Peña García-Orea, GuillermoRodríguez Rosell, DavidSegarra Carrillo, DanielEdir Da Silva-Grigoletto, MarzoBelando Pedreño, Noelia2025-11-192025-11-192022Sports 2022, 10(7), 11010.3390/sports10070110https://hdl.handle.net/10433/25081This study aimed to compare the effect on bar execution velocity and number of repetitions between two velocity-based resistance training protocols only differing in the set configuration of the full-squat (SQ) and bench-press (BP) exercises. Moderately strength-trained men were assigned to a traditional (TS, n = 9)- or an alternating-set (AS, n = 10) configuration group to perform four testing sessions against different relative loads (55–60–65–70% 1RM). Relative load, magnitude of intra-set velocity loss (%VL), number of sets, inter-set recovery time, and exercise order were matched for both groups in each session. Mean propulsive velocity of the first repetition (MPVfirst), average number of repetitions per set (NRS), total number of repetitions (TNR), and total training time per session (TT) were measured. No significant differences between training conditions were observed for any relative load in MPVfirst, NRS, and TNR in both exercises. The TS group completed a significantly higher number of repetitions (p < 0.05) at faster velocities (MPV > 0.9–1.1 m·s−1) in the SQ. In conclusion, training sessions performing AS between SQ and BP exercises with moderate relative loads and %VL result in similar bar execution velocity and volume, but in a more time-efficient manner, than the traditional approach.application/pdfenSet configurationNeuromuscular performanceVelocity-based trainingResistance trainingjournal articleopen access