiation and fatigue in human knee
extensor muscles. Acta Physiol Scand 178: 165–173, 2003.
16. Hoppeler, H. Molecular networks in skeletal muscle plasticity. J Exp
Biol 219: 205–213, 2016.
17. Izquierdo, M, González-Badillo, JJ, Hakkinen, K, Ibáñez, J, Kraemer,
WJ, Altadill, A, Eslava, J, and Gorostiaga, EM. 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.
18. Izquierdo, M, Ibáñez, J, González-Badillo, JJ, Hakkinen, K, Ratamess,
NA, Kraemer, WJ, French, DN, Eslava, J, Altadill, A, Asiain, X, and
Gorostiaga, EM. Differential effects of strength training leading to
failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and
muscle power gains. J Appl Physiol 100: 1647–1656, 2006.
19. Kraemer, WJ, Marchitelli, L, Gordon, SE, Harman, E, Dziados, JE,
Mello, R, Frykman, P, McCurry, D, and Fleck, SJ. Hormonal and
growth factor responses to heavy resistance exercise protocols. J
Appl Physiol 69: 1442–1450, 1990.
20. Kraemer, WJ and Ratamess, NA. Fundamentals of resistance
training: Progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc
36: 674–688, 2004.
21. Mygind, E. Fibre characteristics and enzyme levels of arm and leg
muscles in elite cross-country skiers. Scand J Med Sci Sports 5: 76–80, 1995.
22. Pallarés, JG, Sánchez-Medina, L, Pérez, CE, De La Cruz-Sánchez, E,
and Mora-Rodrı́guez, R. Imposing a pause between the eccentric
Copyright ª 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
and concentric phases increases the reliability of isoinertial strength
assessments. J Sports Sci 32: 1165–1175, 2014.
23. Pareja-Blanco, F, Rodrı́guez-Rosell, D, Sánchez-Medina, L, Ribas-
Serna, J, López-López, C, Mora-Custodio, R, Yáñez-Garcı́a, JM, and
González-Badillo, JJ. Acute and delayed response to resistance
exercise leading or not leading to muscle failure. Clin Physiol Funct
Imaging 37: 630–639, 2017.
24. Pareja-Blanco, F, Rodrı́guez-Rosell, D, Sánchez-Medina, L, Sanchı́s-
Moysı́, J, Dorado, C, Mora-Custodio, R, Yáñez-Garcı́a, JM, Morales-
Álamo, D, Pérez-Suárez, I, Calbet, JAL, and González-Badillo, JJ.
Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic
performance, strength gains and muscle adaptations. Scand J Med
Sci Sports 27: 724–735, 2017.
25. Pyne, DB, Boston, T, Martin, DT, and Logan, A. Evaluation of the
Lactate Pro blood lactate analyser. Eur J Appl Physiol 82: 112–116,
2000.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. Sánchez-Moreno, M, Rodrı́guez-Rosell, D, Pareja-Blanco, F,
Mora-Custodio, R, and González-Badillo, JJ. Movement velocity
as indicator of relative intensity and level of effort attained
during the set in pull-up exercise. Int J Sports Physiol Perform: 1–
23, 2017.
31. Sanchı́s-Moysı́, J, Idoate, F, Olmedillas, H, Guadalupe-Grau, A,
Alayon, S, Carreras, A, Dorado, C, and Calbet, JA. The upper
extremity of the professional tennis player: Muscle volumes, fiber-
type distribution and muscle strength. Scand J Med Sci Sports 20:
524–534, 2010.
32. Shimano, T, Kraemer, WJ, Spiering, BA, Volek, JS, Hatfield, DL,
Silvestre, R, Vingren, JL, Fragala, MS, Maresh, CM, Fleck, SJ,
Newton, RU, Spreuwenberg, LP, and Hakkinen, K. 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.
33. Tan, B. Manipulating resistance training program variables to
optimize maximum strength in men: A review. J Strength Cond Res
13: 289–304, 1999.
34. 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.
35. Toigo, M and Boutellier, U. New fundamental resistance exercise
determinants of molecular and cellular muscle adaptations. Eur J
Appl Physiol 97: 643–663, 2006.
36. Walker, S, Davis, L, Avela, J, and Hakkinen, K. Neuromuscular
fatigue during dynamic maximal strength and hypertrophic
resistance loadings. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 22: 356–362, 2012.
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2018 | 15