1.

Normative Velocity Scores

Normative scores DO NOT apply across all exercises and individuals ~
some variation between exercises exists, however, enough research exists
that shows very interesting data. So the exercise, the % 1RM and
sometimes the training experience of the athlete need to be considered when
considering what is a “normal velocity score”. Also an understanding of the
difference between average (or mean) velocity and peak velocity is critical.

Average velocity is the velocity score across the entire concentric or

“upwards” portion of the lift and this has most relevance to typical “strength”
exercises like squats, bench press, and other pressing exercises, deadlifts,
pull-ups, rows, and so on.

The Peak velocity is the highest velocity recorded in any small portion
(eg. 5-msec) of the upwards portion of the lift and this has more relevance to
“power” exercises.

Power exercises are those exercises that entail higher velocities,

irrespective of the resistance used and allow for acceleration all the way to
the end of range of the movement (even when the weight is lighter). Typically
this means the Olympic Weightlifting exercise variations (eg. power clean),
jump squats, bench press throws in a smith machine, or where “strength”
exercises have been modified by using a lighter barbell weight but with
additional band or chain resistance, a situation which allows for acceleration
to end range.

Normative Average Velocity Scores for Strength Exercises

The data in the tables below is not supposed to be a comprehensive

review, but more to provide a snapshot of some published research data
upon “normal” velocity scores. So far research has concentrated mainly
upon the squat, bench press, bench pull, and deadlift when looking into what
velocity scores are associated with different %1RM and strength exercises.
Some research has been published with lower strength individuals, some
with higher strength individuals, and some with competitive weightlifters and
powerlifters. Some research has been done in a Smith machine, some with
free weights. The tables will specify and then coaches and athletes can
discern which sets of data are most applicable to their situations.

Table 1 displays data for the Smith Machine prone bench pull. By
analysing scores for this exercise with that of the Smith Machine bench press
(Table 2), it can be clearly seen that the bench pull has much higher velocities
at every %1RM.

An Essential Guide to VBT by Dan Baker

Page 1
In Table 2, Smith machine and free weight bench press scores for resistance-
trained males in both a paused repetition and the usual “touch & go” method
are displayed. There are differences as expected, with the touch & go
method faster when lighter %1RM loads are analysed, due to the effect of
the stretch-shorten cycle (SSC) which compounds the speed of muscle
contraction with the stored elastic energy inherent in the SSC. Surprisingly,
this advantage of SSC/touch & go bench press seems lost with these
athletes at > 80% 1RM. While comprehensive data upon free weight bench
pressing is not as established, the scores appear similar to those obtained in
the Smith Machine. Free weight touch & go versus paused bench press data
in not as widely researched but the strong bench pressers in the Ormsbee et
al. study and the competitive powerlifters from the Helms et al. study allow
for a comparison with resistance of 90 and 100%, with paused bench
pressing being 0.04 m/s slower with both resistances. However, of
importance, Ormsbee et al recently showed that stronger, more experienced
bench pressers have slower velocities at 100% 1RM. This is probably due to
their enhanced technical abilities with maximum weights and possibly a
greater mental drive to “embrace the grind” of maximal effort lifting. This will
be seen and detailed below in the free weight squat as well.

However it is important to understand, with every exercise and

especially with squats, that stronger athletes may possess different scores
than less strong athletes with higher %1RM. Tables 3 and 4 outline some
research that has clearly established that fact. Athletes that can squat over
1.6 x BWT tend to 1RM with a velocity of < 0.24 m/s and weaker squatters
tend to 1RM at a velocity in the range of 0.30-0.40 m/s mark. However, the
velocity scores at lighter %1RM (<80%1RM) may be similar. This was
confirmed by the work of Helms et al. who found that average velocity scores
best predict an athlete’s change in strength when the resistance used are >
80%1RM. Basically stronger squatters know how to “grind out” a maximum
squat and therefore their 1RM velocities are lower.

Table 1. Average velocity scores (m/s) for the Smith Machine Bench Pull
exercise from Sanchez-Medina et al. 2014.

Exercise 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM
Smith Machine Bench Pull 1.06 0.92 0.79 0.65 0.52
1RM = 80.2 kg @ 76.0 kg
BWT

An Essential Guide to VBT by Dan Baker

Page 2
 Table 2. Average velocity scores (m/s) for the bench press exercise
variations.

Bench Press exercise variations 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM
Smith Machine PAUSED Bench Press 0.73 0.59 0.46 0.34 0.22
1RM = 89.1 kg @ 81.4 kg BWT
Pallares et al. 2014.
Smith Machine Touch & Go Bench 0.85 0.66 0.50 0.34 0.19
Press
1RM = 92.1 kg @ 81.4 kg BWT
Pallares et al. 2014.
Smith Machine Touch & Go Bench 0.77 0.61 0.46 0.31 0.17
Press
1RM = 90.3 kg @ 76.0 kg BWT
Sanchez-Medina et al. 2014.
Free weight Touch & Go Bench Press 0.56 0.52 0.32 0.20
1RM = 89.5 @ 82.3 kg BWT
Ormsbee et al. 2017
Free weight Touch & Go Bench Press 0.61 0.49 0.29 0.14
1RM = 133.0 @ 90.2 kg BWT
Ormsbee et al. 2017

Table 3. Average velocity scores (m/s) for full squat exercise variations.

Full Squat exercise variations 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM
Smith Machine PAUSED Squat 1.0 0.85 0.67 0.54 0.37
1RM = 90.3 kg @ 81.4 kg BWT
Pallares et al. 2014
Smith Machine Squat 0.81 0.71 0.61 0.51 0.39
1RM = 97.2 kg @ 81.4 kg BWT
Pallares et al. 2014
60% 75% 90% 100%
1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM
Average Squatters ~0.67 ~0.60 0.46 0.34
1RM = 91.2 kg @ 80.3 kg BWT
Zoudos et al. 2016
Experienced Squatters ~0.72 ~0.55 0.34 0.24
1RM = 171.9 kg @ 91.6 kg BWT
Zoudos et al. 2016

An Essential Guide to VBT by Dan Baker

Page 3
 Table 4. Average velocity scores (m/s) for competitive powerlifters in the full
squat, paused bench press, and deadlift with resistances > 80% 1RM from
Helms et al. 2017.

Male NZ IPF powerlifters 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

BWT = 87.9 (n=12) 1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM 1RM

Squat 1RM = 202.5 kg 0.66 0.54 0.44 0.33 0.23

Bench press (paused) 1RM = 131.8 kg 0.44 0.35 0.24 0.17 0.10
Deadlift 1RM = 237.3kg 0.46 0.37 0.29 0.21 0.14

Table 4 outlines the average velocity scores that competitive

powerlifters attain when lifting “raw” in the bench press (with a competition
pause), full squat and deadlift. Another recent study from New Zealand
compared Weightlifters, powerlifters and experienced trainers in “high bar”
and “low-bar” position squats. Both the lifters groups were raw (without a
belt or knee sleeves) squatting 2 x BWT and the strong trainers were 1.6 x
BWT. All groups, irrespective of their squatting style, squatted 100% 1RM at
velocities of 0.20 to 0.23 m/s (Glassbrook et al. 2017).

As yet, little definitive data exist for pull-up exercises. One recent
study looked at prone grip “dead-hang” (2-second pause at the bottom of
the rep) pull-ups in 82 male trainers who were quite proficient in the pull-up.
To qualify for inclusion in the study, each athlete had to be able to perform
15-reps of the pull-ups with bodyweight and the average 1RM was 1.47 x
bodyweight. The velocities are slightly slower as compared to bench press,
but they may be a function of the long pause in the dead-hang position. In
the author’s experience, if the repetitions are not “dead-hang” but a rapid
stretch-reflex style, they tend to be about 0.04 to 0.08 m/s faster than those
listed in the Table 5 below.

Table 5. Velocity data for males proficient in the Pull-up. Extra weights were
added via a pull-up belt to allow a 1RM to be attained. From Munoz et al.
2017

Weight BWT = +8 = +16 = +22 = +28 = +34 = +40 =

82kg 90kg 96kg 108kg 108kg 114kg 120kg

%1RM 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Average 0.73 0.66 0.59 0.51 0.43 0.34 0.26
Velocity

An Essential Guide to VBT by Dan Baker

Page 4
 The point of normative velocity data for key strength exercises is not
to establish daily maximums so that %1RM can be prescribed – that is a
flawed process to some degree. The value of testing and monitoring velocity
scores for strength exercises is to then observe changes in the best velocity
score within a set, as this would designate a change in strength.

Key Take Home Point:

Changes of ~ 0.04 m/s from the usual, best velocity
scores with a given resistance > 80% 1RM usually
indicates a change in 1RM strength of ~ 2-2.5% 1RM

Peak velocity scores for power exercises

Peak velocity is often used for jumping, throwing and Olympic

weightlifting exercises. Table 6 depicts some Peak velocity data from jump
squats with no weight and no arm swing (aka CMJ) as well as with added
resistances. While untrained males typically achieve peak velocity scores of
3.09 m/s (Cormie et al. 2007), more explosive athletes tend to achieve scores
of well above 3.5 m/s and very explosive athletes tend to be over 4.0 m/s.
With the addition of extra barbell resistance, peak velocity scores
decline. However, better athletes or more explosive athletes still tend to
display a velocity advantage ~ compare the higher and lower ranked MMA
fighters from the James et al. study.
For Olympic weightlifting exercises, there are norms for competitive
lifters and some norms with pronounced variability for athletes who merely
perform these lifts in their training. For competitive lifters, at 1RM, snatches
tend to be 1.68 to 1.98 m/s whereas cleans tend to be around 1.50-1.60 m/s.
Lighter lifts < 90% 1RM also tend to exhibit higher peak velocities in both
lifts.

An Essential Guide to VBT by Dan Baker

Page 5
 Table 6. Peak velocity scores for a few different types of athletes during
jump squat tests with different resistances. The jump squat with just BWT
(i.e. a dowel rod on shoulders or hands on the hips aka CMJ) test is also a
simple test of “readiness and recovery” which can be performed weekly or
more often, if desired.

Peak velocity Jump + 50% + 75% + 100%

Squat BWT BWT BWT BWT
Olympic Rugby 7’s players 3.9
Mitchell et al., JSCR 2015
High Level MMA fighters 3.77 2.50 2.15 1.86
James et al IJSPP 2016
Lower Level MMA fighters 3.29 2.34 2.01 1.74
James et al IJSPP 2016
U/18 Male team sport 3.1 2.35
Athletes
Taylor & Taylor, JASC 2014
U/18 Female team sport 3.0 2.1
Athletes
Taylor & Taylor, JASC 2014
Male National swimmers 2.09 1.83 1.62
Garcia-Ramos et al SS & M
2015
Female National swimmers 1.78 1.52 1.34
Garcia-Ramos et al SS & M
2015

Table 7. Peak velocity scores for snatch and clean for high level competitive
weight lifters.

Group Lift

Elite lifters (Ho et al., JSCR 2014) Snatch 1.68 –1.98

Chinese Female (Deming et al.) Clean 1.57

Male elite (Garhammer 1991) Clean 1.59

An Essential Guide to VBT by Dan Baker

Page 6
 For athletes who merely perform variations of these lifts (eg. power
clean, power snatch, clean pulls, mid-thigh pulls) as part of their training, the
velocity scores are more disparate (see Table 8). This is because of marked
variation in technical proficiency and physical stature. Taller athletes tend to
attain higher peak velocities. Weaker or less technically proficient athletes,
much like less strong squatters, can attain higher velocities because of their
“false lower strength”. Stronger and more technically proficient athletes tend
to display peak velocities closer to competitive lifters (see Table 9), however
their velocities drop off markedly in the high 90%+1RM.

Table 8. Data for different variations of the Olympic weightlifting exercises by

sports athletes. From: 1. Cormie et al, MSSE, 2007 2. Suchomel et al JSCR
2015 3. Hardee et al, JSCR 2012 4. Comfort et al, JSCR 2012 5. Jones
et al. JSCR 2007. 6. Haff et al JSCR 2003. References are in guide 1.

Group Exercise 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

College Power clean 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.02 (2)
athletes, (1)
College Power clean 2.0
athletes, (3)
Athletes Mid-thigh 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%
(4) Clean Pull 1.6 1.4 1.25 1.15 1.0

Athletes Mid-thigh 45% 60% 80%

(5) Clean Pull 1.95 1.78 1.68

Athletes Clean pull 90% 120%

(6) 1.72 1.37

An Essential Guide to VBT by Dan Baker

Page 7
 Table 9. Sports athletes who are not competitive lifters, but still experienced
and strong in exercises like power cleans, rarely attain the velocities of
competitive lifters at 1RM level. Typically in the power clean athletes attain
1RM with PEAK velocities of 1.35 to 1.50+ m/s and average velocities of 0.95
to 1.05 m/s ~ however taller athletes can attain much higher velocities, even
at 1RM.

Athlete 1 Peak Average Athlete 2 Peak Average

Velocity Velocity Velocity Velocity
100 kg ~ 1.59 m/s 1.13 m/s 100 kg ~ 2.17 m/s 1.58 m/s
69% 1RM 67% 1RM
120 kg ~ 1.59 m/s 1.14 m/s 120 kg ~ 1.64 m/s 1.19 m/s
83% 1RM 80% 1RM
130 kg ~ 1.44 m/s 1.03 m/s 130 kg ~ 1.55 m/s 1.12 m/s
90% 1RM 87% 1RM
140 kg ~ 1.43 m/s 1.02 m/s 140 kg ~ 1.53 m/s 1.11 m/s
97% 1RM 37% 1RM

145 kg = 1.36 m/s 0.97 m/s 145 kg = 1.51 m/s 1.10 m/s
100% 1RM 97% 1RM

150 kg = 1.42 m/s 1.03 m/s

100% 1RM

An Essential Guide to VBT by Dan Baker

Page 8
2. Velocity and Fatigue Data
Three Spanish studies pretty much sum up the relationship between
workout fatigue, velocity loss, recovery, sets, reps, “effort”, and the resultant
muscle damage and strength & power gains for strength exercises like squat
and bench press.

Study one. In this study, the researchers (Sanchez-Medina et al. 2011)

looked at different set & rep combos, their effect upon the % velocity decline
across the 3-sets and markers of muscle fatigue (lactate) and the muscle
damage/stimulus for hypertrophy (ammonia). By looking at the data
contained in Table 10, it is clear that three sets of higher reps like 10- or 12-
reps lead to more muscle fatigue but provide a more potent stimulus for
muscle repair/growth than do lower reps!

However, when athletes only performed about half the amount of

possible reps (ie. not training to failure/fatigue, see the lower four rows in
Table 9), then the fatigue factors like lactate were lower…but so was the
stimulus for muscle repair/growth.

So it is necessary to consider that the muscle damage from higher

reps or training to failure may take longer to recover from, which has
implications for competitive athletes, especially in-season for team sport
athletes like football, soccer, rugby, hockey, and so on. But muscle growth
and higher rep works also tends to underpin multi-year adaptations in
strength, via increasing muscle size. Consequently, a conundrum exists –
the need to train some higher reps for continued muscle growth for long-term
training gains, but consider that this type of training takes longer to recover
from and thus may interfere with other sports training. So this led to Study
Two.

Study Two. In this study, the researchers (Gonzales-Badillo et al. 2016)

looked at the relationship between velocity, effort, and fatigue, and the
consequent training adaptations and time course of recovery from fatiguing
and less-fatiguing workouts. The study investigated the effects of performing
3 x 4 @ 80% 1RM (with about a 20% velocity decline) versus 3 x 8 @ 80%
1RM (with about a 40% velocity decline) for squats. The results were that
jumping capabilities of the athletes performing the 3 x 4 workout were
recovered within 6 to 24 hours. The results for the 3 x 8 group were not fully
recovered at the 48-hour mark.

Again, this has implications for in-season athletes. Muscle recovery

and jumping and explosive leg performance can be recovered within 24
hours if the velocity loss within a set is limited to about 20%. Where velocity

An Essential Guide to VBT by Dan Baker

Page 9
 cannot be measured, then the completion of only about half the possible
reps is similar to a 20% velocity loss for squats.

Table 10. Different set x reps combos, velocity decline and markers of
muscle metabolic fatigue (lactate) and protein degradation (ammonia) which
may be a signaler of hypertrophic regeneration. From Sanchez-Medina et al.
MSSE 2011.

SQ BP SQ BP SQ BP
vel. vel. lactate lactate ammonia ammonia
dec % dec.
%
3 x 12RM 46.5 63.3 12.5 8.9 125 111

3 x 10RM 45.7 58.4 11.7 7.8 97 89

3 x 8RM 39.8 56.9 10.4 7.5 78 79

3 x 6RM 41.9 56.8 10.0 6.9 65 68

3 x 4RM 32.0 49.8 6.9 4.9 61 53

3 x 8 (10RM) 32.3 46.1 8.6 6.0 62 64

3 x 6 (10RM) 22.0 29.8 6.3 4.6 48 47

3 x 3 (6RM) 19.6 23.7 3.5 3.1 47 51

3 x 2 (4RM) 16.6 18.9 3.0 2.6 41 48

Study Three. Because the above study was a “one-off”, more medium- and
longer-term studies must be completed to see if these results hold true for
longer training periods. In the third study, the researchers (Pallares et al.
2016) trained two groups of athletes for 8-weeks using a periodized training
approach ranging from 70 to 85% 1RM. What distinguished between the
groups was that one groups ceased their squats sets at a 40% velocity
decline within the set and the other group trained to a 20% velocity decline
within the set, irrespective of what % 1RM or how many reps were
performed.

Across the 8-wks, the 20% decline group performed only 60% of the
workload/reps of the 40% decline group. The results were the same for
increases in 1RM squat strength, but the 20% decline group had better
jumping improvements while the 40% decline group had better muscle size
gains. However, these greater gains in muscle size also came with a catch ~
there was a decrease in the percentage of explosive MHC 2 fibers! This is

An Essential Guide to VBT by Dan Baker

Page 10
not an outcome that power athletes would desire, as these are the more
explosive muscle fibers.

These three studies show that coaches can therefore choose the level
of fatigue/damage markers they want their athletes to experience, which is
RELATED TO VELOCITY DECLINE WITHIN THE SET(S). The key thing to
remember is:

Higher reps and large decreases in velocity within a

set result in large increases in lactate and ammonia,
make it more difficult to recover from the resistance
training session.

If hypertrophy is the goal of training in a preparation period, higher rep

prescriptions close to full fatigue level (e.g. 3 x 10 @ 12RM) may be
appropriate, knowing that this fatiguing session may also negatively impact
performance in other training sessions like running or sports skills. However,
this may also come at a cost of losing explosive MHC 2 fiber types and
delayed recovery.

However, by reducing the reps slightly and not going to fatigue results
in a marked reduction in fatigue/damage markers (e.g. 3x8 or 3x6 @10RM),
so this may also be considered an option if marked interference with other
training is not acceptable. For in-season hypertrophy maintenance, the
prescription of 3x6 @ 10RM may be more manageable with regards to
fatigue/damage induced in resistance training sessions interfering with other
training sessions.

For strength and power training, the lower-rep, not-to-fatigue options

(e.g. 3x3 @ 6RM or 3x2 @ 4RM) appear to offer a better option of minimal
fatigue/damage markers while still lifting over 80%1RM with reasonable
velocities. Essentially, for athletes who do not wish to gain muscle, but
maintain strength and power with minimal fatigue (eg. in-season), limiting the
reps within a set to a 20% velocity decline for squats and a ~ 30% velocity
decline for upper body exercises is a worthwhile option to consider.

To limit muscle damage and improve recovery while

maintaining strength & power, limit velocity loss
during sets of squats to 20% and 30% for upper body
exercises.
An Essential Guide to VBT by Dan Baker
Page 11
For long term training, ~ Velocity loss, along with reps
& sets prescribed, can be periodized across time to
achieve different outcomes in different periods,
blocks or weeks.

Power training exercises have a key peak velocity parameter,

otherwise the lift is typically not successful. This means the clean is not
racked, the jerk does not lock out, the jump squat does not attain the desired
height, and so forth, if a certain peak velocity is not attained. Accordingly,
there cannot be as a large a decline in velocity across a number of sets for
power exercises as compared to the strength exercises in Table 10.

For the “power” exercises, it is recommended not to let velocity

decline by more than 10% within a set for most occasions. However, when
peaking or tapering, a figure of 5% may be more appropriate.

To maximize power training adaptations, limit

velocity loss during sets of power exercises like
Olympic lifts, jumps, throws, etc to 10% for most
sessions and ~ 5% when peaking.

An Essential Guide to VBT by Dan Baker

Page 12
3. Practical examples of how to use
velocity data to improve coaching &
programming
3a. Using changes in velocity to gauge and monitor changes in strength

As mentioned above, one of the great values of measuring and

monitoring velocity is it allows the coach and athlete to gauge whether
strength changes have occurred without having to regularly test strength.

This does not mean a strength test should not be done as measuring a
spectrum of regularly used training loads as the athlete works up to a
Maximum Effort strength test of either 1, 3 or 5-RM allows the coach to gain
information linking velocity scores to absolute weight lifted. Changes in
velocity scores with these regular training weights would signify a change in
strength.

In Table 11 below, we can see the velocity scores for athletes for
different athletes in different exercises. However, even though only four
relatively heavy loads are shown, the velocity scores for other resistances
can be deduced from the fact that a linear relationship exists between
velocity and resistance when those points are close. For example, the strong
bench presser exhibits a decline of 0.05 m/s for every 10 kg increase in
resistance ~ we could assume his velocity with 145 kg would be around 0.37
m/s, even though this resistance was not directly tested. Similarly, for the
squat athlete we could assume a velocity score of ~ 0.45 m/s if he trained
with 160 kg. For the athlete performing pull-ups, we could assume that if he
was to perform sets of three reps with +20kg, his best velocity score would
be ~ 0.54 m/s.

Therefore any changes of around ~ 0.04 m/s from

these best velocity scores with resistances > 70-80%
1RM would indicate a change in strength of around 2-
3% 1RM.

Similarly, Figure 1 graphically depicts the changes in average velocity

while squatting 160 kg (~ 80% 1RM) on 35 different occasions across one-
year in an advanced athlete. The mean velocity of all these occasions was
0.50 m/s, with a variation of 0.05 m/s ~ typically this meant the athletes
strength varied from a 1RM of 195 to 205 kg across this time (+ 2.5% 1RM).
It can be clearly seen that the early part of the year was the build up of
maximal strength and the rest of the year was more related to trying to

An Essential Guide to VBT by Dan Baker

Page 13
 maintain strength.

Table 11. A simple work up to maximum effort test allows the coach and
athlete to gain knowledge of velocity scores with not just the resistances
tested, but due to the linear relationship between velocity and resistance, also
knowledge of what velocities would be expected with resistances close to
those actually tested.

Athlete 1. 140 kg 150 kg 160 kg 170 kg

Bench Press 82.5% 88.0% 94.0% 100%
0.39 0.34 0.29 0.24
Athlete 2. 130 kg 150 kg 170 kg 185 kg
Squat 70% 81.0% 89.0% 100%
0.62 0.51 0.38 0.23
Athlete 3. 72 kg (BWT) 87 kg 97 kg 107 kg
Pull-up 67% (+15) (+25) (+35)
(1RM = BWT + 0.86 81% 90% 100%
extra wt) 0.63 0.45 0.23

Figure 1. This graph depicts the average velocity while squatting 160 kg
on 37 different occasions across one-year.

An Essential Guide to VBT by Dan Baker

Page 14
3b. Using knowledge of the Maximum Effort velocity to gauge Effort of
each set and use the RPE system for powerlifting and advanced
strength training.

A key reason for using velocity scores is that they reinforce the Effort
(RPE) system, especially in advanced trainers. What this means is that any
maximum effort (RPE of 10) set has the same final rep velocity. So the
velocity of a 1RM or the third rep of a 3RM or the 5th rep of a 5RM all have
about the same velocity. If an athlete knows their ME velocity, they can
make prudent decisions after each set about whether to add or subtract
resistance to the bar or continue training, if their training is aligned to certain
RPE scores. Figure 2 shows a 1RM bench press test with an velocity of 0.19
m/s and after a 3-minute rest a test of maximum effort for reps was done
with 85% 1RM. The sixth rep had a similar score of 0.17 m/s. So for this
athlete, any bench press set that finishes with a final rep velocity of ~ < 0.20
m/s will be an RPE of 10. Scores on the final rep of ~ 0.25 m/s and 0.32 m/s
will likely be perceived as RPE 9 and 8 respectively, and so on.

Figure 2. The maximum effort (ME) velocity for strength exercises tends to
be the same ~ the 1RM velocity is the same as the sixth rep of a 6RM.

An Essential Guide to VBT by Dan Baker

Page 15
 3c. Using knowledge of velocity to determine the appropriate training
weight, sets and reps in VBT training

It was shown in the Spanish studies that while higher repetition sets
that are closer to fatigue or have a higher velocity decline may be a quicker
route to hypertrophy and gaining muscle size, this may also not be the best
route for true power athletes like shot-putters, pitchers and so on because of
the possibility of fiber type changes or conversions. In Table 12 below, we
can see a comparison of 3 x 10 @ 75% 1RM compared to 6 x 5 @ 75% 1RM
performed by the same athlete in the same training week in the same total
training time, for comparison purposes. Note that the VBT training entailed
the athlete lifting 22 out of 30 reps > 0.40 m/s and with an average of 0.41
m/s per rep across the 30 total reps. However, FBT had no reps out of 29 >
0.40 m/s and an average velocity @ 0.28 m/s per rep for the 29 completed
reps.

Please note, this does not mean higher rep sets should not be
performed, but we should be aware of the consequences. For many
athletes, the quicker route to hypertrophy is acceptable or preferable, but for
some pure power athletes, the higher velocity route may prove better in the
long run.

Table 12. Comparing “fatigue based training” (FBT) to Velocity Based

Training (VBT). The same weight and total reps were used and completed in
the same total time period with the same training week.

Set 1 Set 2 Set 2

Fatigue- Highest rep = 0.39 m/s Highest rep = 0.34 m/s Highest rep = 0.34 m/s
based Lowest rep = 0.24 m/s Lowest rep = 0.22 m/s Lowest rep = 0.18 m/s
3x10@7 Set average = 0.30 m/s Set average = 0.28 m/s Set average = 0.26
5% m/s
* Only 9-reps
Velocity Set 1 Set 2 Set 3
-based Highest rep = 0.43 m/s Highest rep = 0.44 m/s Highest rep = 0.45 m/s
6x5@75 Lowest rep = 0.40 m/s Lowest rep = 0.41 m/s Lowest rep = 0.38 m/s
% Set average = 0.41 m/s Set average = 0.42 m/s Set average = 0.42
m/s
Set 4 Set 5 Set 6
Highest rep = 0.44 m/s Highest rep = 0.46 m/s Highest rep = 0.44 m/s
Lowest rep = 0.37 m/s Lowest rep = 0.34 m/s Lowest rep = 0.36 m/s
Set average = 0.41 m/s Set average = 0.41 m/s Set average = 0.40
m/s

An Essential Guide to VBT by Dan Baker

Page 16
 3d. Using knowledge of velocity to improve dynamic effort or power
training

Table 13 below depicts some very general guidelines for some key
dynamic effort/power exercises like pressing, squatting and power cleans,
for both Peak and Average velocity. However, athletes and coaches do not
need to be constrained by the number depicted. For example, some elite
high jump athletes, whose height and innate explosiveness affords them the
ability to generate higher peak velocities than many other athletes, often
perform power cleans with as heavy a resistance that they can while still
attaining Peak velocities of either 2.0 m/s or 2.2 m/s (General preparation or
Peaking phases).

So while general guidelines do exist, the athletes and coaches now

have the options of exploring a wider range of training resistances and
finding velocities that they associate with success or “peaking”

Table 13. General guidelines for some key dynamic effort/power exercises
for both Peak (PV) and Average (AV) velocity in m/s.

Training Exercise type Velocity ranges

objective (eg)

Lower body Jumps BWT jumps = PV > 3.0 m/s (> 3.5-4.0+ is
Ballistic explosive)
& = AV > 1.4 m/s
Maximal Jump squats
Power 10-45% 1RM = PV 1.8 - 2.8 m/s
= AV 1.0 - 1.4 m/s
Lower body Squats with 50-60+%+B/C = PV 1.10 -1.50 m/s
Explosive bands/chains = AV 0.7- 1.0 m/s
Speed-
Strength Power clean 60-90% 1RM = PV 1.30 – >1.90 m/s
= AV 1.00 – 1.40 m/s
Upper body Medicine ball eg. 5kg = PV > 3.5 m/s
Ballistic & throws
Maximal Bench press 15-45% 1RM = PV 1.3 - >2.2 m/s
Power throws = AV 1.0 – 1.8 m/s
(Smith
Machine)
Upper body Bench press 45-65%+B/C = PV 1.00 - >1.25 m/s
Explosive with = AV 0.75 - 1.0 m/s
Speed- bands/chains
Strength 60-90% = PV 1.30 - 1.90 m/s
Push press = AV 0.75 - 1.2 m/s

An Essential Guide to VBT by Dan Baker

Page 17
3e. Using knowledge of velocity to make athletes accountable for their
effort and performance in the gym

One of the best things about measuring and monitoring velocity

scores during resistance training is the fact that it affects the amount of
volitional effort applied in each set, as the athletes become accountable for
their velocity scores. This may be especially so for exercises that the athlete
does not like or where they may “go through the motions”. Below is an
example where an athlete performs a set of Romanian Deadlifts (RDL’s) but
the coach is not overly happy with the effort the athlete applied and tells
them so. In the second set, the athlete responds with a set that is 10%
higher in velocity. They have been called into account and have responded.

Table 14. The change in velocity scores between sets of RDL’s when an
athlete applies more volitional effort.

RDL Rep #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 Set

Average
Set #1 0.56 0.53 0.56 0.54 0.56 0.54 0.51 0.45 0.53
Set #2 0.65 0.68 0.64 0.58 0.54 0.56 0.60 0.52 0.59

3f. Using knowledge of velocity to improve the provision of coaching

cues to athletes to improve their technique

In the example below, an athlete is performing push press behind the

head, but the coach notices that the athletes technique is deteriorating
across the first three reps ~ after the third rep, the coach tells the athlete the
corrective cue, which the athlete immediately implements. There is a sudden
and large change in average velocity for the fourth to sixth reps. This change
in velocity, which is shown to the athlete after the set, helps to reinforce the
importance of the corrective action that the coach provided them.

In an another example depicted in Figure 3, the athlete is performing

explosive strength-speed squats with 50% 1RM + an extra 15% 1RM in
band resistance, with a goal of attaining an average velocity of ~ 0.70 m/s
every set. However, on the second rep, the coach notices the athlete is not
pushing back on the bar enough and is getting pushed forward when coming
out of the bottom of the squat. The coach quickly provides the corrective
cue of “Push back on the bar” which the athlete knows means to push back
on the bar when coming out of the bottom of the squat to reinforce a rigid
trunk for effective force transmission. The result is that the velocity increases
from a poor score of < 0.60 m/s to 0.75 m/s and again reinforces to the
athlete the importance of the corrective action for them to attain technical
mastery.

An Essential Guide to VBT by Dan Baker

Page 18
Table 15. Change in velocity scores during push press once the corrective
cue was provided to an athlete whose technique was deteriorating.

Rep #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6

Mean Velocity 0.92 0.88 0.81 0.99 0.98 0.99

Figure 3. Change in velocity during dynamic effort squats, from below 0.60
m/s to 0.75 m/s once the athlete was told by the coach to “push back on the
bar” when coming out of the bottom of the squat.

Conclusions

This updated PUSH guide has attempted to reduce the science to a

bare minimum and provide more applied examples of how to use your PUSH
band to measure and monitor velocity scores during resistance training. You
can ask further questions on the PUSH Huddle Facebook page.

An Essential Guide to VBT by Dan Baker

Page 19
References
The majority of the references for this manuscript are contained in the
original guide, therefore this list will only contain more recent references or
references highly relevant to the above paper.

Glassbrook et al. The high-bar and low-bar back-squats: A biomechanical

analysis Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2017 (published
ahead of print)

Gonzales-Badillo et al. Short-term Recovery Following Resistance Exercise

Leading or not to Failure. Int. J Sports Med. 37(4):295-304. 2016.

Helms et al. RPE and Velocity Relationships for the Back Squat, Bench
Press, and Deadlift in Powerlifters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research. 31(2): 292-297. 2017.

James et al. The Neuromuscular Qualities of Higher and Lower-Level Mixed

Martial Arts Competitors. International Journal of Sports Physiology and
Performance. 2016. Published ahead of print.

Mitchell et al. Variable Changes in Body Composition, Strength and Lower-

Body Power During an International Rugby Sevens Season. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research. 30(4): 1127-1136. 2016.

Pallares et al. Imposing a pause between the eccentric and concentric

phases increases the reliability of isoinertial strength assessments . Journal
of Sport Sciences. 32:1165-1175. 2014.

Pallares et al. Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic

performance, strength gains and muscle adaptations. Scand J Med Sci
Sports. March. 2016.

Sanchez-Medina et al. Velocity- and power-load relationships of the bench

pull vs. bench press exercises. Int J Sports Med. 35. 209–216. 2014.

Sanchez-Medina et al. Velocity loss as an indicator of neuromuscular fatigue

during resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 43:1725–1734. 2011.

Zoudos et al. Novel resistance training-specific RPE scale measuring

repetitions in reserve. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
30(2): 267–275 2016. 


An Essential Guide to VBT by Dan Baker

Page 20