Menu

HomeHow it worksContact UsContact Us

Acute effects of bench press conditioning performed with different velocity-loss thresholds on punch performance in elite adolescent boxers

Penglin Diao, Jinxuan Bao, Xiaoyu Liu, Zhaoqian Li, Yunsong Liu, Xundian Liu et al. Β· Frontiers in Physiology Β· 2026

This study had elite teenage boxers perform bench press exercises with different velocity-loss thresholds (stopping at 10%, 20%, or 30% speed reduction) to see if it could enhance their punch performance afterward. The researchers found that stopping at 10% or 20% velocity loss improved rear-hand punch speed, force, and power at 8–12 minutes post-exercise, while stopping at 30% velocity loss actually reduced punch performance in the early recovery period, with most differences disappearing by 16 minutes.
Takeaway: Use a 10-20% velocity-loss threshold on conditioning work if you want to enhance punching performance in the 8-12 minute recovery window.
Abstract (source)

Background: Velocity-loss (VL) thresholds may help regulate the balance between potentiation and fatigue during post-activation performance enhancement protocols; however, their effects on boxing-specific performance remain unclear. This study investigated the acute effects of bench press conditioning regulated by different VL thresholds on straight-punch performance in adolescent boxers.

Methods: Eighteen male boxers (17.6 Β± 0.7 years) completed four conditions in a randomized, counterbalanced crossover

Design: an active control condition (CON; two sets of 10 bench press repetitions using a habitual warm-up load below 30% one-repetition maximum [1RM]) and three VL conditions consisting of two sets of bench press at 85% 1RM terminated at 10% (VL10%), 20% (VL20%), or 30% (VL30%) velocity loss. Lead- and rear-hand peak punch velocity (PPV), peak punch force (PPF), and an estimated peak punch-power index (PPP) were assessed at baseline and 4, 8, 12, and 16 min after conditioning. Outcomes were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models, followed by Dunnett-adjusted comparisons of each VL condition with CON. Additional Tukey-adjusted pairwise comparisons were performed among VL10%, VL20%, and VL30%.

Results: Significant condition Γ— time interactions were observed for rear-hand PPV, lead- and rear-hand PPF, and lead- and rear-hand PPP (all p ≀ 0.046), but not for lead-hand PPV ( p = 0.391). At 8 and 12 min, VL10% and VL20% produced higher rear-hand PPV, PPF, and PPP and higher lead-hand PPP than CON ( p ≀ 0.039; Hedges’ g = 0.835–1.267). In contrast, VL30% produced lower rear-hand PPV, lead- and rear-hand PPF, and rear-hand PPP than CON at 4 min and remained lower for selected outcomes at 8–12 min ( p ≀ 0.046; g = βˆ’2.439 to βˆ’0.814). Direct VL comparisons showed no significant differences between VL10% and VL20%, whereas both conditions produced higher values than VL30% for several outcomes at selected time points ( p ≀ 0.045). Most between-condition differences were no longer evident at 16 min.

Conclusion: Under the present protocol in the 18 male adolescent boxers studied, VL10% and VL20% were associated with favorable differences in several punch-performance outcomes after 8–12 min of recovery, whereas VL30% was associated with lower performance during the earlier recovery period. Direct comparisons showed no significant differences between VL10% and VL20%, whereas both conditions produced higher values than VL30% for several outcomes at selected time points. However, because repetition volume was not matched, these

Findings: do not isolate the effect of VL threshold or establish an optimal threshold.

Randomized controlled trialOpen accessVelocity-Based & Technology
Read the original β†’