Module 1F Velocity Based Training

Introduction to Velocity Based Training

Velocity based training (VBT) is a popular methodology for programming intensity in strength and conditioning.
It's important to critically evaluate whether VBT improves upon existing methods and justifies the resources required.

The relationship between velocity and intensity is intuitive: heavier loads move slower.
VBT aims to align training load with the athlete's current state.

Creating a load velocity profile involves assessing the relationship between different loads and their corresponding velocities.
Weekly et al. (2020) suggested that traditional 1RM testing is too time-consuming and recommended using velocity zones to manage training load.
They recommended two maximum sessions, which contradicts the initial rationale of saving time compared to 1RM testing.
The assumption that the load velocity profile remains constant daily and across exercises is questionable.
Performing two max-out sessions for every exercise is impracticable.

Load velocity profiles can be used to calculate mean velocity at 1RM and at various percentages of 1RM (e.g., 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 90%).
This data can be plotted to create a linear relationship and predict the load based on movement velocity.
Example: If the mean velocity at 1RM is 0.262 m/s, using a common threshold of 0.3 m/s could result in a 1RM velocity ranging from 0.23 to 0.29 m/s.
Variability in velocity measurements may be as high as or higher than the variability in 1RM testing itself.

The relationship between velocities and percentage cannot be uniformed across all exercises.
Each exercise has a unique velocity profile. For instance, bench press may have a minimum velocity threshold of 0.17 m/s, while the squat has a minimum velocity of 0.32 m/s.
Exercises involving larger muscle masses might exhibit greater velocities.

Weekly attempted to correlate velocity zones with traditional intensity tables (maximum, very heavy, etc.).
Variability in measurement devices (e.g., 0.03 m/s) can lead to misclassification of intensity zones (e.g., a velocity of 0.29 m/s could be classified as very heavy or maximum due to system noise).
Example: Variability in velocities at different intensities can cause overlap between targeted training outcomes.
Programming solely based on velocity zones may result in unintended training outcomes due to these variabilities.

Validity of the device: Are the measured velocities accurate compared to gold standards?
Reliability: Are the velocities repeatable over time and consistent across different days?
Cost: What is the financial and labor cost associated with the device?
Usability: Is the device simple to use and portable?
Detection capacity: Does the device have good detection capabilities?
Currently, GymAware meets most of these criteria, while IMUs and accelerometers often fall short.

Study by Dr. Harry Bandyard: Used loads up to 60% of 1RM to predict 1RM, resulting in significant overestimation.
Example: Actual 1RM was 165 kg, but the load velocity estimate was 191.2 kg.
Using loads up to 80% of 1RM still overestimates the 1RM (predicted 1RM was 186.3 kg).
Using loads up to 90% of 1RM still overestimates the 1RM (predicted 1RM was 184.8 kg).
Accurate prediction requires near-maximal loads, negating the benefits of using VBT for sub maximal load estimation.
This study used linear position transducers and found that predictions were consistently over estimated.

Three Repetition Maximum (3RM) Deadlift:
- Study Design: Conducted on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays with maximal deadlift testing and load velocity profile creation each day.
- Results:
  - 3RM Stability: The 3RM deadlift remained relatively static across the week, with minimal change (no more than approximately 5 kg).
  - Slope Variation: The slope of the load velocity profile changed, especially at the lower end (speed end), from day to day.
  - Implication: This variation indicates that the relationship between percentage and velocity differs daily, potentially compromising load prescription accuracy.
Six Repetition Maximum (6RM) Deadlift:
- Results:
  - 6RM Stability: The 6RM deadlift was also generally stable, although slightly more variable than the 3RM.
  - Slope Variation: Similar to the 3RM, the slope of the load velocity lines changed from day to day.
  - Implication: The increased variability in the load velocity profile, despite the relative stability of the 6RM, suggests that it may not be the most accurate method for prescribing training load.
Conclusion
- Based on the findings of the three studies, the presenter concludes that it is not possible to accurately predict the 1RM, 3RM, or 6RM from a load velocity profile.

Significant variability occurs in both mean and peak velocity at 1RM.
Preset velocities might be necessary to determine for various exercises.
Some researchers have suggested the use of preset velocities for 1RM, but there is no scientific foundation for their use.
Preset velocities at 1RM assume uniform responses, which is inconsistent with research data.

Bench press: The minimum velocity threshold preset at 0.17 m/s shows significant error. In both young and middle-aged men, the absolute error is very high, in some cases 20 to 40% higher.
Back squat: With a preset velocity of 0.37 m/s, there is a high level of variability: The measure is an overprediction.

Greater changes in muscle volume need greater velocity loss.
Less velocity loss leads to increases in Type 2 Fiber Myosin. Heavy Chain.
To change the percentage of Type 1 Myosin Heavy Chain, you need to increase velocity loss.
More Velocity Loss Increases Muscular Endurance.
Less Velocity Loss Increases Muscular Power Output.

Acute feedback: Enhances performance.
Prescribe general starting velocities for a training session for the athlete to target.
Monitor fatigue across training sessions.
Prescribe arbitrary velocity cutoffs to mitigate fatigue.

Using Velocity Loss Thresholds may not target the attributes in your training program.
Greater velocity loss during training leads to hypertrophic responses, increased muscle volume, greater muscular endurance, and metabolic responses.
Higher training volume stimulates training outcomes.
Tight Velocity Band via percentage based can help improve outcomes. With percentage ranges, there's a reduction in velocity across sets.
High cognitive load comes with trying to perform high velocity movements.

Individualized Load Velocity Profiles for every individual. For every exercise with repetitive testing because the slope changes.
Load Veloctiy profile Changes from day to day, maximal differs from day to day.