Year of Award

2026

Document Type

Professional Paper

Degree Type

Master of Science (MS)

Degree Name

Integrative Physiology (Exercise Science option)

Department or School/College

School of Integrative Physiology and Athletic Training

Committee Chair

Charles Palmer

Commitee Members

Andrew Berrier, Daniel Ryan

Keywords

VBT, performance, training, sport

Subject Categories

Exercise Science | Other Kinesiology | Sports Sciences

Abstract

The foundation of high-level sport performance is the ability to produce and express force rapidly across the task-specific temporal demands of sport. Traditional percentage-based prescription methods have long been used to develop hypertrophy, maximal strength, and power; however, fixed %1RM prescriptions fail to account for daily undulations in athlete readiness, accumulated fatigue, and changes in neuromuscular capacity. Velocity based training (VBT) offers a practical framework to regulate training through measurement of concentric velocity, allowing coaches to more accurately prescribe loads, stringently monitor repetition quality, and precisely regulate fatigue. This review discusses the neuromuscular qualities underpinning success in athletic endeavors, limitations of percentage-based prescriptions, and the primary methods of VBT implementation, including velocity zones, velocity loss thresholds, and real-time instantaneous feedback. Current research suggests equivalent, if not superior improvements in maximal strength, sprint, and jump performance from VBT compared to traditional prescriptions, with less total repetition volume and better fatigue management. The velocity zone method utilizes the prescription of specific bandwidths along the force velocity curve, while velocity loss thresholds serve to quantify fatigue by providing objective thresholds upon which sets should be terminated, based on the intended stimulus. The use of real-time velocity feedback serves to increase intent, improve technical focus, and facilitate autoregulation of resistance training in team sport environments. Despite these strengths, the efficacy of VBT literature is limited by short intervention durations, small sample sizes, and protocol heterogeneity. Successful implementation of VBT requires device familiarity, consistent exercise technique from athletes, and the system to be thoughtfully integrated into the annual training plan. VBT fits well within athletic performance settings where athlete readiness changes day to day, training time is limited, and high-level outputs need to be maintained across long or congested competitive schedules. Prospective studies should consider longer intervention protocols, more consistent velocity metrics, and broader athlete representation. Overall, the current evidence supports VBT as a practical tool for individualizing training, managing fatigue, and targeting the neuromuscular qualities that underpin athletic performance.

Download

Share

COinS
 

© Copyright 2026 Ross Martin Sangalang