Velocity Based Training or Percentage Based Training?

There are various ways to prescribe training intensity and volume. Who, what, where, when, why, and how are often debated. At the end of the day, what is going to work best for you and your athletes?  

Force and velocity have an inverse relationship. As force increases, velocity decreases. So, the heavier the load, the slower the speed and the emphasis of the session is strength dominant. If your goal is speed, the load will be lighter, and the bar will move faster. These are the two ends of the force velocity curve. Whether we realize it or not, when we train power athletes, we are attempting to shift this curve up the graph. If we are able to do this, we can now move the same load at a faster velocity. This happens with essentially any form of training, especially those just starting out. The real question lies in which method will produce better results?

Velocity based training alters the intensity of training on a rep to rep basisis. Typically we are measuring the velocity of the bar during concentric contraction. How fast can you move the bar at a given load? Based on the speed of the bar, and the goal of the session, the load is altered to match the emphasis of the session. Each velocity is associated with a different training outcome. Different people have different parameters for each outcome i.e. max strength, strength speed (power high load), or power. In my opinion, if you believe 0.8m/s is associated with power high load, and the goal of the session is to improve power high load, then you better be at 0.8m/s.

Percentage based training dictates intensity based on some form of concentric failure test. Most commonly, they are based around a 1 rep max test. The athlete attempts to lift as much weight as possible for one repetition. We are then able to work at submaximal loads based around this test. With each submaximal load, there is an associated rep scheme that gives the athlete an idea of how many repetitions they should be able to complete. The more reps you can do, the further you are from your potential 1 rep max.

Some would consider volume and intensity the most important factors when prescribing a training protocol. What can affect the completion of the prescribed training is the fatigue level of the athlete. Velocity based training essentially accounts for rep to rep changes in the athlete’s preparedness level by measuring each rep’s speed. For example, if an athlete is attempting to move a load at .8 m/s, and the first set they are able to do this. As the session proceeds, their ability to move at .8 m/s is hindered by fatigue, and they are no longer able to move the same load at that velocity. In order to maintain a bar speed of .8 m/s, we must decrease the load. This can be time consuming, and other variables just as rest, and weight room flow can be effected. If you are prescribing loads based on percentages, you are neglecting the athlete’s current readiness level. So, what may be 80% today, may be 82% tomorrow. While this may seem like a minor detail, but neglecting this few pounds over an extended period time could result in over training.

Velocity based training has shown to better enhance training outcomes such as max strength, and power. This is accomplished by recieving immediate feedback on rep performance. With this feedback mechanism we are able to more accurately prescribe loads for athletes to accomplish training outcomes while decreasing the possibility of over training. However, there is no one solution, or best answer when it comes to training. Velocity based training is great, and performance has been shown to increase when prescribed accurately, but let’s not take away from the credibility of percentage based training. This method of load prescription has been around for a long time, it is heavily researched, and is still extremely prevalent in today’s weight rooms. More so, if an athlete lacks the understanding of maximal intent, velocity based training will be compromised. Without max intent, bar speed numbers are unreliable, and the training outcome will be negatively effected.