Viewing Study NCT07447258


Ignite Creation Date: 2026-03-26 @ 3:18 PM
Ignite Modification Date: 2026-03-30 @ 3:14 AM
Study NCT ID: NCT07447258
Status: COMPLETED
Last Update Posted: 2026-03-03
First Post: 2025-12-30
Is NOT Gene Therapy: True
Has Adverse Events: False

Brief Title: Comparison of Velocity-Based and Traditional Strength Training in Youth Soccer Players
Sponsor: Engin Güneş Atabaş
Organization:

Study Overview

Official Title: Comparison of Velocity-Based and Traditional Strength Training Methods on Physiological and Motoric Parameters in Youth Soccer Players
Status: COMPLETED
Status Verified Date: 2026-01
Last Known Status: None
Delayed Posting: No
If Stopped, Why?: Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access: False
If Expanded Access, NCT#: N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status: N/A
Acronym: None
Brief Summary: This study compared the effects of velocity-based strength training and traditional strength training on physical performance and muscle adaptations in youth soccer players. Twenty-four male youth soccer players were randomly assigned to one of three training groups: velocity-based training with 10% velocity loss, velocity-based training with 20% velocity loss, or traditional resistance training performed to failure. All groups trained twice per week for six weeks using the same relative load.

Before and after the training period, participants completed assessments of sprint performance, jump performance, change of direction speed, muscle strength, and muscle thickness. The purpose of this study was to determine whether velocity-based training could provide similar or superior improvements in performance and muscle development compared with traditional training while using a lower total training volume.
Detailed Description: This randomized, parallel-group interventional study was designed to compare the effects of velocity-based strength training (VBT) and traditional resistance training (TRT) on selected physiological and motoric outcomes in elite youth soccer players. The intervention period lasted six weeks, with training sessions conducted twice weekly under supervised conditions.

Participants were randomly allocated to one of three groups: velocity-based training with a 10% velocity loss threshold (VBT-10), velocity-based training with a 20% velocity loss threshold (VBT-20), or traditional resistance training performed to voluntary concentric failure (TRT). All groups completed the same resistance exercises (squat, deadlift, and hip thrust) using a relative load corresponding to 80% of one-repetition maximum.

In the VBT groups, repetition velocity was continuously monitored using a wearable linear velocity tracking device. Each set was terminated when the predefined velocity loss threshold was reached. In contrast, participants in the TRT group performed sets until concentric failure without velocity monitoring. Rest intervals and exercise order were standardized across groups to ensure consistency.

Outcome assessments were conducted before and after the intervention period by the same research staff using standardized protocols. Participants were instructed to refrain from additional resistance training outside the study during the intervention period. All training sessions and testing procedures were supervised, and no training-related adverse events were reported.

The primary objective of the study was to evaluate whether velocity-based strength training could elicit comparable or superior adaptations in performance and muscle-related outcomes compared with traditional resistance training, while potentially reducing overall training volume and fatigue accumulation.

Study Oversight

Has Oversight DMC: False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?: False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?: False
Is an Unapproved Device?: None
Is a PPSD?: None
Is a US Export?: None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: