Tracking barbell velocity allows for an objective measure of performance. So, it definitely leads to greater strength and hypertrophy gains, right? Well, we’ve been using velocity for 5+ years now, and through thousands of reps in the lab and real world training, we have some thoughts.

Chapters

​00:00​ Intro
​01:45​ Potential Weaknesses of VBT
04:40​ Inherent Benefits of VBT
08:00​ Summary

Transcript

Velocity based training has become wildly popular in both strength sport, the broader field of strength and conditioning. However, after having used velocity based training for thousands of reps in the lab, my own training, and with clients - I’ve learned some important lessons on how to best use it. In today's video, we'll discuss the best way to incorporate velocity based methodology into your own training.

Velocity based training, or VBT for short, is simply quantifying the speed of each repetition you perform with some sort of external device. The gold standard devices are called linear position transducers, which hook up a string to the loaded implement so that it can measure displacement. Once the device is connected, you’re set to start objectively measuring the speed of each repetition. 

The biggest draw of VBT is that it can remove the subjectivity associated with other methods of measuring and prescribing the umbrella of training “intensity”. The idea is that as we get closer to lifting our 1RM or to failure, lifting velocity slows - and thereby offers a solid proxy of the relative loading or proximity to failure of a set. Given how important these variables are for strength and hypertrophy respectively, this seems like a huge win. 

In the past, we’ve made guides on how to best use VBT for a variety of things: determining daily training loads via first rep velocity, terminating sets at a desired proximity to failure via last rep velocity, and optimizing rest interval selection via velocity loss. 

While I think some of those things are still totally legitimate practices when set up appropriately - I’ve used VBT in a “prescriptive” fashion like this less and less over time. This trend is almost entirely for logistical limitations that have popped up the more I’ve used VBT with lifters of all shapes and sizes.

To boil my gripes down to a few points, I think that the day-to- day use of VBT is just never as “clean” as we’d hope or as suggested in research. 

In my experience, individual profiles do seem to change a decent amount over time. This can result in a given lifting velocity that was once associated with 85% of 1RM or 2 RIR shifting a meaningful amount. I’m not sure what to make of this entirely (as these are purely anecdotal observations), but there could be:

1. Some variability based on the conditions in which the profile was tested

   • At the end of a training block

   • After a deload or taper

   • After some time off of training entirelyTraining effects over time 

2. Training effects over time

   • My velocity at a given relative load may decrease as I get more “skilled”

   • My velocity at a given relative load may increase as I remove fatigue

Intraset fatigue patterns also don’t seem to be quite as consistent as I once thought. There are tons of outside influences that can change the way lifting velocity decays over a set. Misgrooving reps, not using maximal intended concentric velocity, small modifications to technique, etc. The patterns also seem to be at least partially exercise, rep-range, rest interval, and set specific which makes them not super generalizable, even within an individual. 

There is also a non-negligible amount of “setup” that is required to use VBT successfully. You have to semi-frequently update your load / velocity profile with a 1RM test, perform multiple sets to failure (probably at multiple loads) to update your RIR / velocity profile, make some decently complex tables to store all this data, and then go back and verify each set throughout the workout. Oh, and don’t forget you need to do this on all exercises (and variations) you want to use VBT for.

This is all for an unclear advantage to free subjective training prescription methods like RIR. In a recent meta-analysis by Hickmott and colleagues, subjective autoregulation methods led to a 3.15 kg greater improvement in 1RM strength compared to fixed load prescription methods; whereas objective autoregulation methods, like VBT, led to a 0.88 kg greater improvement compared to fixed load prescription methods. Importantly, the only study I’m aware of that directly compares RIR to VBT does show an advantage to VBT, but I think partially tests RIR at its worst (i.e., moderate load sets far from failure).

Further, I actually think RIR has a few logistical advantages. RIR is generally pretty accurate (± 1 rep off typically in lab conditions), you can incorporate contextual information (i.e., was that just a really weird rep), and it's automatically individualized to the exact exercise, loading range, rest interval, etc.

With all of these things in mind, I don’t tend to program with specific velocity targets anymore - for most I just don’t think the juice is worth the squeeze. However, I think there are some other (less appreciated) aspects of velocity based training that are very much things to not forget about.

One of the simplest benefits of VBT is how it encourages the use of maximal intended concentric velocity. As anyone who's played around with a velocity device knows, if the lifter is not trying to move the load as fast as they can (or at least very close to it) - the data you receive from the device is severely limited.

Thus, VBT practitioners are often sticklers for lifters to move the load in this fashion. As we’ve discussed a few times on the channel, moving loads as fast as possible seems to benefit strength gains compared to moving loads with a deliberately slowed concentric phase. Moreover, while the data are considerably less clear, there is some reason to believe this could benefit hypertrophy outcomes as well.

Thus, by purely attaching a VBT unit to the barbell, “training quality” may improve; with lifters putting forth more effort on every repetition they perform.

Another tangential benefit of using VBT is performance feedback. By getting some sort of feedback from the device about how fast you’re moving the implement (either audio or visual), you’re motivated to “gamify” training a bit. This feedback can reinforce the maximal concentric intent that may otherwise fall off throughout a set and motivate you to overload (i.e., lift the same load faster or lift a heavier load at a given speed over time). The research seems to paint a clear picture that feedback from a VBT device benefits training performance. To illustrate, a meta-analysis by Weakley and colleagues demonstrates that receiving velocity feedback improves both acute and chronic neuromuscular performance. Importantly, this meta-analysis did not have enough data to directly examine the influence of feedback on strength and hypertrophy outcomes but the individual studies in the area lean in favor of feedback improving strength gains.

Ultimately, receiving feedback seems to be a really important part of the VBT equation, which again is really simple to implement and doesn’t require as much of a logistic headache in setting things up. 

The final way I like to utilize VBT is as a descriptive metric of training performance. When a lifter performs a set, it’s not too much of a pain to quickly jot down a velocity that can later be used to measure progress. Given enough time and data, this can be a nice secondary reference to help contextualize primary performance metrics like estimated 1RM.

I really like using VBT in the case of advanced lifters where progression is a bit harder to notice. For example, it may be difficult for a lifter to add load at the same reps and perceived RIR - but when repeating the same load, there may be improvements in velocity that are not detectable by RIR. For example, consider a lifter who repeats a back squat single at 200 kilos for 4 weeks. Each week, their RIR is about the same (or fluctuates a bit within typical error) but the velocity consistently improves - this can be a nice secondary metric to consider with a lifter to determine the success of the training intervention.

The same could be said here for using the velocity of familiar warmup loads to guide how aggressive you may be with load selection for any given training session. If your warmup velocities are meaningfully outperforming a typical session, it could be a good time to be a bit less conservative.

Of course, measurement error / variability needs to be considered which is again why I really don’t prescribe training with velocity much these days, but over time this can be an additional measuring stick for progression that can potentially be a bit more granular for really advanced folks.

VBT is a really popular training tool. While some of the nuanced use cases are absolutely defensible, some of the logistical drawbacks that I’ve experienced have led me to stray from it as a method to prescribe training. Instead, I like to rely on VBT as a way to improve training quality and serve as an objective descriptive variable to help monitor long term training performance a bit more granularly than load, sets, and reps alone.

If you liked the video, be sure to subscribe, leave a like, and let us know what you want to see from us next in the comments below. And if you want more free content like this directly in your inbox, sign up for our newsletter, which is the first link below.