PURPOSE: Controlling and monitoring volume load (VL) and training intensity (TI) is essential to managing injuries, fatigue and the recovery-adaptation process in competitive athletes. Conventional calculations of VL (sets x reps x load) and TI (VL/reps) give no consideration to barbell displacement during resistance training exercises. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether the inclusion of displacement in VL and TI calculations would provide substantial benefits over conventional calculations of VL and TI. METHODS: Eight trained weightlifters (5 male, 3 females, 173.6 cm and 88.6 kg), 7 of which were national level, participated in the study. For each subject, a V-scope 120 was used to measure the concentric phase displacement of 24 different exercises performed during the study. VL, TI, VL with displacement (VLwD) and TI with displacement (TIwD) were calculated on a daily basis (VLwD= VL x displacement, TIwD = VLwD/reps). Loads and repetition counts were recorded for each exercise performed over 21 weeks of training which allowed for the calculation of VL, VLwD, TI and TIwD across several training phases. RESULTS: VL correlated strongly to VLwD (r=0.98) while TI also correlated strongly with TIwD (r=0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that if exercise selection remains consistent, measuring VL and TI without displacement can illustrate workloads similar to measuring VL and TI while factoring in displacement.

Monitoring the resistance training volume load (VL) (sets × reps × load) is essential to managing resistance training and the recovery–adaptation process. Subjects: Eight trained weightlifters, seven of which were at national level, participated in the study. Methods: VL was measured both with (VLwD) and without (VL) the inclusion of barbell displacement, across twenty weeks of training, in order to allow for comparisons to be made of these VL calculating methods. This consisted of recording the load, repetition count, and barbell displacement for every set executed. Comparisons were made between VL and VLwD for individual blocks of training, select training weeks, and select training days. Results: Strong, statistically significant correlations (r ≥ 0.78, p < 0.001) were observed between VL and VLwD between all training periods analyzed. t-tests revealed statistically significant (p ≤ 0.018) differences between VL and VLwD in four of the seven training periods analyzed. Conclusion: The very strong relationship between VL and VLwD suggest that a coach with time constraints and a large number of athletes can potentially spare the addition of displacement. However, differences in percent change indicate that coaches with ample time should include displacement in VL calculations, in an effort to acquire more precise workload totals.