Research article - (2026)25, 858 - 865
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52082/jssm.2026.858
Strength and Jump Responses to Distinct Repetition Volumes Produced by Peak-Velocity-Decline and Failure-Based Set Termination during Low-Load Blood-Flow-Restriction Full Back Squat Training
Jinghui Zhong1, Yan Xiao1, Jiyan Xu1, Tongwu Yu1,2, Chang Lu3, Hao Wu1,4,5,
1Capital University of Physical Education and Sports, Beijing, China
2Anhui Communications Vocational & Technical College, Anhui, China
3Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China
4Comprehensive Key Laboratory of Sports Ability Evaluation and Research of the General Administration of Sport of China, Beijin, China
5Beijing Key Laboratory of Sports Function Assessment and Technical Analysis, Beijing, China

Hao Wu
✉ Capital University of Physical Education and Sports 11 North Third Ring West Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100191, China
Email: 23008006011@cupes.edu.cn
Received: 14-05-2026 -- Accepted: 04-09-2026
Published (online): 01-12-2026
Narrated in English

ABSTRACT

Blood flow restriction (BFR) training is commonly prescribed with fixed repetition targets or sets to volitional failure, but these approaches may not individualize repetition exposure. This study compared strength and jump responses to the distinct working-set repetition volumes produced by two session-reference peak-velocity-decline thresholds and volitional failure during low-load BFR full back squat training. Forty-five resistance-trained males (22.9 ± 0.7 years) were allocated to a 10% peak-velocity-decline condition (VL10%), a 40% condition (VL40%), or volitional failure (FAIL; n = 15 each). All groups trained twice weekly for 8 weeks at 30% of the current one-repetition maximum (1RM) with BFR; the assigned set-termination strategy determined working-set repetition volume. Primary outcomes were full back squat 1RM and isometric mid-thigh pull net peak force; jump height and standing broad-jump distance were secondary outcomes. The strategies produced distinct working-set repetition volumes (55.91 ± 0.61, 74.26 ± 0.89, and 94.08 ± 0.93 repetitions per session in VL10%, VL40%, and FAIL, respectively; all adjusted p < 0.001). No statistically significant between-group difference was detected between VL40% and FAIL for the primary strength outcomes, while VL40% involved lower repetition volume and perceived exertion. VL10% reduced repetition volume further and showed favorable changes in countermovement-jump height and standing broad-jump distance, but smaller strength-oriented adaptations than VL40%. Under this low-load BFR protocol, no statistically significant differences were detected between VL40% and FAIL for the primary strength outcomes, whereas VL10% showed smaller improvements in both primary strength outcomes than VL40% and FAIL. Jump responses were outcome-specific: both VL10% and VL40% showed greater CMJ improvements than FAIL, VL40% showed greater SJ improvement than both VL10% and FAIL, and VL10% showed greater SBJ improvement than FAIL.

Key words: Blood flow restriction, full back squat, jump performance, maximal strength, repetition volume, set termination

Key Points
  • The three set-termination strategies produced clearly separated working-set repetition volumes under the same 30%-of-current-1RM BFR prescription.
  • VL40% involved lower repetition volume and perceived exertion than failure without a detected difference in the primary strength outcomes; VL10% reduced repetition exposure further but produced smaller strength gains than VL40%.
  • Repetition volume was an outcome of the assigned set-termination strategy, so the observed adaptations cannot be attributed to volume independently of the velocity and fatigue conditions that produced it.
  • The results apply most directly to resistance-trained young men using session-reference peak velocity to regulate repetition exposure during low-load BFR full back squat training.








Back
|
Full Text
|
PDF
|
Share