.png){kind=small}
"Velocity-Based Training—A Critical Review" [Article Review]
- GPS DataViz
- 8 hours ago
- 3 min read
Introduction
The article, authored by Stuart N. Guppy, PhD (Edith Cowan University), Kristina L. Kendall, PhD (Edith Cowan University), and G. Gregory Haff, PhD (Edith Cowan University; University of Salford), critically examines velocity-based training (VBT) methods in strength and conditioning. VBT, a strategy rising in popularity among performance coaches, employs objective measures of movement velocity to regulate training intensity, volume, and fatigue in resistance training. The review provides an evidence-based summary of VBT strategies, highlights strengths and weaknesses, and presents recommendations for their practical integration into periodized athletic programming.
Key Scientific Findings
Load-Velocity Profiling Limitations: The authors critically assess the use of load-velocity profiles for predicting daily 1RM (one-repetition maximum). While theoretically appealing, research consistently shows these methods overestimate actual strength (with error margins increasing in stronger athletes and upper-body exercises). The authors recommend direct 1RM testing at set intervals rather than relying on velocity-based estimations for load prescription.
Modulating Loads With Velocity: Using set-by-set velocity to alter prescribed loads has shown promise, especially for minimizing fatigue and optimizing form during competitive periods. Studies cited indicate such autoregulation delivers comparable or improved strength and power gains over traditional percentage-based methods, with reduced perceptual stress and training volume—making this most effective for in-season or peaking phases.
Velocity-Loss Thresholds for Volume Control: Training sets terminated at specific velocity-loss thresholds provide a novel approach for autoregulating volume. Thresholds between 20–40% decline are linked with targeted adaptations: lower thresholds (10–20%) foster strength/power with lower fatigue, while higher ones (>30%) drive hypertrophy. However, excessive velocity loss can unintentionally result in training to failure, undermining the fatigue management benefits. The authors recommend using velocity-loss thresholds alongside traditional volume caps to prevent misalignment with period goals.
Device Accuracy Concerns: A large section details the reliability and validity of various measurement devices. Linear position transducers (LPTs) such as GymAware and Vitruve are recommended for accuracy, while accelerometer-based devices (PUSH Band, BarSensei, Beast, Output Sports) are less reliable and prone to error. Device selection is critical, as inaccurate velocity readings can lead to poor training outcomes.
Monitoring Fatigue: The review presents evidence that changes in submaximal velocity during resistance exercises can be used to track neuromuscular fatigue, acting as a more accessible alternative to force-plate jump testing. However, sufficient individualized testing is required for exercise-specific velocity profiling.
Motivation and Feedback: Kinematic feedback (showing athletes their rep velocities) increases motivation and competitiveness, and may accelerate performance adaptations. This effect is stronger in traditional strength training compared to power-focused sessions.
Conclusion and Practical Application
The article concludes that VBT strategies, when implemented judiciously, represent an effective means for autoregulating load, volume, and fatigue, especially in periods where fatigue management and readiness are paramount (i.e., competitive and preseason phases). However, coaches should be cautious of the limitations: load-velocity 1RM estimation remains scientifically unreliable for daily load adjustment, and velocity-loss alone should not dictate training volume. Device accuracy is essential for meaningful application; LPTs are preferred, whereas IMUs and accelerometers may not suffice.
Practical Application for Sport Performance:
Use load-velocity profiles and velocity-based autoregulation to adjust loads set-by-set during peaking and competitive phases, improving athlete readiness and reducing fatigue risk.
Deploy velocity-loss thresholds as a supplement—to limit volume and avoid training to failure—but always within traditional rep/volume constraints.
Invest in validated measurement devices to ensure data are accurate.
Use velocity-based feedback to boost athlete engagement and motivation, particularly during strength-focused blocks.
Retain direct 1RM testing as the gold standard for baseline strength measurement and periodic load prescription.
Collectively, these methods allow for a more individualized and responsive approach to athlete preparation, supporting improved performance outcomes and better fatigue management in sport settings.
Comments