Velocity based training Wk11

VBT is used to improve an athlete's ability to express force rapidly.
Key is understanding strategies like predicting 1RM, modulating loads, and controlling volume via velocity-loss.
Developing maximal strength is crucial in training programs, correlating with improved athletic performance and reduced injury risk.
Traditionally loads are prescribed as a percentage of 1RM, which may not account for daily fluctuations in an athlete's strength levels.

Load-velocity profile involves plotting the relationship between load and velocity.
Generalized profiles don't account for individual differences.
Profiles are exercise-specific, requiring individual profiles for each athlete and exercise.

The method involves using warm-up sets to create a load-velocity profile to estimate the athlete’s current 1RM.
Studies show this method often overestimates 1RM in free-weight exercises.
The inaccuracy is caused by difficulties in selecting an appropriate velocity at 1RM (v1RM).
Using generalized v1RM or machine learning models may not solve the issue, especially in free-weight exercises.
Conclusion: Estimating 1RM using this method is not yet feasible and can lead to misprogramming training loads.

Adjusting barbell load based on the load-velocity profile on a set-by-set basis can be done.
During training sessions, the velocity generated during both warm-up and target sets can be compared with the predicted velocity at a given relative intensity.
This approach shows potential for improved fatigue management.
There's limited evidence that load-velocity profile-based programming results in improved performance outcomes to traditional strategies.
Time required to calculate the load-velocity profile is a limitation.

Controlling volume by terminating a set when an athlete reaches a predetermined velocity-loss threshold.
Higher velocity decline magnitudes (30–40%) are prescribed as greater overall volume, while smaller velocity declines (10–20%) are prescribed as less overall volume.
Studies support the implementation of velocity-loss thresholds as a method of developing both strength and performance measures.
There are inter-individual differences in the number of repetitions that can be performed at 10, 20, and 30% velocity-loss thresholds.
Velocity-loss thresholds may be best implemented as a tool to augment traditional “fixed” programming strategies and prevent excessive exposure to highly fatiguing training.

The load-velocity profile generated during normal resistance training exercises can be used to assess and monitor neuromuscular fatigue.
Requires sufficient data for the regression equation to be accurately fitted and therefore requires an extensive preimplementation testing protocol.
The accuracy of the velocity measurements is largely dependent on the device used by the strength and conditioning professional during testing.

The strategies depend on the accurate measurement of velocity generated during each repetition performed with a resistance exercise.
Accelerometer-based devices and inertial measurement units may not be suitable for use during many of the commonly implemented velocity-based programming strategies.
Devices that rely on measuring the position of the barbell, such as portable linear position transducers (GymAware, T-Force, Speed4Lifts, and Tendo), seem to demonstrate stronger validity and lower measurement errors.

Off-season: high training volumes and moderate intensities as the primary focus is the development of overall work capacity.
Preseason or in-season: optimization of sports performance is the primary goal. Therefore, training strategies that facilitate the raising of preparedness through the mitigation of fatigue are implemented.

Using a load-velocity profile to estimate an athlete’s daily 1RM strength is likely to result in substantial overestimations of the athlete’s actual physical capacity and therefore should be avoided in favor of directly testing the 1RM at preplanned time points.
Strategies such as adjusting loads on a set-by-set basis in response to acute changes in velocity facilitate improved fatigue management and therefore improvements in dynamic performance but are dependent on the accuracy of the device used to quantify the velocity generated during resistance exercise and do not seem to induce greater gains in strength than traditional methods.