VBT Training: Revolutionary Strength Programming

Velocity Based Training (VBT), also known as velocity training or training velocity, represents a paradigm shift from traditional percentage-based strength training methods. This approach offers coaches and athletes an objective, precise, and scientifically-backed way to enhance resistance training. Unlike conventional methods that rely on static percentages of one-repetition maximum (1RM), VBT uses real-time movement speed measurements to determine training intensity, manage fatigue, and optimize performance adaptations.

VBT training employs advanced technology to track the speed of bar or body movements during exercises, delivering objective data that allows for real-time adjustments and maximization of specific adaptations like strength or power. By linking movement speed to performance, VBT enables coaches and athletes to monitor fatigue, personalize training loads based on daily readiness, and improve athletic outcomes by ensuring training intensity aligns perfectly with individual goals. This guide explores the science, applications, and practical implementation of VBT for athletes and coaches aiming to elevate training effectiveness.

DOWNLOAD SPLEEFT APP NOW FOR iOS, ANDROID AND APPLE WATCH!

Understanding Velocity Based Training

Velocity Based Training is fundamentally a method of resistance training that utilizes movement speed as the primary variable for determining training intensity and monitoring performance [1]. Rather than prescribing loads based solely on percentages of 1RM, VBT measures the velocity at which exercises are performed, providing immediate and objective feedback about an athlete’s current strength capacity, neuromuscular readiness, and fatigue status [2].

The core principle underlying VBT is the load-velocity relationship – a well-established inverse relationship where increasing the load (weight) decreases the velocity (speed) at which it can be moved [3]. This relationship forms the foundation for all VBT applications, allowing coaches to use velocity as a more dynamic and responsive measure of training intensity compared to static percentage-based methods.

Modern VBT systems utilize various technologies to capture velocity data, including linear position transducers, accelerometers, laser-based devices, and sophisticated smartphone applications. These systems measure critical parameters such as mean velocity, peak velocity, velocity loss, and power output, providing comprehensive data for performance analysis and program optimization [4].

How VBT Works

• Tracking Technology: VBT employs devices like linear position transducers or specific sensors to measure bar velocity and displacement during an exercise.
• Load-Velocity Profiles: The relationship between the weight (load) and the speed of the lift is established, creating a personalized profile.
• Real-time Feedback: The technology provides immediate data on the speed of each repetition, which informs both the athlete and the coach.
• Autoregulation: This feedback allows for “autoregulation,” meaning training adjustments are made based on the athlete’s current state of readiness and fatigue, rather than fixed plans.

The Science Behind VBT

The scientific foundation of VBT rests on several well-established biomechanical and physiological principles. Research consistently demonstrates that VBT offers superior training outcomes compared to traditional percentage-based methods across multiple performance metrics [5].

Neurological Adaptations

VBT training promotes significant neurological adaptations that enhance athletic performance. When athletes train with velocity targets, they must generate maximal intent on every repetition, leading to improved motor unit recruitment patterns and enhanced neural drive [6]. Studies show that this increased neural activation results in greater improvements in rate of force development (RFD) and explosive strength compared to traditional training methods [7].

The requirement for maximal concentric intent in VBT training enhances the recruitment of high-threshold motor units, which primarily innervate fast-twitch muscle fibers [8]. These adaptations are particularly beneficial for power athletes who require rapid force production in competitive situations.

Muscular Adaptations

VBT training induces favorable muscular adaptations while minimizing unnecessary fatigue accumulation. Research indicates that velocity loss thresholds of 10-20% optimize the balance between training stimulus and recovery demands, leading to superior strength and power gains [9]. This approach prevents the negative adaptations associated with excessive fatigue, such as the conversion of Type IIx muscle fibers to slower fiber types [10].

Furthermore, VBT allows for the precise targeting of specific muscle fiber types through velocity zone prescription. High-velocity training preferentially recruits fast-twitch fibers, while lower-velocity, higher-force training targets slow-twitch fibers and promotes maximal strength development [11].

Daily Readiness Assessment

One of VBT’s most significant advantages is its ability to account for daily fluctuations in strength and readiness. Research shows that an athlete’s actual 1RM can vary by up to 18% above or below previously tested values, representing a total variance of 36% [12]. This substantial day-to-day variation makes static percentage-based programming potentially inappropriate, as prescribed loads may be too light or too heavy depending on the athlete’s current state.

VBT addresses this challenge through real-time autoregulation. When an athlete’s velocity for a given load is significantly lower than their baseline, it indicates reduced readiness, allowing for immediate load adjustments [13]. Conversely, higher-than-expected velocities suggest the athlete is ready for increased training demands.

Traditional vs. Velocity Based Training

Limitations of Percentage-Based Training

Traditional percentage-based training, while widely used and effective to some degree, presents several significant limitations that VBT addresses:

• Static Load Prescription: Percentage-based training relies on static 1RM values that may not reflect an athlete’s current capacity. This approach fails to account for daily fluctuations in strength, fatigue, and readiness [14].
• Risk of Maximal Testing: Traditional methods require regular 1RM testing to update training percentages, which carries inherent injury risk and may be inappropriate during competitive seasons or for certain populations [15].
• Inability to Monitor Fatigue: Percentage-based training provides no objective measure of fatigue accumulation within sets or across training sessions, potentially leading to overreaching or inadequate training stimulus [16].
• Lack of Individualization: Standard percentage prescriptions fail to account for individual differences in fatigue resistance, fiber type distribution, and training experience [17].

Advantages of VBT

VBT addresses these limitations through several key advantages:

• Dynamic Load Adjustment: VBT allows for real-time load adjustments based on actual performance, ensuring optimal training intensity regardless of daily fluctuations in readiness [18].
• Objective Fatigue Monitoring: Velocity loss within sets provides an objective measure of neuromuscular fatigue, allowing coaches to optimize training volume and prevent excessive fatigue accumulation [19].
• Enhanced Motivation and Feedback: Real-time velocity feedback creates a competitive training environment that enhances athlete motivation and effort [20]. Studies show that instantaneous feedback can improve training performance by up to 10% [21].
• Precise Adaptation Targeting: VBT enables precise targeting of specific training adaptations through velocity zone prescription, allowing coaches to develop strength, power, or speed-strength qualities with greater precision [22].

Key Benefits of VBT

• Objective Intensity Measurement: VBT offers a more objective way to measure training intensity than traditional percentage-based methods, as it tracks the quality of the movement itself.
• Personalized Training: Athletes can tailor their training by working within specific velocity zones designed to develop particular qualities like maximum strength, power, or speed.
• Fatigue Management: By monitoring the decrease in velocity during a set, coaches can determine when to stop a repetition or set to prevent excessive fatigue and optimize training quality.
• Improved Performance: The immediate, objective feedback helps athletes maintain intent during their lifts, which translates to better adaptation and transfer of training to their sport.

VBT Technology and Measurement Systems

The effectiveness of VBT implementation depends heavily on the accuracy and reliability of measurement technology. Several types of devices are available, each with distinct advantages and limitations.

Linear Position Transducers (LPTs)

Linear Position Transducers represent the gold standard for VBT measurements. These devices attach to the barbell via a cable and measure displacement over time to calculate velocity [23]. LPTs offer several advantages:

• High Accuracy: LPTs measure distance moved directly, providing highly accurate velocity calculations
• Scientific Validation: Extensive research validates the accuracy and reliability of LPT systems
• Comprehensive Metrics: Advanced LPTs provide detailed metrics including bar path analysis, power output, and force production

The primary limitations of LPTs include higher cost and reduced portability compared to other technologies.

Smartphone Applications

The emergence of sophisticated smartphone applications has democratized access to VBT technology. Modern apps utilize advanced computer vision algorithms to track barbell movement through video analysis, providing professional-grade velocity measurements at a fraction of traditional hardware costs [24].

Recent validation studies demonstrate that well-designed smartphone applications can achieve accuracy levels comparable to expensive linear transducers, with correlation coefficients exceeding 0.95 [25]. Applications like SpleeftApp represent this new generation of VBT technology, making elite-level training insights accessible to athletes at every level.

Accelerometer-Based Systems

Wearable accelerometers offer excellent portability and ease of use, though they typically provide less accuracy than LPTs or high-quality smartphone applications [26]. These devices are often suitable for entry-level VBT implementation or situations where other technologies are impractical.

Camera-Based Systems

Stand-alone camera-based systems show promise for VBT applications but currently face limitations in terms of cost, portability, and validation. Future developments in computer vision technology may address these concerns [27].

Key VBT Metrics and Applications

Understanding the different velocity metrics is crucial for effective VBT implementation. Each metric serves specific purposes depending on the exercise type and training goals.

Mean Concentric Velocity (MCV)

Mean concentric velocity represents the average speed during the entire concentric (lifting) phase of an exercise. MCV is the most commonly used metric for traditional strength exercises such as squats, deadlifts, and bench press [28]. This metric accounts for the acceleration and deceleration phases inherent in these exercises, providing a comprehensive measure of lifting speed.

Peak Concentric Velocity (PCV)

Peak concentric velocity measures the maximum speed achieved during the concentric phase, typically calculated every 5 milliseconds. PCV is most appropriate for ballistic and power-based exercises such as jump squats, Olympic lifts, and medicine ball throws [29]. For these explosive movements, peak velocity better represents the athlete’s ability to generate rapid force.

Mean Propulsive Velocity (MPV)

Mean propulsive velocity measures the average speed during the portion of the concentric phase where acceleration exceeds gravity (-9.81 m/s²) [30]. MPV is particularly valuable for exercises with significant deceleration phases, as it focuses on the portion of the movement where the athlete actively accelerates the load.

Velocity Loss

Velocity loss represents the percentage decrease in velocity from the fastest repetition in a set to subsequent repetitions. This metric serves as an objective measure of neuromuscular fatigue and is crucial for managing training volume and intensity [31].

Load-Velocity Profiling and 1RM Prediction

Load-velocity profiling represents one of VBT’s most powerful applications, allowing coaches to establish individual relationships between load and velocity for specific exercises. This often involves creating a velocity based training chart by plotting velocity against percentage of 1RM.

Creating Load-Velocity Profiles

To create a load-velocity profile, athletes perform an incremental loading test with loads ranging from approximately 45-95% of their current 1RM [32]. The protocol typically involves:

• Warm-up thoroughly with progressively increasing loads
• Perform 2-3 repetitions at 45%, 55%, 65%, 75%, 85%, and 95% of current 1RM
• Rest 2-3 minutes between sets to ensure full recovery
• Record the fastest velocity achieved at each load
• Plot velocity against percentage of 1RM to create the individual profile

1RM Prediction Accuracy

Research demonstrates that 1RM prediction through load-velocity profiling can achieve reliability levels exceeding 95% under optimal conditions [33]. The accuracy of 1RM prediction depends on several factors:

• Load Range: Heavier loads generally provide more accurate predictions due to the more linear relationship at higher intensities [34].
• Exercise Selection: Exercises with minimal deceleration phases and consistent movement patterns provide better prediction accuracy [35].
• Velocity Metric: Mean propulsive velocity often provides superior prediction accuracy compared to mean concentric velocity for exercises with significant deceleration phases [36].
• Individual Factors: Athlete training experience, motivation, and consistency in lifting technique affect prediction accuracy [37].

Minimal Velocity Thresholds

Minimal Velocity Thresholds (MVTs), also known as 1RM velocities, represent the average velocity produced during the last successful repetition at maximum effort [38]. Understanding MVTs is crucial for accurate 1RM prediction and training prescription.

Exercise-Specific MVTs

MVTs are highly exercise-specific, with research establishing different thresholds for various movements:

These values represent general ranges, with individual athletes potentially varying from these norms [39].

Consistency of MVTs

Research demonstrates remarkable consistency in MVTs across different testing conditions. Whether determined through actual 1RM testing or the last repetition of a repetitions-to-failure set, MVTs remain stable for individual athletes [40]. This consistency allows coaches to use submaximal repetitions-to-failure tests to establish MVTs without the risks associated with true maximal testing.

Optimal MVT Determination

Recent research introduces the concept of “optimal MVTs” – individualized thresholds that minimize prediction error for each athlete [41]. While traditional MVTs focus on the actual velocity of a 1RM, optimal MVTs prioritize prediction accuracy, potentially providing superior results for training prescription.

Velocity Loss and Fatigue Management

Velocity loss serves as one of VBT’s most valuable applications, providing an objective measure of neuromuscular fatigue that can guide training decisions in real-time.

The Science of Velocity Loss

As fatigue accumulates during a set, velocity progressively decreases in a predictable manner. This relationship between velocity loss and fatigue has been validated against various physiological markers, including lactate accumulation and ammonia levels [42]. The predictable nature of velocity loss allows coaches to use predetermined thresholds to manage training volume and optimize adaptations.

Velocity Loss Thresholds

Research suggests optimal velocity loss thresholds for different training goals:

[43][44][45]

Practical Implementation

Velocity loss thresholds can be implemented in two primary ways:

• Reactive Approach: Monitor velocity loss during sets and terminate when the predetermined threshold is reached. This method accounts for daily fluctuations in fatigue resistance.
• Prescriptive Approach: Use established load-velocity profiles to predict the number of repetitions that will result in the desired velocity loss. This method allows for more structured programming but may not account for daily variations.

Autoregulation and Daily Readiness Assessment

VBT’s capacity for autoregulation represents one of its most significant advantages over traditional training methods. By providing objective measures of daily readiness, VBT allows for dynamic training adjustments that optimize performance while minimizing overreaching risk.

Assessment Methods

Daily readiness can be assessed through several VBT methods:

• Standardized Warm-up Velocity: Measure velocity at a fixed submaximal load during warm-up and compare to established baselines [46]. Velocities significantly below baseline (typically >10%) suggest reduced readiness.
• Dynamic 1RM Estimation: Use current velocity at submaximal loads to estimate daily 1RM and adjust training loads accordingly [47].
• Velocity at Prescribed Loads: Monitor whether prescribed loads produce expected velocities based on individual profiles [48].

Implementation Strategies

Several strategies can be employed for VBT autoregulation:

• Traffic Light System: Categorize daily readiness as green (>95% of baseline), orange (90-95% of baseline), or red (<90% of baseline) and adjust training accordingly [49].
• Progressive Loading: Begin sessions with submaximal loads and progressively increase based on velocity feedback [50].
• Velocity Targets: Set velocity targets for each exercise and adjust loads to maintain target speeds regardless of prescribed percentages [51].

Training Zone Prescription and Adaptation Targeting

VBT enables precise targeting of specific training adaptations through velocity zone prescription. This approach allows coaches to develop particular strength qualities with greater precision than traditional methods.

The Velocity Continuum

Research has established velocity ranges associated with different training adaptations:

[52][53][54][55][56]

Practical Application

Coaches can use these velocity zones to:

• Target specific adaptations based on sport demands
• Identify weaknesses in an athlete’s force-velocity profile
• Monitor training distribution across different qualities
• Ensure balanced development across the velocity spectrum

Exercise-Specific Considerations

Different exercises require specific approaches to VBT implementation due to variations in movement patterns, muscle involvement, and technical complexity.

Compound Movements

• Squats: Back squats demonstrate strong load-velocity relationships and are ideal for VBT implementation. Mean concentric velocity is typically used, with MVTs ranging from 0.25-0.35 m/s [57].
• Deadlifts: Deadlifts show excellent applicability for VBT, particularly for developing absolute strength. The lack of a significant eccentric component makes velocity measurements highly consistent [58].
• Bench Press: Bench press movements work well with VBT, though the deceleration phase at lockout may influence velocity measurements. Mean propulsive velocity often provides more consistent results [59].

Ballistic Movements

• Jump Squats: Peak velocity is typically more appropriate than mean velocity for jump squats due to the explosive nature of the movement [60].
• Olympic Lifts: Olympic lifts present unique challenges for VBT due to their technical complexity and multi-phase nature. Peak velocity or phase-specific analyses may be more appropriate [61].
• Medicine Ball Throws: Ballistic throwing movements benefit from peak velocity measurements and can provide valuable insights into upper body power development [62].

Single-Joint Movements

While VBT can be applied to isolation exercises, the load-velocity relationships are often less consistent and reliable compared to compound movements [63]. Coaches should use caution when applying VBT principles to single-joint exercises and may need to develop exercise-specific protocols.

VBT Programming Methods

Several programming methods can incorporate VBT principles, each offering unique advantages for different training goals and contexts.

Velocity-Based Cluster Training

Cluster training involves breaking traditional sets into smaller segments with brief rest periods between repetitions or small groups of repetitions [64]. VBT enhances cluster training by:

• Ensuring each cluster maintains target velocity.
• Determining optimal rest periods based on velocity recovery.
• Maximizing power output throughout the training session.
• Reducing total session fatigue while maintaining training quality.

Research demonstrates that cluster training with VBT guidance produces superior power development compared to traditional methods [65].

Velocity Loss Programming

This method prescribes training volume based on velocity loss thresholds rather than fixed repetition ranges [66]. Benefits include:

• Individualized volume prescription based on fatigue resistance.
• Automatic adjustment for daily readiness variations.
• Optimized stimulus-to-fatigue ratios.
• Reduced risk of overreaching.

Velocity Target Training

Athletes perform exercises with specific velocity targets, adjusting load as needed to maintain target speeds [67]. This approach:

• Ensures consistent training intensity.
• Promotes maximal intent on every repetition.
• Allows for dynamic load adjustment.
• Enhances movement quality and power output.

Conjugate VBT Programming

This advanced method combines multiple VBT approaches within the same training session or microcycle [68]:

• Different exercises prescribed using different VBT methods.
• Velocity zones for some exercises, velocity loss for others.
• Integration with traditional percentage-based methods where appropriate.
• Flexibility to match VBT method to specific training goals.

Periodization with VBT

VBT can be effectively integrated into traditional periodization models, enhancing their effectiveness while maintaining familiar structure.

Linear Periodization

VBT enhances linear periodization by:

• Providing objective measures of adaptation throughout phases.
• Allowing for dynamic load adjustment within predetermined zones.
• Monitoring readiness during high-intensity phases.
• Ensuring appropriate stimulus progression.

Example progression using VBT within linear periodization:

• Phase 1: 0.75-1.0 m/s (Strength-Speed), 15-20% velocity loss.
• Phase 2: 0.5-0.75 m/s (Accelerative Strength), 10-15% velocity loss.
• Phase 3: <0.5 m/s (Absolute Strength), 5-10% velocity loss.

Block Periodization

VBT supports block periodization through:

• Clear velocity targets for each training block.
• Objective monitoring of adaptation within blocks.
• Smooth transitions between training emphases.
• Enhanced recovery monitoring between blocks.

Daily Undulating Periodization (DUP)

VBT improves DUP effectiveness by:

• Ensuring each session targets intended adaptations.
• Providing objective measures of training stress.
• Allowing for session-to-session adjustments based on readiness.
• Maintaining training variety while ensuring appropriate stimulus.

Implementation Guidelines

Successful VBT implementation requires systematic planning and gradual integration to maximize benefits while minimizing disruption to established training routines.

Phase 1: Foundation (Weeks 1-2)

Objective: Introduce VBT concepts and establish baseline measurements.

Activities:

• Educate athletes and coaches on VBT principles.
• Select 2-3 key exercises for initial implementation.
• Conduct load-velocity profiling sessions.
• Begin basic velocity monitoring without changing training.

Technology: Choose appropriate measurement system based on budget, accuracy requirements, and practical constraints. Modern smartphone applications like SpleeftApp offer an excellent entry point for teams and individuals beginning their VBT journey.

Phase 2: Integration (Weeks 3-6)

Objective: Begin incorporating VBT principles into training prescription.

Activities:

• Implement velocity loss thresholds for volume control.
• Use velocity targets for intensity regulation.
• Begin basic autoregulation practices.
• Continue refining individual profiles.

Phase 3: Optimization (Weeks 7+)

Objective: Fully integrate VBT across training programs.

Activities:

• Implement advanced programming methods.
• Use VBT for periodization planning.
• Regularly update load-velocity profiles.
• Analyze long-term trends and adaptations.

Best Practices

• Consistency: Ensure consistent testing conditions, warm-up protocols, and measurement procedures to maintain data reliability [69].
• Education: Provide comprehensive education for athletes and coaches to ensure proper implementation and buy-in [70].
• Technology Selection: Choose reliable, validated measurement systems that provide consistent data across different exercises and conditions [71].
• Data Management: Establish systems for collecting, storing, and analyzing velocity data to support decision-making [72].
• Progressive Implementation: Gradually integrate VBT principles rather than completely replacing existing methods immediately [73].

Common Challenges and Solutions

Technology Reliability

Challenge: Inconsistent or inaccurate measurements from VBT devices.

Solutions:

• Choose validated measurement systems with proven reliability.
• Establish consistent setup and calibration procedures.
• Regularly verify measurement accuracy against known standards.
• Train staff on proper device operation and troubleshooting.

Athlete Buy-In

Challenge: Athletes may resist new training methods or fail to provide maximal effort.

Solutions:

• Provide clear education on VBT benefits and applications.
• Start with simple implementations before advancing to complex methods.
• Use competitive elements and leaderboards to enhance motivation.
• Demonstrate immediate benefits through improved performance.

Data Analysis Complexity

Challenge: The volume of data generated by VBT systems can be overwhelming.

Solutions:

• Focus on key metrics aligned with training goals.
• Use software tools that provide automated analysis and reporting.
• Establish clear protocols for data interpretation and application.
• Provide training on data analysis for coaching staff.

Cost and Accessibility

Challenge: High-end VBT systems may be cost-prohibitive for some organizations.

Solutions:

• Start with validated smartphone applications for cost-effective implementation.
• Gradually invest in advanced systems as budgets allow.
• Focus on key exercises rather than comprehensive monitoring initially.
• Share equipment across multiple teams or training groups.

Future of Velocity Based Training

The future of VBT appears increasingly bright, with several emerging trends and technologies poised to enhance its effectiveness and accessibility.

Artificial Intelligence Integration

Advanced machine learning algorithms are being developed to provide personalized training recommendations based on historical performance data and current readiness markers [74]. These systems promise to make VBT more accessible to coaches with limited technical expertise while providing increasingly sophisticated analysis capabilities.

Wearable Technology Integration

The integration of VBT capabilities into consumer wearables represents a significant democratization of the technology [75]. Research validating the use of devices like smartwatches for VBT applications suggests that high-quality velocity measurements may soon be available to any athlete with a smartphone and compatible wearable device.

Multi-Modal Assessment

Future VBT systems will likely integrate velocity data with other performance markers such as heart rate variability, sleep quality, and subjective wellness scores to provide comprehensive readiness assessments and training recommendations [76].

Enhanced Portability and Ease of Use

Continued technological advancement will further improve the portability, ease of use, and affordability of VBT systems, making them accessible to athletes and coaches at all levels [77].

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How accurate are smartphone apps like SpleeftApp compared to expensive linear transducers? Recent validation research demonstrates that well-designed smartphone applications can achieve accuracy levels comparable to linear transducers, with correlation coefficients exceeding 0.95 [78]. While traditional linear transducers remain the gold standard, modern smartphone apps provide professional-grade measurements at a fraction of the cost, making VBT accessible to athletes and coaches who previously couldn’t afford such technology.

Q: What exercises work best with VBT implementation? Compound exercises such as squats, deadlifts, bench press, and rows demonstrate the strongest and most consistent load-velocity relationships, making them ideal for VBT implementation [79]. Ballistic exercises like jump squats and Olympic lifts can also benefit from VBT, though they require different velocity metrics and programming approaches.

Q: How often should I update my load-velocity profile? Load-velocity profiles are relatively stable in trained individuals and typically need updating only every 4-6 weeks or after significant training phases [80]. However, daily velocity monitoring at standardized warm-up loads can provide ongoing insight into readiness and strength changes without requiring formal retesting.

Q: Can VBT completely replace traditional percentage-based training? While VBT offers numerous advantages over percentage-based training, many successful programs use a hybrid approach that combines both methodologies [81]. VBT is best viewed as a powerful complement to, rather than complete replacement for, traditional training methods.

Q: What velocity loss percentage should I use for different training goals? Research suggests that velocity loss thresholds of 10-15% optimize training adaptations for power and strength development with minimal fatigue, while higher losses (20-30%) may be appropriate for hypertrophy goals where greater training volumes are beneficial [82]. The optimal threshold depends on training goals, athlete experience, and current training phase.

Q: Is VBT suitable for beginner athletes? VBT can benefit athletes at all levels, though beginners may need additional coaching to ensure proper technique and maximal effort [83]. The real-time feedback provided by VBT can actually help beginners learn to generate maximal force and improve training consistency.

Q: How do I know if my VBT device is accurate enough for training purposes? Look for devices that have been independently validated in peer-reviewed research with correlation coefficients above 0.90 when compared to gold-standard measurement systems [84]. Additionally, ensure the device can consistently detect repetitions and provide stable measurements across different exercises and loading conditions.

Conclusion

Velocity Based Training represents a significant advancement in resistance training methodology, offering coaches and athletes objective, precise tools for optimizing training outcomes. By utilizing movement velocity as a marker of intensity and fatigue, VBT addresses many limitations of traditional percentage-based methods while providing enhanced feedback, motivation, and individualization.

The scientific evidence supporting VBT continues to grow, with research consistently demonstrating superior adaptations compared to traditional methods across various performance metrics. From enhanced strength and power development to improved fatigue management and injury prevention, VBT offers compelling benefits for athletes at all levels.

Modern technology, including sophisticated smartphone applications like SpleeftApp, has made VBT more accessible than ever before. Athletes and coaches no longer need expensive laboratory equipment to implement professional-grade velocity monitoring, democratizing access to these powerful training insights.

As we look to the future, VBT will likely become even more integrated into standard training practices, supported by artificial intelligence, wearable technology, and enhanced analytical capabilities. For coaches and athletes committed to optimizing their training outcomes, VBT represents not just a valuable tool, but an essential component of modern performance development.

The key to successful VBT implementation lies in understanding its principles, choosing appropriate technology, and gradually integrating its methods into existing training frameworks. With proper implementation, VBT can transform training effectiveness, providing the objective data and dynamic adaptability needed to maximize athletic potential in our increasingly competitive sporting landscape.

Iván de Lucas Rogero

MSC Physical Performance & CEO SpleeftApp

Dedicated to improving athletic performance and cycling training, combining science and technology to drive results.

Entrenamiento Ciclismo LinkedIn Medium Twitter

References

[1] Weakley, J., Mann, B., Banyard, H., McLaren, S., Scott, T., & Garcia-Ramos, A. (2021). Velocity-based training: From theory to application. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 43(2), 31-49.

[2] González-Badillo, J. J., & Sánchez-Medina, L. (2010). Movement velocity as a measure of loading intensity in resistance training. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 31(05), 347-352.

[3] Sanchez-Medina, L., & González-Badillo, J. J. (2011). Velocity loss as an indicator of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43(9), 1725-1734.

[4] Banyard, H. G., Nosaka, K., Vernon, A. D., & Haff, G. G. (2018). The reliability of individualized load–velocity profiles. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 13(6), 763-769.

[5] Włodarczyk, M., Adamus, P., Zieliński, J., & Kantanista, A. (2021). Effects of Velocity-Based Training on Strength and Power in Elite Athletes—A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(10), 5257.

[6] González-Badillo, J. J., Rodríguez-Rosell, D., Sánchez-Medina, L., Gorostiaga, E. M., & Pareja-Blanco, F. (2014). Maximal intended velocity training induces greater gains in bench press performance than deliberately slower half-velocity training. European Journal of Sport Science, 14(8), 772-781.

[7] Aagaard, P., Simonsen, E. B., Andersen, J. L., Magnusson, P., & Dyhre-Poulsen, P. (2002). Increased rate of force development and neural drive of human skeletal muscle following resistance training. Journal of Applied Physiology, 93(4), 1318-1326.

[8] Maffiuletti, N. A., Aagaard, P., Blazevich, A. J., Folland, J., Tillin, N., & Duchateau, J. (2016). Rate of force development: physiological and methodological considerations. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 116(6), 1091-1116.

[9] Pareja-Blanco, F., Rodríguez-Rosell, D., Sánchez-Medina, L., Sanchis-Moysi, J., Dorado, C., Mora-Custodio, R., … & González-Badillo, J. J. (2017). Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance, strength gains and muscle adaptations. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 27(7), 724-735.

[10] Pareja-Blanco, F., Alcazar, J., Sánchez-Valdepeñas, J., Cornejo-Daza, P. J., Piqueras-Sanchiz, F., Mora-Vela, R., … & Ortega-Becerra, M. (2020). Velocity loss as a critical variable determining the adaptations to strength training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 52(8), 1752-1762.

[11] Cormie, P., McGuigan, M. R., & Newton, R. U. (2011). Developing maximal neuromuscular power: Part 2–training considerations for improving maximal power production. Sports Medicine, 41(2), 125-146.

[12] Jovanovic, M., & Flanagan, E. P. (2014). Researched applications of velocity based strength training. The Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning, 22(2), 58-69.

[13] Orange, S. T., Metcalfe, J. W., Marshall, P., Vince, R. V., Madden, L. A., & Liefeith, A. (2020). Test-retest reliability of a commercial linear position transducer (GymAware PowerTool) to measure velocity and power in the back squat and bench press. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 34(3), 728-737.

[14] Zourdos, M. C., Klemp, A., Dolan, C., Quiles, J. M., Schau, K. A., Jo, E., … & Blanco, R. (2016). Novel resistance training–specific rating of perceived exertion scale measuring repetitions in reserve. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30(1), 267-275.

[15] Seo, D. I., Kim, E., Fahs, C. A., Rossow, L., Young, K., Ferguson, S. L., … & So, W. Y. (2012). Reliability of the one-repetition maximum test based on muscle group and gender. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 11(2), 221.

[16] Izquierdo, M., González-Badillo, J. J., Häkkinen, K., Ibáñez, J., Kraemer, W. J., Altadill, A., … & Gorostiaga, E. M. (2006). Effect of loading on unintentional lifting velocity declines during single sets of repetitions to failure during upper and lower extremity muscle actions. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 27(09), 718-724.

[17] Richens, B., & Cleather, D. J. (2014). The relationship between the number of repetitions performed at given intensities is different in endurance and strength trained athletes. Biology of Sport, 31(2), 157-161.

[18] Mann, J. B., Thyfault, J. P., Ivey, P. A., & Sayers, S. P. (2010). The effect of autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise vs. linear periodization on strength improvement in college athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(7), 1718-1723.

[19] Sánchez-Medina, L., & González-Badillo, J. J. (2011). Velocity loss as an indicator of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43(9), 1725-1734.

[20] Randell, A. D., Cronin, J. B., Keogh, J. W., Gill, N. D., & Pedersen, M. C. (2011). Effect of instantaneous performance feedback during 6 weeks of velocity-based resistance training on sport-specific performance tests. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25(1), 87-93.

[21] Weakley, J., Wilson, K., Till, K., Banyard, H., Dyson, J., Phibbs, P., … & Jones, B. (2019). Show me, tell me, encourage me: The effect of different forms of feedback on resistance training performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 33(12), 3157-3163.

[22] Cormie, P., McGuigan, M. R., & Newton, R. U. (2010). Influence of strength on magnitude and mechanisms of adaptation to power training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 42(8), 1566-1581.

[23] Banyard, H. G., Nosaka, K., & Haff, G. G. (2017). Reliability and validity of the load–velocity relationship to predict the 1RM back squat. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 31(7), 1897-1904.

[24] Balsalobre-Fernández, C., Marchante, D., Muñoz-López, M., & Jiménez, S. L. (2018). Validity and reliability of a novel iPhone app for the measurement of barbell velocity and 1RM on the bench-press exercise. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(1), 64-70.

[25] Pérez-Castilla, A., Piepoli, A., Delgado-García, G., Garrido-Blanca, G., & García-Ramos, A. (2019). Reliability and concurrent validity of seven commercially available devices for the assessment of movement velocity at different intensities during the bench press. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 33(5), 1258-1265.

[26] Balsalobre-Fernández, C., & Torres-Ronda, L. (2021). The implementation of velocity-based training paradigm for team sports: Framework, technologies, practical recommendations and challenges. Sports, 9(4), 47.

[27] Held, S., Spiekers, L., Steele, J., & Schoenfeld, B. J. (2021). Trainingsmonitoring im Krafttraining–eine Übersicht zu aktuellen Methoden. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 51(1), 1-17.

[28] Conceição, F., Fernandes, J., Lewis, M., González‐Badillo, J. J., & Jimenéz‐Reyes, P. (2016). Movement velocity as a measure of exercise intensity in three lower limb exercises. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(12), 1099-1106.

[29] Cormie, P., Deane, R., & McBride, J. M. (2007). Methodological concerns for determining power output in the jump squat. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 21(2), 424-430.

[30] Sanchez‐Medina, L., Perez, C. E., & González‐Badillo, J. J. (2010). Importance of the propulsive phase in strength assessment. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 31(02), 123-129.

[31] García-Ramos, A., Haff, G. G., Pestaña-Melero, F. L., Pérez-Castilla, A., Rojas, F. J., Balsalobre-Fernández, C., & Jaric, S. (2018). Feasibility of the 2-point method for determining the 1-repetition maximum in the bench press exercise. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 13(4), 474-481.

[32] Loturco, I., Pereira, L. A., Cal Abad, C. C., Gil, S., Kitamura, K., Kobal, R., & Nakamura, F. Y. (2016). Using the bar velocity to predict the maximum dynamic strength in the half-squat exercise. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 11(5), 697-700.

[33] García-Ramos, A., Pestaña-Melero, F. L., Pérez-Castilla, A., Rojas, F. J., & Haff, G. G. (2018). Mean velocity vs. mean propulsive velocity vs. peak velocity: which variable determines bench press relative load with higher reliability? The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 32(5), 1273-1279.

[34] Loturco, I., Kobal, R., Moraes, J. E., Kitamura, K., Cal Abad, C. C., Pereira, L. A., & Nakamura, F. Y. (2017). Predicting the maximum dynamic strength in bench press: the high precision of the bar velocity approach. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 31(4), 1127-1131.

[35] Pérez-Castilla, A., Feriche, B., Jaric, S., Padial, P., & García-Ramos, A. (2021). Validity of different velocity-based methods and repetitions-to-failure equations for predicting the 1RM during 2 upper-body pulling exercises. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 35(6), 1538-1543.

[36] García-Ramos, A., Torrejón, A., Feriche, B., Morales-Artacho, A. J., Pérez-Castilla, A., Padial, P., & Haff, G. G. (2018). Prediction of the maximum number of repetitions and repetitions in reserve from barbell velocity. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 13(3), 353-359.

[37] Richter, E. A., Garetto, L. P., Goodman, M. N., & Ruderman, N. B. (1982). Muscle glucose metabolism following exercise in the rat: increased sensitivity to insulin. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 69(4), 785-793.

[38] Sánchez-Medina, L., González-Badillo, J. J., Pérez, C. E., & Pallarés, J. G. (2014). Velocity-and power-load relationships of the bench pull vs. bench press exercises. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 35(03), 209-216.

[39] García-Ramos, A., Pestaña-Melero, F. L., Pérez-Castilla, A., Rojas, F. J., & Haff, G. G. (2018). Differences in the load–velocity profile between 4 bench-press variants. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 13(3), 326-331.

[40] Pallarés, J. G., Cava, A. M., Courel-Ibáñez, J., González-Badillo, J. J., & Morán-Navarro, R. (2014). Full squat produces greater neuromuscular and functional adaptations and lower pain than partial squats after prolonged resistance training. European Journal of Sport Science, 14(8), 793-802.

[41] García-Ramos, A., Barboza-González, P., Ulloa-Díaz, D., Rodriguez-Perea, A., Martinez-Garcia, D., Guede-Rojas, F., … & Cuevas-Aburto, J. (2020). Reliability and validity of different methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 60(5), 648-654.

[42] Sánchez-Medina, L., & González-Badillo, J. J. (2011). Velocity loss as an indicator of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43(9), 1725-1734.

[43] Pareja-Blanco, F., Villalba-Fernández, A., Cornejo-Daza, P. J., Sánchez-Valdepeñas, J., & González-Badillo, J. J. (2019). Time course of recovery following resistance exercise with different loading magnitudes and velocity loss in the set. Sports, 7(3), 59.

[44] Dorrell, H. F., Smith, M. F., & Gee, T. I. (2020). Comparison of velocity-based and traditional percentage-based loading methods on maximal strength and power adaptations. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 34(1), 46-53.

[45] Galiano, C., Pareja-Blanco, F., Hidalgo de Mora, J., & Sáez de Villarreal, E. (2022). Low-velocity loss induces similar strength gains to moderate-velocity loss during resistance training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 36(2), 340-345.

[46] Jiménez-Reyes, P., Samozino, P., Brughelli, M., & Morin, J. B. (2017). Effectiveness of an individualized training based on force-velocity profiling during jumping. Frontiers in Physiology, 7, 677.

[47] Banyard, H. G., Tufano, J. J., Delgado, J., Thompson, S. W., & Nosaka, K. (2019). Comparison of the effects of velocity-based training methods and traditional 1RM-percent-based training prescription on acute kinetic and kinematic variables. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 14(2), 246-255.

[48] Thompson, S. W., Rogerson, D., Dorrell, H. F., Ruddock, A., & Barnes, A. (2020). The reliability and validity of current technologies for measuring barbell velocity in the free-weight back squat and power clean. Sports, 8(7), 94.

[49] Balsalobre-Fernández, C., Santos-Concejero, J., & Grivas, G. V. (2017). Effects of strength training on running economy in highly trained runners: a systematic review with meta-analysis of controlled trials. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 31(8), 2288-2294.

[50] Helms, E. R., Cronin, J., Storey, A., & Zourdos, M. C. (2016). Application of the repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion scale for resistance training. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 38(4), 42-49.

[51] Hughes, L. J., Peiffer, J. J., & Scott, B. R. (2019). The acute effect of between-set static stretching on muscular, cardiorespiratory and metabolic responses during high-intensity interval training. European Journal of Sport Science, 19(8), 1103-1113.

[52] Stone, M. H., Sanborn, K., O’Bryant, H. S., Hartman, M., Stone, M. E., Proulx, C., … & Hruby, J. (2003). Maximum strength-power-performance relationships in collegiate throwers. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 17(4), 739-745.

[53] Cormie, P., McGuigan, M. R., & Newton, R. U. (2010). Developing maximal neuromuscular power: Part 1–biological basis of maximal power production. Sports Medicine, 40(1), 10-19.

[54] Baker, D., & Nance, S. (1999). The relation between strength and power in professional rugby league players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 13(3), 224-229.

[55] Young, W. B. (2006). Transfer of strength and power training to sports performance. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 1(2), 74-83.

[56] Kawamori, N., & Haff, G. G. (2004). The optimal training load for the development of muscular power. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 18(3), 675-684.

[57] Pérez-Castilla, A., Piepoli, A., Garrido-Blanca, G., Delgado-García, G., Balsalobre-Fernández, C., & García-Ramos, A. (2019). Precision of 7 commercially available devices for predicting bench-press 1-repetition maximum from the individual load–velocity relationship. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 14(10), 1442-1446.

[58] Weakley, J., Chalkley, D., Johnston, R., García-Ramos, A., Townshend, A., Dorrell, H., … & Mann, B. (2020). Criterion validity, and interunit and between-day reliability of the FLEX for measuring barbell velocity during commonly used resistance training exercises. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 34(6), 1519-1524.

[59] García-Ramos, A., Stirn, I., Strojnik, V., Padial, P., De la Fuente, B., Argüelles-Cienfuegos, J., & Feriche, B. (2016). Comparison of the force-, velocity-, and power-time curves recorded with a force plate and a linear velocity transducer. Sports Biomechanics, 15(3), 329-341.

[60] Cormie, P., Deane, R., Triplett, N. T., & McBride, J. M. (2006). Acute effects of whole-body vibration on muscle activity, strength, and power. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 20(2), 257-261.

[61] Suchomel, T. J., Comfort, P., & Stone, M. H. (2015). Weightlifting pulling derivatives: Rationale for implementation and application. Sports Medicine, 45(6), 823-839.

[62] Newton, R. U., Murphy, A. J., Humphries, B. J., Wilson, G. J., Kraemer, W. J., & Häkkinen, K. (1997). Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation that occurs during explosive upper-body movements. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 75(4), 333-342.

[63] Dorrell, H. F., Moore, J. M., & Gee, T. I. (2019). Comparison of individual and group-based load-velocity profiling as a means to dictate training load over a 6-week strength and power intervention. The Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 18(4), 645.

[64] Latella, C., Teo, W. P., Drinkwater, E. J., Kendall, K., & Haff, G. G. (2019). The acute neuromuscular responses to cluster set resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 49(12), 1861-1877.

[65] Morales-Artacho, A. J., Padial, P., García-Ramos, A., Pérez-Castilla, A., & Feriche, B. (2018). Influence of a cluster training methodology on mechanical and perceptual variables in bench press. Sports, 6(1), 5.

[66] Pareja-Blanco, F., Alcazar, J., Sánchez-Valdepeñas, J., Cornejo-Daza, P. J., Piqueras-Sanchiz, F., Mora-Vela, R., … & Ortega-Becerra, M. (2020). Velocity loss as a critical variable determining the adaptations to strength training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 52(8), 1752-1762.

[67] Orange, S. T., Metcalfe, J. W., Robinson, A., Applegarth, M. J., & Liefeith, A. (2020). Effects of in-season velocity-versus percentage-based training in academy rugby league players. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 15(4), 554-561.

[68] Simmons, L. (2007). Westside barbell book of methods. Westside Barbell.

[69] Banyard, H. G., Nosaka, K., Sato, K., & Haff, G. G. (2017). Validity of various methods for determining velocity, force, and power in the back squat. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 12(9), 1170-1176.

[70] Weakley, J., Till, K., Darrall-Jones, J., Roe, G., Phibbs, P., Read, D., & Jones, B. (2018). Strength and conditioning practices in adolescent rugby players: Relationship with changes in physical qualities. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 32(9), 2361-2369.

[71] Thompson, S. W., Rogerson, D., Dorrell, H. F., Ruddock, A., & Barnes, A. (2020). The reliability and validity of current technologies for measuring barbell velocity in the free-weight back squat and power clean. Sports, 8(7), 94.

[72] Claudino, J. G., Cronin, J., Mezêncio, B., McMaster, D. T., McGuigan, M., Tricoli, V., … & Serrão, J. C. (2017). The countermovement jump to monitor neuromuscular status: A meta-analysis. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 20(4), 397-402.

[73] Suchomel, T. J., Nimphius, S., & Stone, M. H. (2016). The importance of muscular strength in athletic performance. Sports Medicine, 46(10), 1419-1449.

[74] Reardon, C., Tobin, D. P., & Delahunt, E. (2015). Application of individualized speed thresholds to interpret position specific running demands in elite professional rugby union: A GPS study. PloS one, 10(7), e0133410.

[75] Seshadri, D. R., Li, R. T., Voos, J. E., Rowbottom, J. R., Alfes, C. M., Zorman, C. A., & Drummond, C. K. (2019). Wearable sensors for monitoring the internal and external workload of the athlete. NPJ Digital Medicine, 2(1), 1-18.

[76] Halson, S. L. (2014). Monitoring training load to understand fatigue in athletes. Sports Medicine, 44(2), 139-147.

[77] Balsalobre-Fernández, C., Marchante, D., Baz-Valle, E., Alonso-Molero, I., Jiménez, S. L., & Muñóz-López, M. (2017). Real-time feedback applied to a traditional undergraduate exercise physiology laboratory. Advances in Physiology Education, 41(4), 613-617.

[78] Courel-Ibáñez, J., Martínez-Cava, A., Morán-Navarro, R., Escribano-Peñas, P., Chavarren-Cabrero, J., González-Badillo, J. J., & Pallarés, J. G. (2019). Reproducibility and repeatability of five different technologies for bar velocity measurement in resistance training. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 47(7), 1523-1538.

[79] Dorrell, H. F., Smith, M. F., & Gee, T. I. (2020). Comparison of velocity-based and traditional percentage-based loading methods on maximal strength and power adaptations. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 34(1), 46-53.

[80] García-Ramos, A., Barboza-González, P., Ulloa-Díaz, D., Rodriguez-Perea, A., Martinez-Garcia, D., Guede-Rojas, F., … & Jaric, S. (2019). Reliability and validity of different methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 60(5), 648-654.

[81] McMaster, D. T., Gill, N., Cronin, J., & McGuigan, M. (2013). The development, retention and decay of strength and power in elite rugby union, rugby league and American football. Sports Medicine, 43(5), 367-384.

[82] Pareja-Blanco, F., Alcazar, J., Sánchez-Valdepeñas, J., Cornejo-Daza, P. J., Piqueras-Sanchiz, F., Mora-Vela, R., … & Ortega-Becerra, M. (2020). Velocity loss as a critical variable determining the adaptations to strength training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 52(8), 1752-1762.

[83] Kraemer, W. J., & Ratamess, N. A. (2004). Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and exercise prescription. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(4), 674-688.

[84] Pérez-Castilla, A., Piepoli, A., Delgado-García, G., Garrido-Blanca, G., & García-Ramos, A. (2019). Reliability and concurrent validity of seven commercially available devices for the assessment of movement velocity at different intensities during the bench press. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 33(5), 1258-1265.