He originally created the velocity zones based on the data he collected from Division 1 athletes. If a highly technical portion of the lift can be impaired by an athlete’s upper extremity and thorax injuries, why are we even concerned with the average velocity? The reason for performing Olympic lifts isn’t to participate in a weightlifting competition; it’s to improve sporting form.
- If the bar is moving slowly, then readiness to train is low and/or the load is too high.
- While this has the benefits of being submaximal and more efficient than an actual 1RM testing session, sacrificing a normal session for testing is still a lost training day.
- This single metric for each athlete and exercise would respond to improving performance by gradually increasing, or drift lower as fatigue accumulates or the quality of training output dips.
- I just use the ballparked MVT values, changing only every months (even if a milestone is passed more frequently).
Metric also provides set average velocity, but there are problems comparing performance across rep ranges when using average velocity. The average velocity on sets of three reps will be much better than on sets of 12 where the last few reps were real grinders. By using best rep velocity we can concentrate on a lifter’s peak performance for that set. In short, both average velocity and peak velocity have their place. With Olympic lifting athletes, using both provides good redundancy to keep technique in check.
The Defined Moment at Which Peak Velocity Occurs
In fact, previous research has shown that instantaneous feedback during loaded jump squats using velocity-based training can significantly enhance jump performance and sprint times (30). Other research has also shown that augmented feedback can increase jump height both in the short term and over a long period of time (31, 32). Figure 7 provides an example of performance improvements seen by using augmented feedback. In other words, using the data to motivate the athlete and/or provide other useful feedback.
This means you are able to produce high amounts of force to grind out slower, tougher reps without failing. Knowing this number for a given lift it becomes possible to establish how many reps we really had left in the tank every time we lift. The closer we come to our vbt chart MVT, the higher our RPE and thus the more fatiguing a set. Assuming high levels of intent for all reps (we are always assuming high levels of intent), the greater the percentage value, the higher the amount of fatigue accumulated and the more of a grind a set was.
The imperfection of the linear load-velocity profile
He specializes in designing customized training programs based on an individual’s assessment results to help athletes reach their full potential. I’ll say that I have enjoyed using this method more with accumulation emphasis than in true strength phases. If we attempt to perform more reps in the range and/or progress by lowering the cutoff velocity, we can accumulate greater volumes each week through an accumulation cycle. I make this point because there are some coaches out there who believe you should only use VBT for higher velocity training. I’ve even surprised some coaches when I used VBT for my athlete’s strength work or for my own higher rep training.
A Practical Guide to Velocity Based Training for Serious Lifters
Instead we can look at integrating e1RM profiling into the normal flow of training. The load-velocity profile is a linear (ish) graph that shows the relationship between the loads we lift, and the mean velocity we are able to generate for a given exercise. One week, an athlete https://cryptolisting.org/ may be 5-10% stronger than they were on testing day thanks to higher readiness and adaptations. On this day the programmed 85% load is actually more like 77% of their strength capacity that day. They are now now working hard enough, leaving good quality work in the tank.
By adding the second number, we now have a cutoff velocity, or a velocity stop. The goal is to stay above this cutoff velocity for the entirety of the set, and cut the set short when we go below it. If you’re in this industry and you haven’t been living under a rock, you’re aware of the emerging popularity of velocity-based training (VBT). Velocity-based training is not new, and some of the best texts I’ve read on the subject are Fundamentals of Special Strength Training by Yuri Verkhoshansky and Training of a Weightlifter by R.A. Louie Simmons brought the Tendo to America’s attention, and more recently, Dr. Bryan Mann helped to further attention and knowledge on VBT with his excellent work.
Personally, I think there is still plenty of scope for further innovation around calculating and utilising e1RM, and velocity/power profiling more broadly. Seeing this information update with every session allows you to intervene sooner and with greater confidence if needed to highlight team-wide trends in performance and adaptation to training, or even spot individual outliers. There are a number of ways to integrate an e1RM value into your training and programming.
When we see someone who clearly doesn’t meet the guidelines, we may have to adjust for that individual. As practitioners, we should only measure and manage what we can measure and manage. We should use peak velocity for Olympic lifts because the speed of gravity will not change and the decelerating phase is irrelevant. Injuries to the wrist, shoulder, and elbow are quite common among a multitude of sports, and these joint injuries can greatly impede the catching portion of the lift movements.
For example, if the coach is monitoring an athlete’s jump squat performance and wishes them to ‘explode’ more powerfully out of the bottom position, they may challenge the athlete to beat each of their previous repetition velocities. The interesting and arguably most useful piece of information with MVTs is that the MVT is consistent and appears to be same during a maximal 1RM test, or on the last repetition of a sub-maximal repetitions-to-failure test (e.g. 9RM (24)). For example, Izquierdo and his colleagues (24) found that when subjects performed the bench press and squat with repetitions-to-failure using intensities of 60, 65, 70 and 75 % of 1RM, the MVT on the last repetition were always the same. It was also noted that the MVTs for the last repetition of these intensities (60, 65, 70 and 75 % of 1RM) are also the same as the MVT during a maximal 1RM test.
In my opinion it takes talent, vigilance and meticulous planning to make the 1RM test an effective part of any training program. It is therefore possible that using a 1RM from one state of readiness as the basis for a %BT prescription covering multiple weeks can lead to some under or over dosing of training in a plan. By definition, to find a genuine 1RM an athlete must push beyond the point of failure, a limit that may expose and test weaknesses with few guardrails. I’ve endeavoured to get down just about everything I think is worth knowing about the theory and practice of using velocity in 1RM estimation, its best uses, and some suggestions on how to make it even more valuable.
Get access to exclusive velocity training programs , a velocity based training eBook PDF, Advanced 1RM strength & power calculator plus heaps more when you join the newsletter. This sounds strange, but for some athletes, knowing their max is actually more harmful than it is helpful. For the athlete who loves to train hard and aims to max out every session, being shown their 1RM becomes a challenge; “the formula says I can lift 160kg… well let’s find out if I can beat that! The table below provides an extended list of MVT values that I like to work with, these have proven pretty reliable for me.
