Velocity-Based Training:

Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

From Theory to
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/03/2024

Application
Jonathon Weakley, PhD,1,2 Bryan Mann, PhD,3 Harry Banyard, PhD,4 Shaun McLaren, PhD,2,5 Tannath Scott, PhD,2,6
and Amador Garcia-Ramos, PhD7,8
1
School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Campus University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia;
2
Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Centre, Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Leeds Beckett
University, Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom; 3Department of Kinesiology and Sport Sciences, University of
Miami, Miami, Florida; 4Department of Health and Medical Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne,
Australia; 5England Performance Unit, The Rugby Football League, Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom; 6School
of Science and Technology, University of New England, Armidale, Australia; 7Department of Sports Sciences and
Physical Conditioning, Faculty of Education, Universidad Catolica de la Santisima Concepcion, Concepción, Chile;
and 8Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided
in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj).

ABSTRACT achieve this, coaches typically prescribe WHAT IS VELOCITY-BASED

specific resistance training loads relative TRAINING?
Velocity-based training (VBT) is a con- VBT is a term that covers a wide array
to an individual’s maximal ability (e.g.,
temporary method of resistance training of training topics and approaches. The
70% of one repetition maximum
that enables accurate and objective integration of VBT lies on a continuum
[1RM]) (35,95). In addition, athletes
prescription of resistance training inten- and can be used with varying emphasis
are commonly assigned a specified num-
sities and volumes. This review provides (Figure 1). At its most basic level,
ber of sets and repetitions to complete
an applied framework for the theory and velocity can be used as an accessory
(e.g., 5 sets of 10 repetitions) based on the
application of VBT. Specifically, this to traditional percentage-based train-
desired training goal (9). However, using
review gives detail on how to: use ing. For example, visual or verbal feed-
an athlete’s previous maximal ability to back of velocity can be provided to
velocity to provide objective feedback,
prescribe training loads can be problem- athletes to enhance performance and
estimate strength, develop load-velocity
atic if the athlete’s 1RM changes as a con- improve motivation and competitive-
profiles for accurate load prescription,
sequence of training because the ness (1,90,91,93,96). Alternatively,
and how to use statistics to monitor
prescribed load may not match the % VBT can be implemented across all
velocity. Furthermore, a discussion on
the use of velocity loss thresholds, dif-
of 1RM intended for the particular ses- facets of a resistance training program-
ferent methods of VBT prescription, and sion. In addition, it is known that the ming and support the prescription of
how VBT can be implemented within number of repetitions that can be per- load, sets, number of repetitions, and
formed with a given % of 1RM differs the programming method applied
traditional programming models and mi-
between athletes and, therefore, assign- (9,20,49,95). For this reason, VBT
crocycles is provided.
ing the same number of sets and repeti- should be defined as a method that
tions for all athletes may induce different “uses velocity to inform or enhance
INTRODUCTION levels of effort and fatigue (72,88). There- training practice.” This definition ac-
thletes perform resistance train- counts for the broad implementation

A
fore, alternative methods such as
ing to develop strength, power, velocity-based training (VBT) have been
and lean body mass (81,82). To developed to provide accurate and
KEY WORDS:
VBT; 1RM prediction; load-velocity
Address correspondence to Dr. Jonathon objective data to support the prescription
profile; periodization; fatigue; statistics
Weakley, [email protected]. of resistance training (7–9).

Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association 31

Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Applying Velocity-Based Training

low levels of conscientiousness, verbally

encouraging statements after each repe-
tition may provide the greatest bene-
fit (92).
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

Finally, the chronic delivery of feed-

back during training is known to be
of substantial benefit. Over a 6-week
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/03/2024

period, Randell et al. (71) provided

Figure 1. Velocity-based training continuum highlighting the varying emphasis on either feedback or no-feedback at the
velocity within a training program. completion of each repetition of the
jump squat and observed small to mod-
erately greater improvements in stand-
of training methods that use velocity barbell velocities have received the most ing broad jump (effect size [ES] 5
and assist the practitioner in achieving investigation (1,50,59,92,93,96,98). It has 0.28) and 30 m sprint performance
their training goals. been demonstrated that these forms of (ES 5 0.46). In addition, recent
feedback can cause improvements in research by Weakley et al. (90) has
WHY VELOCITY? performance in male (96) and female highlighted greater improvements in
Velocity is commonly used over other (93), adults (92) and adolescents 10- and 20-m sprint performance (ES
kinetic or kinematic outputs (e.g., power) (93,96), and professional (1,59) and 5 0.69 and 0.71, respectively), jump
when resistance training for 3 reasons. nonprofessional (50) athletes. Not only height (ES 5 0.21), and 3RM squat
First, it is well established that as an do these improvements occur instanta- and bench press strength (ES 5 0.28
external mass is increased, reductions in neously during training (93,96) but also and 0.21, respectively) when feedback
lifting velocity occur (45,87). This loss of when feedback is supplied and then is provided after each repetition of each
velocity continues until a 1RM load is removed, performance returns to base- exercise across a 4-week mesocycle.
achieved which corresponds with line levels (50). These changes in perfor- Also, of interest for the strength and
the minimum/terminal velocity thresh- mance have been found to occur conditioning practitioner, was that this
old (V1RM) (45). Second, there is a nearly alongside improvements in psychologi- study emphasized the benefit of pro-
perfect linear relationship between veloc- cal characteristics, with increases in viding feedback of performance when
ity and intensity as a percentage of max- motivation and competitiveness being performing sprint drills. Sprint times
imum ability (i.e., % of 1RM). This has demonstrated when feedback of velocity and average velocity across a known
been demonstrated consistently across performance is provided (92,93,96–98). distance can easily be conveyed to ath-
a range of exercises and submaximal letes and are believed to promote sim-
Although feedback of velocity can easily
loads (13,27). Third, a common element ilar improvements in motivation and
be provided within the training routine,
to many definitions of exercise-induced feelings of competitiveness within and
the frequency, method of delivery, and
fatigue is that as fatigue increases, there is between athletes as feedback during
personality of the athlete should be con-
a transient decline in muscle fiber short- resistance training (90).
sidered (refer to Table 1). Recent research
ening speeds, relaxation times, and force-
(59) has demonstrated that different THE DIFFERENT TYPE OF
generating capacity that cause subse-
modes of feedback delivery influence per- VELOCITY VARIABLES AND WHEN
quent reductions in voluntary exercise
formance adaptations. Nagata et al. (59) TO USE THEM
velocity (33,74). Put simply, as fatigue
has shown immediate improvements and The 2 velocity variables most com-
accrues, exercise velocity decreases. By
greater long-term physical development monly used in practice and scientific
acknowledging these fundamental con-
of loaded jump ability when verbal feed- research are mean velocity (MV) (i.e.,
cepts, practitioners can use velocity out-
back of barbell velocity is supplied after the average velocity across the entire
puts to accurately and objectively
each repetition. This was compared with concentric phase) and peak velocity
prescribe external loads and training vol-
the provision of average set velocity or (PV) (i.e., the maximum instantaneous
umes for each session, irrespective of fluc-
a visual recording of the set. Furthermore, velocity reached during the concentric
tuations in fatigue and athlete readiness.
it is acknowledged that athletes may have phase) (68,83). However, mean propul-
USING VELOCITY TO PROVIDE a preference of whether they are visually sive velocity (MPV) (i.e., the average
FEEDBACK AND ENHANCE or verbally informed of their performance velocity from the start of the concen-
PERFORMANCE outcomes (92). These differences may be tric phase until the acceleration is less
The use of feedback during resistance due to intrinsic or extrinsic motivating than gravity [29.81 m$s22]) has also
training is a powerful tool for acute per- factors (i.e., competition within or been proposed as an alternative (77).
formance enhancement and adaptation. between athletes) and levels of athlete The difference between the MPV and
Although feedback can occur in many conscientiousness (92). However, it MV is that the latter does not account
forms, visual and verbal feedback of should be noted that in athletes with for the braking phase of the movement.

32 VOLUME 43 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2021

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Table 1
Feedback variables and their effects on acute-training performance

Variable
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

Frequency Frequency after each repetition has been shown to have greater effects than after each set
(59).
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/03/2024

Quantitative vs. qualitative Quantitative feedback of velocity enhances performance greater than observing video
recording of previous exercise (59).
Conscientiousness Athletes with low levels of conscientiousness have the greatest improvements in kinematic
outputs when verbal encouragement is supplied (92).
Motivation and competitiveness When visual feedback of kinematic outputs are supplied, improvements are observed in both
males and females (92,93,96–98).
Intrinsically vs. extrinsically Intrinsically motivated athletes may prefer visual feedback, while extrinsically motivated may
motivated athletes prefer to hear feedback (92).
Encouragement Verbally encouraging statements can enhance barbell velocity and power output (92).

However, it is our opinion that MV and On the other hand, nonballistic var- ONE REPETITION MAXIMUM
PV provide more valuable information iants of exercises are advised for testing PREDICTION METHODS
for strength and conditioning practi- heavier loads (.70% 1RM), with MV One interesting application of VBT is
tioners for both testing and training and MPV providing virtually the same the possibility of estimating 1RM
purposes. information (28,32,76). Therefore, strength from the velocity recorded
when testing “heavy” (.70% 1RM), against submaximal loads. General
MONITORING VELOCITY DURING nonballistic exercises, all velocity vari- load-velocity (L-V) relationships (36)
TESTING ables could be equally valid. and individual L-V relationships (52)
Neuromuscular function can be as- have previously been proposed to
sessed by measuring the velocity value estimate the 1RM. The general L-V rela-
achieved against a given load using tra- MONITORING VELOCITY DURING tionship was introduced by González-
ditional (e.g., bench press or squat) or TRAINING Badillo and Sánchez-Medina (32) who
ballistic (e.g., bench press throw or ver- Although velocity can be used in many used a second-order polynomial regres-
tical jump) exercises (15,66). When ways during training, 3 important ap- sion equation to estimate the %1RM dur-
testing with light/moderate loads plications are (I) estimating the 1RM, ing the bench press exercise. After this
(#70% 1RM), it is recommended that (II) prescribing the volume and relative seminal work, similar equations have
ballistic exercises are used (e.g., bench intensity of the training session based been proposed in other resistance train-
press throw rather than the traditional off the magnitude of velocity loss, and ing exercises (3,5,13,28,30,31,54,65,75).
bench press variant). This removes the (III) increasing motivation and com- Although general L-V relationship equa-
braking portion of the concentric petitiveness through the provision of tions enable a quick estimation of the
movement and can provide greater real-time velocity feedback. Presum- 1RM from the MVrecorded during a sin-
reliability of velocity outcomes ably, all 3 velocity variables could be gle repetition, coaches should be aware
(61,66). However, using MV and equally valid to fulfill the applications of several limitations that may limit their
MPV to measure ballistic performance of points II and III. However, we rec- use in practice. Briefly, the relationship
is problematic because these metrics ommend the use of MV to estimate the between the MVrecorded during a single
include the flight phase. Furthermore, 1RM because of its greater reliability repetition and the %1RM may be influ-
MPV values could be even more prob- (when compared with MPV) when enced by the type of exercise (e.g., squat
lematic due to difficulties in detecting lifting light relative loads (23,67). The versus leg press) (13,38,75), execution
the exact moment take-off occurs. This advantage of MV over PV is that the technique (e.g., concentric-only vs.
issue may explain counterintuitive find- former varies less between different de- eccentric-concentric) (28,65), sex (higher
ings reported in the scientific literature vices designed to measure movement values for men at lower %1RM) (3,84),
such as the power developed in a tradi- velocity (22,30), the relationship and measurement device (4,22,26,91). Of
tional exercise (e.g., bench press) being between load and velocity is more lin- even more importance could be that the
greater than its ballistic variant (e.g., ear using MV (31), and that between- MV-%1RM relationship, especially at
bench press throw) (46). Conse- subject variability in the velocity at- light relative loads, is subject-specific
quently, we recommend the use of tained during 1RM attempts may (70). Finally, from a statistical point of
PV for the testing of ballistic exercises. be lower. view, another problem of the general

33
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Applying Velocity-Based Training

L-V relationships is an overestimation of associated with individualized L-V pro- compared with using a general V1RM.
the data fit because of the presence of filing is the selection of the V1RM used However, this assumption needs to be
autocorrelation because authors included to predict the 1RM. Previous studies supported with experimental data. To
more than one observation from the have used the individual V1RM (6,73) date, no study has compared the preci-
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

same participant to calculate the general or mean V1RM for all subjects (24). sion in the estimation of the 1RM when
L-V relationships (60). However, because of the low reliability using the individual and general V1RM.
The individual L-V relationship was pro- of the individual V1RM (6,29,73), and
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/03/2024

Since the individual L-V relationship is

posed to overcome the limitations high- the trivial differences between the
highly linear (6,47,73), a solution to
lighted above. The standard test used to between- and within-subject variability
for the V1RM (70), the use of a general reduce the duration of the testing pro-
determine the individual L-V relation- cedure could be to determine the indi-
V1RM for all subjects could be recom-
ship consists of recording MV against vidual L-V relationship from the MV
mended to simplify the testing proce-
multiple submaximal loads (z5 loads) dure. The V1RM reported in the recorded against only 2 loads (i.e., 2-
and, subsequently, modeling the L-V scientific literature for commonly used point method) (24,25). This has been
relationship through a linear regression resistance training exercises is provided demonstrated by Garcı́a-Ramos et al.
to estimate the 1RM as the load associ- in Table 2. It is also possible that using (24) who have shown that the individual
ated with the MV of the 1RM (V1RM) the individual V1RM would provide L-V relationship modeled through the 2-
(6,73) (Table 2). The biggest challenge a more accurate estimation of the 1RM point method provides a more accurate

Table 2
Minimum velocity threshold for commonly used resistance training exercises

Exercise Study Sample 1RM MV (mean 6 SD) V1RM

Bench press González-Badillo and Sánchez-Medinaa (32) 120 young healthy males 0.16 6 0.04 m/s 0.17 m/s
Sánchez-Medinaa et al. (75) 75 athletes 0.17 6 0.04 m/s
Garcı́a-Ramosa et al. (27) 30 healthy males 0.17 6 0.03 m/s
Helms et al. (38) 15 powerlifters 0.10 6 0.04 m/s
Prone bench Loturco et al. (54) 30 athletes 0.51 6 0.07 m/s 0.50 m/s
pull Sánchez-Medinaa et al. (75) 75 athletes 0.52 6 0.06 m/s
Garcı́a-Ramos et al. (30) 26 athletes 0.48 6 0.04 m/s

Prone pull-up Sánchez-Moreno et al. (78) 52 firefighter candidates 0.20 6 0.05 m/s 0.23 m/s
Muñoz-Lopez et al. (58) 82 resistance-trained males 0.26 6 0.05 m/s

Seated military Balsalobre-Fernándeza et al. (3) 39 resistance trained 0.19 6 0.05 m/s 0.19 m/s
press Garcı́a-Ramosa et al. (29) participants 0.20 6 0.05 m/s
24 healthy participants
Lat pulldown Perez-Castilla et al. (69) 23 healthy participants 0.47 6 0.04 m/s 0.47 m/s
Seated cable row Perez-Castilla et al. (69) 23 healthy participants 0.40 6 0.05 m/s 0.40 m/s
Squat a
Conceição et al. (13) 15 male athletes 0.32 6 0.04 m/s 0.30 m/s
Sánchez-Medina anda González-Badillo 80 strength-trained males 0.32 6 0.03 m/s
(74)a 17 strength-trained males 0.24 6 0.06 m/s
Banyard et al. (6) 15 powerlifters 0.23 6 0.05 m/s
Helms et al. (38)
Deadlift Ruf et al. (73) 11 resistance-trained athletes Not stated 0.15 m/s
Helms et al. (38) 15 powerlifters 0.14 6 0.05 m/s
Lake et al. (51) 12 active males 0.16 6 0.05 m/s

Hip-thrust de Hoyo et al. (20) 102 sport science students 0.25 6 0.03 m/s 0.25 m/s
Leg press Conceição et al. (13) 15 male athletes 0.21 6 0.04 m/s 0.21 m/s
a
Smith machine variation of the exercise.

1RM 5 one repetition maximum; MV 5 mean velocity; V1RM 5 velocity at 1RM.

34 VOLUME 43 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2021

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
estimation of the bench press 1RM per- accuracy of the 2-point method and across training sessions and legitimate
formed in a Smith machine than previ- other velocity-based 1RM prediction fluctuations in velocity that occur from
ously published general L-V methods is expected to be compromised training-induced adaptation. This is crit-
relationships. Furthermore, provided during free-weight lower-body exercises ical, so that decisions regarding training
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

that 2 distant loads are used (e.g., (6,43,44,52). Therefore, although the load modification can be made with
approximately 45% 1RM and 85% recommendations provided in this sec- a high degree of accuracy. Recent stud-
1RM), the addition of intermediate tion can be followed to obtain an accu- ies have shown that the L-V relationship
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/03/2024

loads does not significantly improve rate estimation of the 1RM during some is stable when using MV, PV, or MPV in
the precision in the estimation of the upper-body exercises, it should be noted the free-weight back squat and Smith
1RM (69). The validity of the 2-point that the available scientific evidence in- machine bench press (8,27). In terms of
method has also been confirmed for dicates that velocity recordings cannot meaningful changes in velocity, the
upper-body free-weight exercises (e.g., be used to obtain an accurate estimation smallest detectable difference in MV,
bench pull (31) and bench press (48)) of the 1RM during lower-body exercises PV, and MPV for the free-weight back
and also during the lat pull-down and such as the squat or deadlift. It is squat has been reported to be 60.06–
seated cable row exercises (69), but its hypothesized that discrepancies in the
0.08 m$s21, 60.11–0.19 m$s21, and
validity has never been explored during accuracy of prediction may be due to
60.08–0.11 m$s21, respectively (6). This
lower-body exercises. Therefore, the greater technical complexity of
suggests that if valid velocity measuring
coaches are encouraged to use the 2- lower-body exercises (e.g., squat or
devices are used for monitoring, mean-
point method as an accurate, quick, deadlift) compared with upper-body ex-
ingful changes in velocity between train-
and relatively fatigue-free method to ercises (e.g., bench press or bench pull).
ing sessions are likely to reflect acute
estimate the 1RM during upper-body Finally, it should also be noted that the
exercises. This can be performed in 3 direct measurement of the 1RM is more fatigue or gains in strength. Furthermore,
simple steps: (I) setting of the exercise- reliable than the estimation from the L- it may also allow for the accurate pre-
specific V1RM (found within Table 2), V relationship (24). scription of resistance training load dur-
(II) recording of the MV against a light ing training and across mesocycles.
(z45% 1RM) and a heavy load (z85% DEVELOPING A LOAD-VELOCITY There are 4 simple steps for the devel-
1RM), and (III) modelling of the indi- PROFILE FOR THE PRESCRIPTION opment of an individualized L-V profile
vidual load-velocity relationship and OF MEAN SET VELOCITIES (Table 3) (8). First, the athlete performs
determining the 1RM as the load asso- A key aspect of training with L-V pro- a 1RM assessment in the relevant exer-
ciated with the V1RM. However, files is for a coach to differentiate cise to determine their maximum
coaches should be aware that the between normal variation in velocity strength and to allow for monitoring

Table 3
Steps for developing an L-V profile for an athlete in the back squat
Session 1 Session 2

1. Warm-up with dynamic movements and stretches 1. After 48-h rest, the athlete returns and completes repetitions
with 20, 40, 60, 80, and 90% of 1RM
2. Complete 3 repetitions at 20, 40, and 60%. 2. Three repetitions should be used for loads 20–60% and 1
repetition for 80–90%.
3. Complete 1 repetition at 80 and 90%. 3. For sets that involved multiple repetitions (i.e., loads 20–60%),
the repetition with the fastest MV should be recorded.
4. Then 5 maximal attempts at achieving a 1RM are permitted 4. With this information, individualized L-V profiles can be
constructed within Microsoft Excel using the MV plotted
against relative load and by applying a line of best fit.
5. After successful attempts, barbell load can be increased in 5. A linear regression equation can then be used to modify
consultation with the athlete with loads between 0.5 and 2.5 training loads within and between sessions
kg.
6. The last successful attempt with a full depth squat with
correct technique can be established as the 1RM.
48 hours have been provided between testing occasions.

1RM 5 one repetition maximum.

35
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Applying Velocity-Based Training

of velocity against %1RM over time. a “snapshot” of an athlete’s fitness- a “normal” range of performance,
Second (if completing a 1RM assess- fatigue status. For example, when lift- should the test be hypothetically
ment provide at least 24 hours recovery), ing a fixed external load, changes in repeated over and over (Figure 3).
perform an incremental loading test. peak or mean concentric velocities When assessing changes in perfor-
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

Previous research has used either may be indicative of altered neuromus- mance, the SE can be used to create
method 1: 3 repetitions with 20, 40, cular qualities (91). Reductions in an individual confidence interval (CI)
and 60%, and one repetition with 80 velocity may be symptomatic of around change scores and represent
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/03/2024

and 90% 1RM, with sets performed 2 mi- fatigue, overreaching/overtraining, or uncertainty in an observed perfor-
nutes apart (8,9) or method 2: the “2- detraining/maladaptation, whereas mance change (i.e., accounting for
point method” with repetitions per- faster velocities could signify improve- the “noise”). This provides the practi-
formed at 2 approximate loads of ments in neuromuscular capacity or tioner a plausible range of values that
;45% 1RM and ;85% 1RM (24). In acute potentiation (17). are compatible with the data assump-
step 3, the velocity data of the fastest When interpreting an athlete’s velocity- tions (34) (Figure 4, see Appendix 2,
repetition from each intensity based testing data, coaches must con- Supplemental Digital Content 2,
(Figure 2A) are plotted against the cor- sider both the reliability of test perfor- http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A278).
responding relative load (%1RM), and mance, as well as the practical
then, a linear line of best fit is applied To know how practically important
importance of a change. The reliability a change might be, coaches must
to extrapolate the regression equation of test performance is influenced by
(Figure 2B). The final step is to create decide on a threshold for a decisive
measurement error (which is a funda- change and evaluate changes against
a velocity table from the regression mental consideration when purchasing
equation. This table uses the MV of this value. Importantly, this concept
velocity tracking equipment) and nor- is entirely separate from the previously
the training set, corresponds with a per- mal variation within the body’s biolog-
centage of maximum, and can be imple- discussed issues of performance reli-
ical systems. A useful metric to quantify ability, noise, and uncertainty. In
mented in much the same way a coach performance reliability is the within-
would traditionally prescribe from a rel- a hypothetical world where perfor-
athlete standard (typical) error (SE). mance is entirely stable and changes
ative load (%RM) table (refer to Helms This can be estimated from a group-
et al. (37)). In the example table (Table 4) only due to systematic effects (i.e., fit-
based test-retest reliability study (2,39) ness or fatigue), changes could simply
if this athlete wanted to complete 6 rep- or from the trend in an athlete’s individ-
etitions at a “heavy” intensity, the mean be evaluated against a threshold that
ual test performance repeated across represents some value representing
set velocity should be approximately a theoretically stable period (e.g., days,
0.58 m$s21. This information may be practical significance. In this regard,
weeks, months) (36,41) (see Appendix we recommend using an anchor-
particularly useful for practitioners when 1, Supplemental Digital Content 1,
accounting for differing rates in adapta- based approach (79), whereby changes
http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A277). can be evaluated against a value repre-
tion and for the adjustment of training
loads within and across training sessions. The SE is reflective of the “typical” senting a “real-world” difference in per-
variation in an athlete’s performance formance. For example, an increase of
METHODS TO INTERPRET (e.g., mean concentric velocity) that one-third of the competition-to-
CHANGES IN VELOCITY-BASED are due to random factors causing nat- competition variability in solo athlete
DATA ural fluctuation. Therefore, applying performance, such as weight lifted, best
Velocity-based testing can serve as the SE to observed test scores as a 6 time, distance thrown, etc., results in
a useful tool for coaches to gain value can be used to represent one extra medal every 10 competitions

Figure 2. (A) Mean velocity data attained from an athlete’s L-V profile during the barbell back squat; (B) data, linear regression, and
equation for this athlete’s L-V profile.

36 VOLUME 43 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2021

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Table 4 expert coach opinion or existing
An example of an individualized mean set velocity table for the free-weight research on the associations between
back squat with each mean set velocity corresponding to a prescribed test and competitive performance.
number of repetitions and intensity range Other approaches, such as
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

distribution-based (e.g., smallest

Mean velocity table (m$s21) worthwhile effect), are available, but
Repetitions can produce arbitrary values lacking
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/03/2024

real-world relevance (14).

Intensity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Once a threshold of practical impor-
Maximum 0.26 0.34 0.38 0.41 0.47 0.51 0.54 0.57 0.60 0.63 tance has been established, coaches
Very heavy 0.29 0.35 0.39 0.42 0.48 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.61 0.64 can combine the previously mentioned
concepts and make a decision on an
Heavy 0.35 0.42 0.46 0.49 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.64 0.67 0.69
athlete’s velocity-based testing data.
Moderately heavy 0.42 0.49 0.53 0.55 0.60 0.64 0.67 0.70 0.72 0.75 Of course, we do not operate in a world
Moderate 0.50 0.56 0.59 0.62 0.67 0.70 0.73 0.75 0.78 0.80 where performance is entirely stable,
Moderately light 0.57 0.63 0.66 0.68 0.73 0.76 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.86 and therefore, coaches must also con-
Light 0.64 0.70 0.73 0.75 0.79 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.89 0.91 sider performance uncertainty. A very
simple and effective way of achieving
Very light 0.71 0.76 0.80 0.82 0.86 0.89 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.97
this is to visualize the performance
change with its CI against the region
(40). This is often a practice intuitive to experience of what changes really
of practical importance (16) (Figure 3).
expert coaches who set performance make a difference. This threshold infor-
The decision process is informed by
targets based on their knowledge and mation could therefore be derived from
interpreting the amount of overlap
between the CI and the decisive
threshold. Two such methods that
can assist this include the second-
generation p-value (SGPV) (10,11)
and tests of equivalence using 2 one-
sided tests (TOST) (52,53). In particu-
lar, the SGPV is intended as a descrip-
tive statistic (10) and may therefore be
useful when applied to monitoring
changes in an athlete’s velocity-based
performance. It is beyond the scope of
our review to discuss the application of
SGPV and TOST in detail (refer to
Blume et al. (10,11), Lakens (52) and
Lakens et al. (53)), but we provide sev-
eral recommendations for coaches
using the aforementioned principles
to interpret velocity-based testing data
(see Appendix 3, Supplemental Digital
Content 3, http://links.lww.com/
SCJ/A279). An analysis of changes in
a powerlifter’s mean concentric veloc-
Figure 3. Mean concentric velocity (MCV) from 100-kg warm-up sets of the barbell
ity from 100-kg warm-up sets of the
back squat throughout a powerlifter’s 17-week training phase. Data are
shown as the fastest performance achieved each week 6 the standard barbell back squat throughout a 7-
(typical) error, derived from the maintenance phase trend (i.e., baseline; week training phase (Figure 3) using
straight red line, weeks 1–10; see Appendix 2, Supplemental Digital Con- several of the concepts we have dis-
tent 2, http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A278). Loading phase changes from cussed is displayed in Figure 5.
baseline are evaluated at an alpha of 0.20 (i.e., 80% confidence level). Gray
shaded area 5 trivial, based on a minimum practically important difference MANAGEMENT OF FATIGUE
of 6 0.03 m$s21 and the maintenance trend standard error. From the USING RELATIVE VELOCITY LOSS
athletes’ known load-velocity profile, a 0.03-m$s21 change in mean con- THRESHOLDS
centric velocity is indicative of a ;1% change in 1 repetition maximum, It is common knowledge that humans
which is 0.3 3 the competition-to-competition variability of 3.1%. come in different shapes and sizes and

37
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Applying Velocity-Based Training

that occur when relative velocity loss

thresholds are applied and allows for
individualization during each set and at
each load/velocity (89). This diverges
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

from percentage-based methods that

promotes the strength coach to set
arbitrary repetition and set schemes
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/03/2024

(e.g., 4 sets of 10 repetitions) that do

not account for athlete differences,
Figure 4. Hypothetical example of confidence intervals (CIs) applied to a change in daily readiness, or within-session
mean concentric velocity. Data are shown as the change 6 CI, scaled fatigue accrual.
against a minimum practically important difference of 6 0.03 m$s21 (gray Perhaps more important than the con-
area).
trol over training session kinetic and
kinematic outputs is the improved abil-
individuals have different physical and ensure improved prescription and to ity to dictate internal and subsequent
physiological capacities (e.g., marathon mitigate divergency in fatigue and adap- fatigue outcomes by using velocity loss
runners compared to sprinters). How- tive responses, relative velocity loss thresholds (Figure 6). Recent work
ever, strength and conditioning practi- thresholds can be implemented (63,89). investigating changes in neuromuscu-
tioners are often taught to use Recent research (89) has highlighted lar function have shown that with each
predictive tables to prescribe resistance the ability of velocity loss thresholds incremental increase in velocity loss
training loads and repetitions to maintain velocity and power outputs (e.g., 10, 20, and 30% velocity loss),
(12,35,80). This is despite the extremely when resistance training (Figure 5). linear reductions in function occur
large variance in the number of repeti- Furthermore, this work has demon- (88). This is supported by earlier work
tions that can be completed with a given strated how these thresholds can by Sanchez-Medina and González-
percentage of maximum (19). For exam- account for differences in individual Badillo (74) that assessed velocity and
ple, at 80% of 1RM, some individuals work capacity. Weakley et al. (89) estimated proximity to concentric fail-
can complete twice as many repetitions showed that when using velocity loss ure. Furthermore, near identical trends
as others (e.g., 8 vs. 16 repetitions) (72). thresholds, changes in mean barbell in perceived effort and metabolic re-
Thus, when prescribing 3 sets of 8 rep- velocity between athletes are possibly sponses also exist (i.e., greater exertion
etitions at 80% of 1RM, some athletes to likely trivial across 5 sets of the back and metabolic responses in line with
will be working to concentric failure, squat. This is in direct contrast to tra- greater increases in velocity loss) (88).
while others will complete these sets ditional prescription methods that These responses have been found to be
with relative ease. This heterogeneity cause very large reductions in velocity consistent within and between athletes
is likely due to a range of factors includ- as exercise goes on (85,94). These dif- and demonstrate exceptional levels
ing training history, gender, absolute ferences in the maintenance of kinetic of reliability within athletes across
strength levels, and recent training and kinematic outputs are due to the moderate- to long-term training peri-
exposure (19,42,72). Consequently, to unique “flexible-repetition” schemes ods (88).

Figure 5. Analysis of changes in a powerlifter’s mean concentric velocity from 100-kg warm-up sets of the barbell back squat
throughout a 7-week training phase (raw data are showing in Figure 3). Changes are derived from baseline performance
established during a priori maintenance phase. CI 5 confidence interval; SGPV 5 second-generation p-value.

38 VOLUME 43 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2021

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
PROGRAMMING WITH VELOCITY- is vital for designing effective training term power-oriented resistance training
BASED TRAINING programs. Several studies have sug- program (64). Therefore, for accurate
Although the ability to have greater gested that the velocity associated with prescription of relative loads, it is
control over training outcomes is an a given percentage of 1RM is consistent advised to periodically assess the L-V
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

exciting prospect for the strength and across training sessions (3,8,18,24). relationship. Considering this, between
conditioning practitioner, understand- However, it has been shown that the athletes and training sessions, relative
ing the varying methods of program- velocity at a given %1RM may shift losses in exercise velocity cause consis-
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/03/2024

ming that are available through VBT due to fatigue (86) or after a short- tent internal and external responses at

Figure 6. (A) The individual and mean group velocity (SD represented by the shaded area) when training with a 20% velocity loss
threshold across 3 sets of the back squat. Data from Weakley et al. (89). (B) The individual and mean group velocity (SD
represented by the shaded area) when training with 3 sets of the back squat with a set repetition scheme (i.e., 10
repetitions for all participants). Unpublished data from Weakley et al. (95). (C) The mean (6SD) velocity from graphs A and
B. Note the maintenance of velocity in the velocity-based training condition compared with the linear loss of velocity in
the percentage condition.

39
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Applying Velocity-Based Training

a given relative intensity (88,89). Conse- improved individualization and control the relative load prescribed by the
quently, previously well-established of training and subsequent responses strength coach may not match the rel-
training methods and their periodiza- can occur (21,89). ative load that is completed during
tion models can still be implemented. training. For example, a maximal
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

Due to changes in strength across the

However, by using velocity to monitor training cycle, one issue with strength test from 4 weeks earlier will
and guide exercise prescription, percentage-based prescription is that not enable accurate prescription of load.
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/03/2024

Table 5
Commonly used velocity-based training methods

Method (reference) Load Sets Repetitions Load

Set average velocity (9) The external load is prescribed from the athlete’s LVP. A set and Prescribed Prescribed Flexible
repetition scheme is prescribed. At the completion of the set,
the average set velocity is required to be within 0.06 m$s21
of initial prescribed velocity.
If average set velocity 60.06 m$s21, external load is
adjusted by 4–5% of 1RM.
Set average velocity + The external load is prescribed from an LVP. A number of Prescribed Flexible Flexible
VL thresholds (9,21) sets are prescribed with a velocity loss threshold used to
guide when set termination occurs (e.g., 20% velocity
loss). At the completion of the set, the average set
velocity is required to be within a required velocity zone
(e.g., 0.74–0.88 m$s21 during the back squat).
If average set velocity is not within this zone, the external
load can be manipulated.
Targeted velocity The athlete is prescribed a starting velocity or velocity range Prescribed Flexible Flexible
+ VL thresholds (e.g., 0.70–0.75 m$s21) with the external load being
(62,63,88,89) altered to meet the desired velocity. A velocity loss
threshold (e.g., 10%) is used to guide set termination.
During subsequent sets, if initial repetition velocity is
greater than 60.06 m$s21 of targeted velocity, an
additional 30-s recovery is provided. If the following
repetition’s velocity remains outside this range, external
load is adjusted by 4–5% of 1RM.
Fixed set + velocity loss The external load is prescribed from the athlete’s LVP. A Prescribed Flexible Prescribed
threshold (9) velocity loss threshold (e.g., 10%) is supplied with the
athlete terminating the set when velocity drops below
the velocity threshold.
Fixed total repetition + Before the session, a total number of repetitions are Flexible Prescribed Prescribed
flexible set + velocity prescribed (e.g., 25 repetitions). A load is prescribed from
loss threshold (9) the LVP, and a velocity loss threshold is used to guide set
termination. Athletes are allowed as many sets as they
require to complete the prescribed number of repetitions.
Fixed set + velocity Load is prescribed from LVP or targeted velocity, and Prescribed Flexible Prescribed
threshold + a velocity loss threshold is prescribed (e.g., 10%). In
repetition cap (9) addition, an upper limit of repetitions that can be
completed is prescribed (e.g., 5 repetitions). Athletes
exercise using the prescribed load until repetition velocity
decreases below velocity loss threshold or the repetition
limit is reached.
1RM 5 one repetition maximum; Flexible 5 an unknown amount that is often dictated by athlete fatigue/readiness (e.g., the athlete will
complete repetitions until barbell velocity drops below a certain threshold); LVP 5 load-velocity profile; Prescribed 5 dictated before the session
or after set (e.g., 5 sets).

40 VOLUME 43 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2021

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/03/2024

Figure 7. Acute and chronic responses to training with smaller or larger velocity loss thresholds. MHC 5 myosin heavy chain.
Adapted from (62,63,88,89).

As a result, external loads that are sup- long-term planning. Furthermore, or “fixed” set and repetition schemes.
plied by practitioners are often too light within-session alterations in the external Traditional programming methods
or heavy. Established VBT methods can load can be made by the athlete or provide rigid programming (i.e., a num-
account for these fluctuations by moni- coach by simply referring to the MV of ber of sets and repetitions are pre-
toring velocity during the warm-up and the previous set (21) or the first repeti- scribed), but VBT can mitigate the
training session (89). Two of the most tion of the subsequent set (88,89) to differences in athletes and their physi-
common methods use either (I) a tar- ensure appropriate loading is occurring ological characteristics (89). For exam-
geted training velocity (e.g., an athlete during training. Alternatively, this infor- ple, a fixed number of sets may be
finds an external load within a given mation can be used to guide the termi- applied (e.g., 5 sets) with a flexible rep-
range that is being targeted that day nation of a training session (e.g., if an etition scheme (e.g., athletes exercise
[e.g., 0.70 6 0.05 m$s21]) (89) or (II) athlete consistently cannot meet until a 20% velocity loss has occurred)
a load (as a percentage of 1RM) that required velocities at a given load this (89). Alternatively, a fixed number of
meets a velocity from a previously estab- may indicate fatigue). repetitions could be prescribed (e.g.,
lished L-V profile (21). Both these One unique aspect of programming 25 repetitions) with a flexible number
methods enable reliable and accurate with VBT is that it allows for “flexible” of sets (e.g., each set is terminated

Figure 8. An example of a 6-week daily undulating mesocycle with athletes completing a strength endurance, strength, and power
session each week. The bullet point within each connected line signifies the average starting velocity from a given
session (e.g., strength session 1 5 0.54 m$s21). The dotted line indicates the stopping velocity (strength session 1 5 0.43
m$s21). Note the altering starting velocity and changes in velocity loss thresholds. VL 5 velocity loss.

41
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Applying Velocity-Based Training
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/03/2024

Figure 9. Ten-week block periodization approach to programming the back-squat exercise. The bullet point within each connected
line signifies the average starting mean concentric velocity from a given week (e.g., week 1 5 0.64 m$s21). The dotted
line indicates the average stopping velocity (e.g., week 1 5 0.45 m$s21). Note that the velocity loss threshold reduces
across each mesocycle, while intensity increases. VL 5 velocity loss.

Table 6
Example of how velocity-based training for the back-squat exercise can be applied during a training week with one
match
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1-Match
training wk
Velocity loss Rest 30% velocity loss Rest 20% velocity loss 10% velocity loss Rest Match
threshold day
Intensitya Rest ;0.70 m$s21/;65% Rest ;0.55m$s21/;82% ;1.00–0.60 Rest Match
(;m$s21/ 1RM 1RM m$s21/;30– day
% 1RM) 75% 1RM
Volume Rest ;9 repetitions per set Rest ;4–5 repetitions per ;2–6 repetitions Rest Match
set day
Internal Rest [[[ Metabolic Rest [[ Metabolic response [ Metabolic Rest Match
response response & and perception of response day
perception of effort effort [ 4 perception
of effort
Fatigue Rest [[ Perceived soreness Rest [ Perceived soreness 4Y Perceived Rest Match
response YY Neuromuscular 4Y Neuromuscular soreness day
function function [4
Neuromuscular
function
Velocity loss thresholds, initial intensity, approximate number of repetitions that will be completed, and estimated internal (during training) and
fatigue responses (24 h following training) are supplied are supplied to assist the practitioner. Information adapted from (6,8,9,88,89).
a
Initial velocity (mean concentric velocity) and relative percentage of 1RM may show slight deviations between athletes.

[[[ 5 large increase; [[ 5 moderate increase; [ 5 small increase; 4 5 trivial change; 4Y 5 trivial to small decrease; YY 5 moderate decrease;
1RM 5 one repetition maximum.

42 VOLUME 43 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2021

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Table 7
Example of how velocity-based training for the back-squat exercise can be applied during a training week with 2 matches

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

2-Match training wk
Velocity loss Rest 10% velocity loss Rest Match day 10% velocity loss Rest Match
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/03/2024

threshold day
Intensitya Rest ;0.55m$s21/;82% 1RM Rest Match day ;0.70m$s21/;65% 1RM Rest Match
(;m$s21/% 1RM) day
Volume Rest ;2–3 repetitions Rest Match day ;5 repetitions Rest Match
day
Internal response Rest 4 Metabolic response Rest Match day [ Metabolic response Rest Match
[ 4 perception of effort [ 4 perception of effort day
Fatigue response Rest 4Y Perceived soreness Rest Match day 4Y Perceived soreness Rest Match
[ 4 Neuromuscular [ 4 Neuromuscular day
function function

Velocity loss thresholds, initial intensity, approximate number of repetitions that will be completed, and estimated internal (during training) and
fatigue responses (24 h after training) are supplied to assist the practitioner. Information adapted from (6,8,9,88,89).
a
Initial velocity (mean concentric velocity) and relative percentage of 1RM may show slight deviations between athletes.

[ 5 small increase; [ 4 5 trivial to small increase; 4 trivial change; 4Y 5 trivial to small decrease; 1RM 5 one repetition maximum.

when velocity is reduced by 20%, with targeted. For example, block periodiza- greater control and prescription (Fig-
athletes implementing as many sets as tion models that use phase potentia- ures 7–10).
necessary to complete the 25 repeti- tion and greater volumes before
tions) (9). With identification of appro- heavier loads and lower volumes can PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS FOR
priate velocity loss cutoffs and their be applied and still follow traditional THE STRENGTH COACH
subsequent fatigue responses, these concepts (17,57). In a block periodized Maximizing performance through
flexible programming methods can model that uses VBT, initial phases physical training is the primary goal of
account for differing rates of fatigue, that aim to promote changes in all strength and conditioning professio-
between-athlete heterogeneity, and strength endurance and improvements nals. Therefore, applying VBT methods
daily readiness (89). This is shown in efficaciously is of great importance. It is
in body composition may use 30%
recent research (89), with flexible pro- acknowledged that individualization
velocity loss thresholds. This could
gramming enabling high levels of con- and greater homogeneity of fatigue re-
be followed by a strength mesocycle
sistency of both velocity and power sponses can occur when VBT is appro-
that allows for greater loads (i.e., lower
outputs between and within athletes priately applied (88,89). However,
when compared with regimented set starting velocities) and a smaller veloc-
strategic implementation can enhance
and repetition schemes based off a per- ity loss threshold (e.g., 20%) that causes
athlete buy-in and improve outcomes.
centage of an athlete’s previous maxi- less peripheral fatigue (63,89). Finally,
Below are practical suggestions that can
mum (19,95). Table 5 outlines some of this could be followed by a strength- assist in the integration of VBT into the
the most commonly applied methods power or tapering mesocycle which training program.
of prescribing sets and repetitions uses a range of initial starting velocities
It has previously been recognized that
using VBT. with a very small velocity loss thresh-
providing feedback to athletes as they
Owing to the ability to accurately pre- old (e.g., 10%). These smaller thresh-
train can enhance velocity and power
scribe training load and volumes, it is olds have been shown to minimize
outputs by up to 10% (92,93,96). Fur-
also feasible to implement VBT in tra- fatigue while also ensuring greater thermore, because of the naturally
ditional programming models. Accu- power outputs during training (89). competitive nature of athletes, by al-
rate load prescription and velocity These concepts can be applied across lowing individuals of similar ability or
loss thresholds (e.g., 10% vs. 30%) that a range of different programming mod- position to train together and observe
induce a desired amount of fatigue can els (e.g., linear, daily/weekly undulat- each other’s kinematic outputs, greater
ensure that specific physical and phys- ing, conjugated) and can assist coaches competition may occur. However, the
iological characteristics can be in applying traditional approaches with intended purpose of the exercise must

43
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Applying Velocity-Based Training

also be considered, as the feedback

Saturday

Velocity loss thresholds, initial intensity, approximate number of repetitions that will be completed, and estimated internal (during training) and fatigue responses (24 h following training)

[[[ 5 large increase; [[ 5 moderate increase; [ 5 small increase. 4 5 trivial change; 4Y 5 trivial to small decrease; YY 5 moderate decrease; YYY 5 large decrease; 1RM 5 one
provided may cause an athlete to sac-
Match

Match

Match

Match

Match
day

day

day

day

day
rifice technique for greater velocities.
Although a great amount of publicity
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

has been given to VBT in recent years,

Friday

this has also led to practitioners occa-

Rest

Rest

Rest

Rest

Rest
sionally attempting to maximize veloc-
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/03/2024

ities on exercises that are traditionally

4Y Neuromuscular function
performed for stability and range of
motion development, such as an over-
;0.70 m$s21/;65% 1RM

[[ Metabolic response & head squat. When these movements

;7 repetitions per-set
Example of how velocity-based training for the back-squat exercise can be applied during preseason

perception of effort
[ Perceived soreness
Thursday

are performed quickly, they often lose

20% velocity loss

their intended purpose and benefits.

Consequently, feedback is suggested
to be best applied during exercises with
the greatest force and power outputs
(e.g., Olympic-style lifts, jumps, squats,
and bench press) (1,50,92,93,96).
As athletes participate in much more
Wednesday

Initial velocity (mean concentric velocity) and relative percentage of 1RM may show slight deviations between athletes.

than simply strength training, the man-

agement of fatigue is of great importance
Rest

Rest

Rest

Rest

Rest

for the strength coach. With relative

velocity loss thresholds, one can manage
the accrual of fatigue and cause more
YY Neuromuscular function

homogenous responses between ath-

[[[ Metabolic response &

letes. It is advised that during the “off-

;0.70 m$s21/65% 1RM

;9 repetitions per-set

[[ Perceived soreness
Table 8

perception of effort

season” or general preparatory phase,

Tuesday

that greater velocity loss thresholds are

30% velocity loss

implemented as this period tends to

enable frequent strength training and
residual neuromuscular fatigue is unlikely
to have detrimental effects. Therefore,
are supplied to assist the practitioner. Information adapted from (6,8,9,88,89).

20–40% velocity loss thresholds may

be effective in these periods to elicit
greater adaptations in conditioning, lean
YYY Neuromuscular function
[[[ Metabolic response &

body mass, and muscular endurance

;0.60 m$s21/;80% 1RM

(63). Alternatively, in-season, smaller

;9 repetitions per-set

[[ Perceived soreness
perception of effort

velocity loss thresholds (,20%) may

Monday

30% velocity loss

be of benefit in reducing fatigue and

ensuring training does not cause substan-
tial reductions in performance (88,89).
These concepts can also be applied
within an athlete’s training mesocycle
(refer to Tables 6–9) with previous
research (88,89) implying that greater
Sunday

velocity losses (e.g., 30%) be applied at

Rest

Rest

Rest

Internal response Rest

Fatigue response Rest

the start of the week (e.g., match day

[MD] 25), with reductions occurring
as game day draws closer (e.g., 20% at
repetition maximum.
Preseason training

MD 23 and 10% at MD 22).

(;m$s21/%
Velocity loss
threshold

Finally, the ability to objectively dictate

Intensitya

Volume
1RM)

load can be of great use for the practi-

tioner (56). Regardless of the method of
wk

implementation, the ability to autoregu-

a

late loads based off velocity can support

44 VOLUME 43 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2021

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Table 9
Example of how velocity-based training for the back-squat exercise can be applied during a tapering wk

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

Deload training
wk
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/03/2024

Velocity loss Rest 10% velocity loss Rest Rest 10% velocity loss Rest Match
threshold day
Intensitya Rest ;0.50 m$s21/85% 1RM Rest Rest ;1.00–0.60 m$s21/ Rest Match
(;m$s21/% 30–75% 1RM day
1RM)
Volume Rest ;2–3 repetitions per-set Rest Rest ;2–6 repetitions Rest Match
day
Internal Rest [ Metabolic response & Rest Rest [ Metabolic Rest Match
response perception of effort response day
[ 4 perception of
effort
Fatigue Rest 4Y Perceived soreness Rest Rest 4Y Perceived Rest Match
response [ 4 Neuromuscular soreness day
function [4
Neuromuscular
function
Velocity loss thresholds, initial intensity, approximate number of repetitions that will be completed, and estimated internal (during training) and
fatigue responses (24 h following training) are supplied to assist the practitioner. Adapted from (6,8,9,88,89).
a
Initial velocity (mean concentric velocity) and relative percentage of 1RM may show slight deviations between athletes.

[ 5 small increase; [ 4 5 trivial to small increase; 4 Trivial change; 4Y 5 trivial to small decrease; 1RM 5 one repetition maximum.

the management of not only acute- sessions. This can enable practitioners congested training or match play. For
fatigue responses (e.g., between sets) to be confident in their exercise pre- example, practitioners are commonly
but also the accrual of fatigue across scription, even during periods of faced with the issue of athletes coming
straight off the training field and into the
weight room. This often means that the
athlete is fatigued and that the loads
prescribed before the training session
are no longer valid. However, VBT does
not face these issues as athletes are pre-
scribed a velocity range rather than
a specific external load. In addition,
because of the many outside stressors
that can impact an athlete (e.g., aca-
demic stress) (55), VBT may support
load management.

CONCLUSIONS
VBT uses exercise velocity to inform or
Figure 10. An example of a linear periodization approach to programming the back
enhance training practice. It can be im-
squat with a 20% velocity loss threshold applied across a 10-week training
macrocycle. The bullet point within each connected line signifies the plemented as a tool that works alongside
starting velocity from a given week (e.g., week 1 5 0.82 m$s21). The dotted traditional percentage-based methods
line indicates the set termination velocity (e.g., week 1 5 0.66 m$s21). Note (e.g., the provision of feedback), or it
that the velocity loss threshold reduces across the macrocycle (emphasized can be used to autoregulate the training
by the arrows) despite the threshold not changing. This allows for increased volume and intensity for each athlete.
intensity but reduced volumes across time. From this review, it is advised that:

45
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Applying Velocity-Based Training

An important consideration for the Practitioners should consider regu-

Harry Banyard
practitioner is the validity of the larly monitoring velocity (this could
is a lecturer at the
device that is used to monitor veloc- be performed at the start of a training
Swinburne Uni-
ity. Current evidence suggests that session) to help objectively monitor
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

versity of
linear position transducers should changes in athlete fitness/fatigue. By
Technology.
be used due to their greater accuracy. monitoring the typical day-to-day
Feedback of performance is provided fluctuations in velocity (i.e., the SE)
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/03/2024

either visually or verbally to athletes and applying this to a meaningful

as they train. This feedback should threshold (e.g., change in strength),
be at frequent intervals (e.g., after practitioners can gain regular objec-
each repetition) and used during tive insight into the effects of their
high force and power exercises (i.e., training program.
Shaun
primary, multijoint exercises). Velocity loss thresholds can account
McLaren is
For testing performance during bal- for between-athlete differences in
a sport scientist at
listic exercises with loads that are muscular endurance and also miti-
England Rugby
#70% of 1RM, PV should be used. gate heterogeneity in short-term
League and
Alternatively, PV or MV could be fatigue responses. By altering the
research assistant
used for testing performance .70%. velocity loss threshold, internal and
at Leeds Beckett
For the prediction of 1RM ability, subsequent fatigue responses
University.
MV should be used. This is due to increase or decrease.
smaller differences between different Prescription of training using VBT
testing devices, greater linearity of can occur in many ways. These
the L-V relationship, and smaller methods can fit within traditional
Tannath Scott
between-athlete variation in the periodization models and can be
is a postdoctoral
velocity that 1RM occurs. used to guide exercise prescription
research fellow at
The “2-point method” has been with greater confidence.
the University of
shown to be a valid method of cal- New England
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:
culating the 1RM from the L-V pro- and New South
The authors report no conflicts of interest
file during upper-body exercises. Wales Rugby
and no source of funding.
This involves (I) identifying the League.
exercise-specific V1RM, (II) record-
ing the MV against a light (z45% Jonathon
1RM) and a heavy load (z85% Weakley is a lec-
1RM), and (III) modeling the indi- turer at Austra- Amador
vidual L-V relationship and deter- lian Catholic Garcia-Ramos
mining the 1RM as the load University, is a professor at
associated with the V1RM. Coaches a research associ- the University of
should be aware that the accuracy of ate at Leeds Granada and
the 2-point method and other Beckett Univer- Universidad Ca-
velocity-based 1RM prediction sity, and Sport to´lica de la San-
methods is expected to be lower dur- Science consul- tı´sima
ing lower-body exercises. tant for the Queensland Reds. Concepcio´n.
By quantifying an athlete’s L-V pro-
file and using an accurate velocity
measuring device, practitioners can Bryan Mann is
REFERENCES
equate a given velocity with a per- an assistant pro- 1. Argus CK, Gill ND, Keogh JW, Hopkins WG.
centage up to 90% 1RM of an ath- fessor at the Acute effects of verbal feedback on upper-
lete’s maximum capability. By having University body performance in elite athletes. J Strength
this information, differing amounts of Miami. Cond Res 25: 3282–3287, 2011.
of fatigue and rates of adaptation 2. Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods
across athletes can be managed for assessing measurement error
through accurate daily prescription (reliability) in variables relevant to sports
of intensities and volume. medicine. Sports Med 26: 217–238, 1998.

46 VOLUME 43 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2021

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
3. Balsalobre-Fernández C, Garcı́a-Ramos A, 15. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. back squat. Int J Sports Sci Coach 13:
Jiménez-Reyes P. Load–velocity profiling in Adaptations in athletic performance after 737–742, 2018.
the military press exercise: Effects of gen- ballistic power versus strength training. 27. Garcı́a-Ramos A, Pestaña-Melero FL,
der and training. Int J Sports Sci Coach 13: Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1582–1598, Pérez-Castilla A, Rojas FJ, Gregory Haff G.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

743–750, 2017. 2010. Mean velocity vs. Mean propulsive velocity

4. Balsalobre-Fernandez C, Marchante D, 16. Cuevas-Aburto J, Ulloa-Diaz D, Barboza- vs. Peak velocity: Which variable
Baz-Valle E, et al. Analysis of wearable and Gonzalez P, Chirosa-Rios LJ, Garcia- determines bench press relative load with
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/03/2024

smartphone-based technologies for the Ramos A. The addition of very light loads higher reliability? J Strength Cond Res 32:
measurement of barbell velocity in different into the routine testing of the bench press 1273–1279, 2018.
resistance training exercises. Front Physiol increases the reliability of the force-velocity 28. Garcia-Ramos A, Pestana-Melero FL,
8: 649, 2017. relationship. PeerJ 6: e5835, 2018. Perez-Castilla A, Rojas FJ, Haff GG.
5. Balsalobre-Fernandez C, Marchante D, 17. Cunanan AJ, DeWeese BH, Wagle JP, Differences in the load-velocity profile
Munoz-Lopez M, Jimenez SL. Validity and et al. The general adaptation syndrome: A between 4 bench-press variants. Int J
reliability of a novel iPhone app for the foundation for the concept of periodization. Sport Phys Perf 13: 326–331, 2018.
measurement of barbell velocity and 1RM Sports Med 48: 787–797, 2018. 29. Garcı́a-Ramos A, Suzovic D, Pérez-Castilla
on the bench-press exercise. J Sports Sci 18. Curran-Everett D. Explorations in statistics: A. The load-velocity profiles of three upper-
36: 64–70, 2018. Confidence intervals. Adv Physiol Ed 33: body pushing exercises in men and
6. Banyard HG, Nosaka K, Haff GG. 87–90, 2009. women. Sports Biomech 2019.
Reliability and validity of the load–velocity 19. Dankel SJ, Jessee MB, Mattocks KT, et al. 30. Garcı́a-Ramos A, Ulloa-Dı́az D, Barboza-
relationship to predict the 1rm back squat. Training to fatigue: The answer for González P, et al. Assessment of the load-
J Strength Cond Res 31: 1897–1904, standardization when assessing muscle velocity profile in the free-weight prone
2017. hypertrophy? Sports Med 47: 1021–1027, bench pull exercise through different
7. Banyard HG, Nosaka K, Sato K, Haff GG. 2017. velocity variables and regression models.
Validity of various methods for determining PLoS One 14: e0212085, 2019.
20. de Hoyo M, Nunez FJ, Sanudo B, et al.
velocity, force and power in the back squat. Predicting loading intensity measuring 31. Garcı́a-Ramos A, Ulloa-Dı́az D, Barboza-
Int J Sports Physiol Perf 12: 1170–1176, velocity in barbell hip thrust exercise. González P, et al. Reliability and validity of
2017. J Strength Cond Res 2019. different methods of estimating the one-
8. Banyard HG, Nosaka K, Vernon AD, Haff repetition maximum during the free-weight
21. Dorrell H, Smith M, Gee T. Comparison of
GG. The reliability of individualized load- prone bench pull exercise. J Sports Sci 37:
velocity-based and traditional percentage-
velocity profiles. Int J Sports Physiol Perf 2205–2212, 2019.
based loading methods on maximal
13: 763–769, 2018. strength and power adaptations. J Strength 32. Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Sanchez-Medina L.
9. Banyard HG, Tufano J, Delgado J, et al. Cond Res 34: 46–53, 2020. Movement velocity as a measure of loading
Comparison of velocity-based training and intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports
22. Fernandes JFT, Lamb KL, Clark CCT, et al.
traditional 1RM percent-based training Med 3: 347–352, 2010.
Comparison of the FitroDyne and
methods. Int J Sport Phys Perf 14: 246– GymAware rotary encoders for quantifying 33. González-Badillo JJ, Yañez-Garcı́a JM,
255, 2018. peak and mean velocity during traditional Mora-Custodio R, Rodrı́guez-Rosell D.
10. Blume JD, D’Agostino McGowan L, multijointed exercises. J Strength Cond Velocity loss as a variable for monitoring
Dupont WD, Greevy RA Jr. Second- Res 2018. resistance exercise. Int J Sports Med 38:
generation p-values: Improved rigor, 217–225, 2017.
23. Garcı́a-Ramos A, Haff GG, Jiménez-Reyes
reproducibility, & transparency in statistical P, Pérez-Castilla A. Assessment of upper- 34. Greenland S. Valid P-values behave exactly
analyses. PLoS One 13: e0188299, 2018. body ballistic performance through the as they should: Some misleading criticisms
11. Blume JD, Greevy RA, Welty VF, Smith JR, bench press throw exercise: Which of P-values and their resolution with S-
Dupont WD. An introduction to second- velocity outcome provides the highest values. Am Stat 73: 106–114, 2019.
generation p-values. Am Statistician 73: reliability? J Strength Cond Res 32: 2701– 35. Haff GG, Triplett NT. Essentials of
157–167, 2019. 2707, 2018. Strength Training and Conditioning (Vol.
12. Coburn JW, Malek MH. NSCA’s Essentials 24. Garcia-Ramos A, Haff GG, Pestana-Melero 452). (4th ed). Champaign, IL: Human
of Personal Training (Vol. 358). (2nd ed). FL, et al. Feasibility of the 2-point method Kinetics, 2015.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2012. for determining the 1-repetition maximum in 36. Hecksteden A, Pitsch W, Rosenberger F,
13. Conceição F, Fernandes J, Lewis M, the bench press exercise. Int J Sport Phys Meyer T. Repeated testing for the
Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Jimenez-Reyes P. Perf 13: 474–481, 2018. assessment of individual response to
Movement velocity as a measure of 25. Garcia-Ramos A, Jaric S. Two-point exercise training. J App Physiol 124:
exercise intensity in three lower limb method: A quick and fatigue-free 1567–1579, 2018.
exercises. J Sports Sci 34: 1099–1106, procedure for assessment of muscle 37. Helms ER, Cronin J, Storey A, Zourdos
2016. mechanical capacities and the 1 repetition MC. Application of the repetitions in
14. Cook JA, Julious SA, Sones W, et al. maximum. Strength Cond J 40: 54–66, reserve-based rating of perceived exertion
DELTA 2 guidance on choosing the target 2018. scale for resistance training. Strength
difference and undertaking and reporting 26. Garcı́a-Ramos A, Pérez-Castilla A, Martı́n Cond J 38: 42–49, 2016.
the sample size calculation for F. Reliability and concurrent validity of the 38. Helms ER, Storey A, Cross MR, et al. RPE
a randomised controlled trial. Trials 19: Velowin optoelectronic system to measure and velocity relationships for the back
606, 2018. movement velocity during the free-weight squat, bench press, and deadlift in

47
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Applying Velocity-Based Training

powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res 31: 51. Lake J, Naworynsky D, Duncan F, Jackson 64. Perez-Castilla A, Garcia-Ramos A. Changes
292–297, 2017. M. Comparison of different minimal velocity in the load-velocity profile following power-
39. Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in thresholds to establish deadlift one and strength-oriented resistance training
sports medicine and science. Sports Med repetition maximum. Sports 5: 70, 2017. programs. Int J Sports Phys Perf 2020.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

30: 1–15, 2000. 52. Lakens D. Equivalence tests: A practical 65. Perez-Castilla A, Garcia-Ramos A, Padial
40. Hopkins WG, Hawley JA, Burke LM. primer for t tests, correlations, and meta- P, Morales-Artacho AJ, Feriche B. Load-
Design and analysis of research on sport analyses. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 8: velocity relationship in variations of the half-
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/03/2024

performance enhancement. Med Sci 355–362, 2017. squat exercise: Influence of execution
Sports Ex 31: 472–485, 1999. 53. Lakens D, Scheel AM, Isager PM. technique. J Strength Cond Res 34:
Equivalence testing for psychological 1024–1031, 2020.
41. Hopkins WGS. A spreadsheet for
monitoring an individual’s changes and research: A tutorial. Adv Methods 66. Pérez-Castilla A, Garcı́a-Ramos A, Padial
trend. Sportscience 21: 5–9, 2017. Practices Psychol Sci 1: 259–269, 2018. P, Morales-Artacho AJ, Feriche B. Effect of
54. Loturco I, Suchomel T, Kobal R, et al. different velocity loss thresholds during
42. Hunter SK. Sex differences and a power-oriented resistance training
mechanisms of task-specific muscle Force-velocity relationship in three different
variations of prone row exercises. program on the mechanical capacities of
fatigue. Ex Sport Sci Rev 37: 113–122, lower-body muscles. J Sport Sci 36:
2009. J Strength Cond Res 2018.
1331–1339, 2018.
43. Hughes LJ, Banyard HG, Dempsey AR, 55. Mann JB, Bryant KR, Johnstone B, Ivey PA,
Sayers SP. Effect of physical and 67. Pérez-Castilla A, Jiménez-Reyes P, Haff
Scott BR. Using load-velocity relationships GG, Garcı́a-Ramos A. Assessment of the
to predict 1rm in free-weight exercise: A academic stress on illness and injury in
division 1 college football players. loaded squat jump and countermovement
comparison of the different methods. jump exercises with a linear velocity
J Strength Cond Res 33: 2409–2419, J Strength Cond Res 30: 20–25, 2016.
transducer: Which velocity variable
2019. 56. Mann JB, Ivey PA, Sayers SP. Velocity- provides the highest reliability? Sport
44. Hughes LJ, Banyard HG, Dempsey AR, based training in football. Strength Cond J Biomech 15:1–14, 2019.
Peiffer JJ, Scott BR. Using load-velocity 37: 52–57, 2015.
68. Perez-Castilla A, Piepoli A, Delgado-Garcia
relationships to quantify training-induced 57. Matveyev L. Osnovy Sportivnoy Trenirovki G, Garrido-Blanca G, Garcia-Ramos A.
fatigue. J Strength Cond Res 33: 762– [Fundamentals of Sports Training] (Vol. 280). Reliability and concurrent validity of seven
773, 2019. Victor Kamkin: Moscow, Russia, 1977. commercially available devices for the
45. Izquierdo M, González-Badillo J, Häkkinen 58. Munoz-Lopez M, Marchante D, Cano-Ruiz assessment of movement velocity at different
K, et al. Effect of loading on unintentional MA, Chicharro JL, Balsalobre-Fernandez C. intensities during the bench press. J Strength
lifting velocity declines during single sets of Load-, force-, and power-velocity Cond Res 33: 1258–1265, 2019.
repetitions to failure during upper and relationships in the prone pull-up exercise. Int 69. Perez-Castilla A, Suzovic D, Domanovic A,
lower extremity muscle actions. Int J Sports J Sport Phys Perf 12: 1249–1255, 2017. Fernandes JFT, Garcia-Ramos A. Validity of
Med 27: 718–724, 2006. 59. Nagata A, Doma K, Yamashita D, Hasegawa different velocity-based methods and
46. Jaric S, Garcia Ramos A. Letter to the H, Mori S. The effect of augmented feedback repetitions-to-failure equations for predicting
editor concerning the article “Bar velocities type and frequency on velocity-based the 1 repetition maximum during 2 upper-body
capable of optimising the muscle power in training-induced adaptation and retention. pulling exercises. J Strength Cond Res 2019.
strength-power exercises” by Loturco, J Strength Cond Res 2018. 70. Pestana-Melero FL, Haff GG, Rojas FJ,
Pereira, Abad, Tabares, Moraes, Kobal, 60. Naclerio F, Larumbe-Zabala E. Technical Perez-Castilla A, Garcia-Ramos A.
Kitamura & Nakamura. J Sports Sci 36: note on using the movement velocity to Reliability of the load-velocity relationship
994–996, 2018. estimate the relative load in resistance obtained through linear and polynomial
47. Jidovtseff B, Harris NK, Crielaard JM, exercises - letter to the editor. Sports Med regression models to predict the 1-
Cronin JB. Using the load-velocity Int Open 2: E16, 2018. repetition maximum load. J App Biomech
relationship for 1RM prediction. J Strength 34: 184–190, 2018.
61. Newton RU, Kraemer WJ, Häkkinen K,
Cond Res 25: 267–270, 2011. Humphries BJ, Murphy AJ. Kinematics, 71. Randell AD, Cronin JB, Keogh JW, Gill ND,
48. Jiménez-Alonso A, Garcı́a-Ramos A, kinetics, and muscle activation during Pedersen MC. Effect of instantaneous
Cepero-González M, et al. Velocity explosive upper body movements. J App performance feedback during 6 weeks of
performance feedback during the free- Biomech 12: 31–43, 1996. velocity-based resistance training on sport-
weight bench press testing procedure: An 62. Pareja-Blanco F, Sánchez-Medina L, specific performance tests. J Strength
effective strategy to increase the reliability Suárez-Arrones L, González-Badillo JJ. Cond Res 25: 87–93, 2011.
and 1-repetition maximum accuracy Effects of velocity loss during resistance 72. Richens B, Cleather DJ. The relationship
prediction. J Strength Cond Res 2020. training on performance in professional between the number of repetitions
49. Jovanovic M, Flanagan EP. Researched soccer players. Int J Sport Phys Perf 12: performed at given intensities is different in
applications of velocity based strength training. 512–519, 2017. endurance and strength trained athletes.
J Aust Strength Cond 22: 58–69, 2014. 63. Pareja-Blanco F, Rodrı́guez-Rosell D, Biol Sport 31: 157–161, 2014.
50. Keller M, Lauber B, Gehring D, Leukel C, Sánchez-Medina L, et al. Effects of velocity 73. Ruf L, Chéry C, Taylor KL. Validity and
Taube W. Jump performance and loss during resistance training on athletic reliability of the load-velocity relationship to
augmented feedback: Immediate benefits performance, strength gains and muscle predict the one-repetition maximum in
and long-term training effects. Hum Mov adaptations. Scand J Med Sci 27: 724– deadlift. J Strength Cond Res 32: 681–
Sci 36: 177–189, 2014. 735, 2017. 689, 2018.

48 VOLUME 43 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2021

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
74. Sanchez-Medina L, González-Badillo JJ. assessment of 3-D camera-based capture 91. Weakley J, Till K, Read D, et al. Jump
Velocity loss as an indicator of barbell velocity tracking device. J Sci Med training in Rugby union players: Barbell or
neuromuscular fatigue during resistance Sport 23: 7–14, 2020. hexagonal bar?. J Strength Cond Res
training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 43: 1725– 2018.
84. Torrejon A, Balsalobre-Fernandez C, Haff
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

1734, 2011.
GG, Garcia-Ramos A. The load-velocity 92. Weakley J, Wilson K, Till K, et al. Show me,
75. Sanchez-Medina L, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, profile differs more between men and tell me, encourage me: The effect of
Perez CE, Pallares JG. Velocity- and women than between individuals with different forms of feedback on resistance
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/03/2024

power-load relationships of the bench pull different strength levels. Sports Biomech training performance. J Strength Cond Res
vs. bench press exercises. Int J Sports Med 18: 245–255, 2019. 2018.
35: 209–216, 2014.
85. Tufano JJ, Conlon JA, Nimphius S, et al. 93. Weakley J, Wilson K, Till K, et al. Visual
76. Sánchez-Medina L, Pallarés JG, Pérez CE, kinematic feedback enhances velocity,
Maintenance of velocity and power with
Morán-Navarro R, González-Badillo JJ. power, motivation and competitiveness in
cluster sets during high-volume back
Estimation of relative load from bar velocity adolescent female athletes. J Aus Strength
squats. Int J Sport Phys Perf 11: 885–892,
in the full back squat exercise. Sports Med Cond 27: 16–22, 2018.
2016.
Int Open 1: E80–E88, 2017.
86. Vernon A, Joyce C, Banyard HG. 94. Weakley JJ, Till K, Read DB, et al. The
77. Sanchez-Medina L, Perez C, Gonzalez- effects of superset configuration on kinetic,
Readiness to train: Return to baseline
Badillo J. Importance of the propulsive kinematic, and perceived exertion in the
strength and velocity following strength or
phase in strength assessment. Int J Sports barbell bench press. J Strength Cond Res
Med 31: 123–129, 2010. power training. Int J Sports Sci Coach 15:
34: 65–72, 2020.
204–211, 2020.
78. Sanchez-Moreno M, Rodriguez-Rosell D, 95. Weakley JJS, Till K, Read DB, et al. The
Pareja-Blanco F, Mora-Custodio R, Gonzalez- 87. Weakley J, Chalkley D, Johnston RD, et al.
effects of traditional, superset, and tri-set
Badillo JJ. Movement velocity as indicator of Criterion validity, and inter-unit and
resistance training structures on perceived
relative intensity and level of effort attained between-day reliability of the FLEX for
intensity and physiological responses. Eur
during the set in pull-up exercise. Int J Sport measuring barbell velocity during
J Appl Phys 117: 1877–1889, 2017.
Phys Perf 12: 1378–1384, 2017. commonly used resistance training
exercises. J Strength Cond Res 2020. 96. Weakley JJS, Wilson KM, Till K, et al. Visual
79. Sones W, Julious SA, Rothwell JC, et al.
feedback attenuates mean concentric
Choosing the target difference and 88. Weakley J, McLaren S, Ramirez-Lopez C,
barbell velocity loss, and improves
undertaking and reporting the sample size et al. Application of velocity loss thresholds
motivation, competitiveness, and perceived
calculation for a randomised controlled during free-weight resistance training:
workload in male adolescent athletes.
trial–the development of the DELTA 2 Responses and reproducibility of J Strength Cond Res 33: 2420–2425,
guidance. Trials 19: 542, 2018. perceptual, metabolic, and neuromuscular 2019.
80. Stone MH, Stone M, Sands WA. Principles outcomes. J Sports Sci 38: 477–485,
97. Wilson K, De Joux NR, Head JR, et al.
and Practice of Resistance Training. 2020.
Presenting objective visual performance
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2007. pp. 89. Weakley J, Ramirez-Lopez C, McLaren S, feedback over multiple sets of resistance
241–295. et al. The effects of 10%, 20%, and 30% exercise improves motivation,
81. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Bellon CR, velocity loss thresholds on kinetic, competitiveness, and performance. Proc
Stone MH. The importance of muscular kinematic, and repetition characteristics Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 62:
strength: Training considerations. Sports during the barbell back squat. Int J Sport 1306–1310, 2018.
Med 48: 765–785, 2018. Phys Perf 2019.
98. Wilson KM, Helton WS, de Joux NR, Head
82. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Stone MH. The 90. Weakley J, Till K, Sampson J, et al. The JR, Weakley JJ. Real-time quantitative
importance of muscular strength in athletic effects of augmented feedback on sprint, performance feedback during strength
performance. Sports Med 46: 1419–1449, jump, and strength adaptations in Rugby exercise improves motivation,
2016. union players following a four week training competitiveness, mood, and performance.
83. Tomasevicz CL, Hasenkamp RM, Ridenour programme. Int J Sport Phys Perf 14: Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet
DT, Bach CW. Validity and reliability 1205–1211, 2019. 61: 1546–1550, 2017.

49
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.