BLUF
This study explored the effectiveness of velocity-based training (VBT) compared to 1RM percent-based training over eight weeks, focusing on improvements in athletic performance such as sprinting, jumping, change of direction (COD), and maximal strength.
Velocity Based Training outperformed traditional 1RM percentage-based progressions in developing jump height, sprint speed, and agility among experienced athletes. Maximal strength gains were nearly identical between the two test groups, although the VBT Group recorded less fatigue via Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) reporting.
Defining Velocity Training versus Traditional 1RM % Based Training
- Velocity-based training (VBT) uses real-time feedback on how fast an athlete lifts a weight. Instead of focusing on a pre-set weight (e.g., 75% of a 1RM), VBT ensures the athlete maintains explosive, high-speed movements.
- Traditional 1RM-based training involves lifting a percentage of the athlete’s 1-rep max (the heaviest weight they can lift once), with progression based on gradually increasing weight.
How the Study Was Conducted
Participants: Athletes were divided into two groups. The training protocol for both groups was 8 weeks, with Week 1 & 8 as assessment weeks. The athletes were experienced lifters, with Back Squat 1RM’s ranging from 1.5x – 2.0x bodyweight. Training sessions were scheduled 4x/week with 24 hours rest between sessions.
- VBT Group: Adjusted their weights dynamically based on bar speed during training.
- 1RM Percent-Based Group: Followed a linear progression model using 75-85% of their 1RM for set reps over the six weeks.
Measurement Tools:
- Bar velocity was tracked using a linear position transducer, a tool that measures how fast the bar moves in each lift.
- Athletic performance tests included sprint times, vertical jumps, change of direction agility, and 1RM tests for strength.
Training Adjustments:
- The VBT group stopped their sets once bar speed dropped by 10-15%, ensuring they maintained explosive movement without excessive fatigue.
- The 1RM group followed fixed reps and loads, increasing the weight at set intervals throughout the program.
Intensity (%1RM):
- VBT Group: The weight adjusted dynamically based on the bar speed and athlete performance, ranging between 59-82% of 1RM across sessions. This flexibility allowed athletes to maintain high movement velocity and reduce fatigue.
- PBT Group: Followed fixed loads, starting around 70-77% of 1RM and increasing to 80-85% of 1RM by the later sessions.
Velocity (m/s):
- VBT Group: Maintained higher average bar speeds (~0.70-0.80 m/s) to ensure explosive movement. This group showed variability in velocity, reflecting real-time fatigue management.
- PBT Group: Bar speeds were lower (~0.50-0.65 m/s), indicating a focus on heavier loads and slower lifts, with less adjustment to athlete fatigue.
Repetition Velocity Deviation (%):
- VBT Group: Kept velocity deviation low (~5-10%), meaning athletes stopped sets as soon as movement slowed by 10-15%, ensuring optimal power output.
- PBT Group: Showed higher velocity deviations (~12-18%) as they worked through fixed loads, often resulting in greater fatigue.
Key Findings
Explosive Performance (Jump, Sprint, COD):
- VBT significantly outperformed 1RM training in jump height, sprint speed, and agility.
- Athletes maintained high movement quality and avoided over-fatigue by dynamically adjusting load based on performance each day.
Power (PV-CMJ, Countermovement Jump):
-
-
- VBT Group: Marked improvement in jump velocity (2.50 to 2.73 m/s, +9.2%).
- PBT Group: Minimal improvement (2.55 to 2.58 m/s, +1.2%).
- Conclusion: VBT excelled in power-based outcomes, highlighting better transfer to explosive movement.
-
Sprint Times (10m and 20m Sprints):
-
-
- VBT Group: Notable reductions in sprint times (10m: -4.3%, 20m: -4.5%).
- PBT Group: Minimal improvements (10m: -1.9%, 20m: -1.8%).
- Conclusion: VBT was significantly more effective at enhancing sprint performance.
-
Change of Direction (505 COD Test):
-
-
- VBT Group: Improved both dominant and non-dominant leg COD performance (e.g., dominant leg: -6.1%).
- PBT Group: Showed some improvement but less significant (dominant leg: -3.9%).
-
Maximal Strength:
- 1RM-based training resulted in slightly better gains in absolute strength (e.g., heavier 1-rep max lifts). However, the difference was minimal, and the VBT group still showed solid improvements.
- VBT Group: Increased 11.3%
- PBT Group: Increased 12.5%
- Conclusion: Both groups saw strength gains, with PBT having a slight edge in maximal strength improvements.
Fatigue Management:
- The VBT group experienced less fatigue since their training was adaptive. In contrast, the 1RM group dealt with more recovery challenges due to fixed heavy loads.
Conclusions
This study and a corresponding meta-study show that velocity-based training protocols have benefits in developing strength, explosiveness, and athleticism while reducing fatigue and recovery. These are important aspects for all athletes, and can potentially be employed in programming for tactical and mountain athletes. However, the implementation of VBT outside of highly equipped collegiate gyms is a challenge, as it requires special equipment to monitor and measure barbell speed. It will be interesting for MTI to review methods to employ VBT outside of the exercise science lab setting.
Sources
- Randell, A. D., Cronin, J. B., Keogh, J. W., & Gill, N. D. (2020).
Superior Changes in Loaded Jump, Sprint, and Change of Direction Performance, but not Maximal Strength, Following Six Weeks of Velocity-Based Training Compared to 1RM Percent-Based Training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. - Liao, Y. H., Liu, C. Y., Lin, H. Y., & Wang, R. (2021).
Effects of Velocity-Based Resistance Training Compared to Traditional 1RM-Based Training: A Meta-Analysis.