Mini-Study Results: July Geek Cycle – Consistent Strength Gains Observed Across All Participants Using Velocity-Based Training

By Seung Choi

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)

Four MTI Lab Rats completed a 4-week mini-study designed to examine the potential of a velocity-based approach to improving 1RM back squat performance. The participants were divided into two groups: one followed the RAT 6 intensity scheme using velocity as an auto-regulator, while the other used prescribed set velocities to determine training intensity.

Both groups showed positive improvements in back squat strength, highlighting the effectiveness of velocity-based autoregulation—even with different regulation systems in place. For example, Sam and Jackson followed one approach, while Emmett and I followed another, yet all still made progress. This underscores the value of Velocity-Based Training (VBT) as a flexible tool for strength development. However, the set-velocity group demonstrated greater overall gains.

It’s important to note that the study involved five different physical progressions—including rock climbing, sandbag get-ups, swimming, mobility, and back squat—which could have influenced performance outcomes and made direct comparisons between the two groups potentially misleading. Nonetheless, based purely on statistical results, both training protocols still led to measurable improvements in back squat performance.

Key Outcomes:

● Jackson (RAT 6 – VBT): +5 lbs
● Sam (RAT 6 – VBT): +20 lbs
● Seung (Set Velocity): +25 lbs
● Emmett (Set Velocity): +10 lbs

Background

VBT is gradually replacing traditional percentage-based training in college weight rooms. One of the main reasons for this shift is the inconsistency of human performance due to biological and environmental factors. Traditional percentage-based programs typically follow a fixed monthly progression, but this approach fails to account for variables like sleep quality, nutrition, training volume, and stress outside the gym. These factors can significantly impact daily performance.

When athletes are unable to meet the expectations set by a rigid monthly plan, it can lead to frustration and mental fatigue. VBT addresses this issue by using bar velocity as a direct and responsive measure of performance, allowing for real-time auto-regulation of training intensity.

Additionally, VBT often incorporates a Daily Readiness Assessment, helping coaches and athletes determine how an athlete feels on a given day. This can prevent overtraining, reduce unnecessary fatigue, and help athletes train within their actual capacity rather than chasing a predetermined number.

Study Design

Participants:
● Jackson (RAT 6 – VBT)
● Sam (RAT 6 – VBT)
● Seung (Set Velocity)
● Emmett (Set Velocity)

Initial & Final Assessments:

● 1RM Back Squat

Strength Progression (3x/week):

MTI’s RAT 6 – Velocity-Based Progression

• Daily Readiness Assessment:
  At working sets, assess bar speed:

  • If velocity is 10% faster than average → increase intensity by 5–10%

  • If velocity is 10% slower than average → decrease intensity by 5–10%

• Main Training Structure – 5 Rounds of 3 Reps:

  • 2 sessions @ 80% 1RM

  • 3 sessions @ 85% 1RM

  • 3 sessions @ 90% 1RM

• Adjustment Rule:
  After each working set, if the average bar speed is faster or slower than the daily readiness value, adjust the next set’s load up or down by 5–10% accordingly.

Set-Velocity Progression

• Initial Testing Day:

  • Test 1RM

  • Perform singles at: 95%, 90%, 85%, 80%, 75%, and 70% of 1RM

  • Record velocity for each load to establish velocity thresholds

• Single Rep Session (2x/week):

  • Continue performing singles

  • If you fail to meet the 20% velocity threshold on two sets → end the session

  • Weekly structure:

    • 2 sessions @ 85% velocity

    • 1 session @ 90% velocity

    • 2 sessions @ 95% velocity

• Double Reps Session (1x/week):

  • Perform 8 rounds of doubles

  • If you fail to meet the 20% velocity threshold on two sets → end the session

  • Weekly structure:

    • 1 session @ 85% velocity

    • 1 session @ 75% velocity

    • 1 session @ 70% velocity

Results Table

Discussion

The overall results show that all participants were able to improve upon their individual back squat goals. From a statistical perspective, Velocity-Based Training (VBT) proved to be a valuable method—particularly when managing multiple demands—due to its autoregulation factor. This allows training intensity to be adjusted based on real-time performance, a critical feature when balancing fatigue and recovery.

However, several participants expressed that they often felt like they had “more in the tank” during sessions. For example, in the RAT 6 group programmed to perform 5×3 at 90% 1RM, the velocity loss (VL) threshold of 20% sometimes required a reduction in weight. Sam and Jackson both noted that they likely could have completed all sets at the prescribed intensity without compromising form or effort, and felt that adhering strictly to the velocity threshold may have limited potential gains.

Emmett also shared that in some of his single-rep sessions, he only completed five total reps due to failure to stay within the velocity target range. He believed that he could have benefited more from a slightly lower intensity with higher volume, which might have led to better training adaptations.

Seung, the author of this mini-study and the individual responsible for programming the cycle, identified a practical limitation: time efficiency. Two of his single-rep squat sessions lasted over 1 hour and 15 minutes, which made the sessions feel monotonous and mentally draining. This prolonged structure may have decreased focus and negatively impacted the overall quality of the session.

Limitations

One major limitation of this study is its small sample size. With only two participants per training method, the data lacks the statistical power necessary to draw strong or generalizable conclusions.

Another limitation is the concurrent training demands that overlapped with the back squat progression. Participants were simultaneously involved in ruck running and interval training, rock climbing, sandbag get-ups, mobility work, and swimming sessions. These additional training components likely drained participants’ ability to sufficiently recover from heavy back squat sessions. Furthermore, because VBT uses autoregulation (adjusting load based on bar speed), participants may not have been able to push themselves to their full potential. For example, performing heavy ruck sessions on Tuesdays followed by intense back squat sessions the next day may have significantly limited their performance capacity.

Additionally, Seung, who followed the Set-Velocity method, was unable to perform his 1RM test on the same day as the others due to a food poisoning complication. This timing discrepancy may have negatively affected his performance and initial load prescriptions, further limiting the accuracy of comparisons across participants.

Finally, the study compared two different VBT methods, which may have made direct comparisons misleading. Focusing on a single approach might have provided clearer insights and possibly better outcomes. Nevertheless, the statistical results consistently showed improvements across all participants, which supports the effectiveness of VBT for strength development despite these limitations.

Next Steps

To better understand the effectiveness and practical application of Velocity-Based Training (VBT), both training methods used in this study should be tested with a larger sample size and implemented over a longer training period. Additionally, future studies should be conducted without concurrent physical training (e.g., rucking, swimming, etc.) to isolate the effects of the VBT protocols on strength gains.

One specific area for improvement involves the Set-Velocity method. A valuable comparison would be to test the same protocol used in this study against a modified version that includes a dedicated volume week. The creator of the Set-Velocity cycle believed that the 3-week timeline may not have allowed enough time for the body to fully adapt to the stimulus. Incorporating a high-volume training week could potentially yield greater improvements and should be tested to see if it produces more favorable outcomes than the original approach.