Attentional Cueing Modifies the Observed Association Between Post-Set Lactate and Velocity Loss During Smith Machine Bench Press

Background: Velocity loss (VL) is widely used in velocity-based training (VBT) to index mechanical fatigue, yet attentional focus cues may alter velocity profiles and their relationship with internal load. This study tested whether internal focus, external focus, or control modifies repetition-level velocity, lactate kinetics, and lactate–VL% coupling during bench press (BP) at 60% one-repetition maximum (1RM). Methods: Thirty-six trained men were randomized into three groups. Thirty-four participants completed the study and were included in the final analyses according to outcome-specific data availability. Participants completed two counterbalanced sessions on a Smith machine BP: (i) a single set to technical failure, and (ii) a conventional 3 sets × 10 repetitions at 60% 1RM. Concentric velocity was recorded via a linear position transducer and analyzed at the repetition level using linear mixed-effects models. Lactate was analyzed via Gaussian generalized estimating equations (GEEs). Results: Repetitions to failure and terminal velocity at failure did not differ between groups (Welch p = 0.328; ω2 = 0.045). During 3 sets × 10 repetitions, velocity decreased across sets and repetitions (both p < 0.001); adding group terms improved fit (LR χ2(12) = 42.26, p < 0.001), with additional improvement for group-dependent fatigue patterns (LR χ2(6) = 14.90, p = 0.021). Lactate increased over time (Wald χ2(4) = 244.56, p < 0.001) with convergence by post-lactate set 3 and post-lactate 30 s. Lactate–VL% coupling was strongly moderated by group (post-lactate × group: χ2(2) = 80.42, p < 0.001), with slopes (ΔVL% per 1 mmol·L−1) of 5.27 (internal focus), 13.60 (external focus), and 0.04 (control). After Holm correction across prespecified primary outcomes, only the post-session rating of perceived exertion differed (pHolm = 0.004; ω2 = 0.045), with higher values in the external focus group. Pairwise effects were calculated as comparator minus external focus; therefore, negative g values indicate a higher rate of perceived exertion (RPE) in the external focus group (gHedges ≈ −1.50 vs. control; −1.37 vs. internal focus). Conclusions: Attentional cueing did not consistently alter averaged VL% outcomes after multiplicity correction, but it was associated with differences in early lactate kinetics and modified the observed association between post-set lactate and VL% in the interaction-based coupling model. Cueing scripts should therefore be reported verbatim and standardized in VBT studies, particularly when VL-derived indices are interpreted alongside internal load markers.