VBT for power
Using bar-speed data to train power output: the loads, the velocities, and the contrast methods that produce force × velocity.
Power is the product of force and velocity. Train one without the other and you cap the result. VBT makes the trade-off visible: load and velocity for any given lift live on a curve, and there’s a specific point on that curve where their product (power) is maximised. Programming around that point is a direct way to develop the explosive end of the strength-speed continuum, the power zone between heavy strength work and pure speed.
The peak-power load
Plot mechanical power output against load for any lift and the result is a curve, not a line. Power is low at very light loads (high velocity, low force) and at very heavy loads (high force, low velocity). It peaks somewhere in between — often cited around 30–50 % of 1RM for upper-body ballistics like bench throw, and 50–70 % for lower-body compounds like squat or trap-bar deadlift. Treat those as starting points and find the real number per athlete.
That peak-power load is athlete-specific and lift-specific. A jumper’s squat peak-power load isn’t the same as a thrower’s, and neither matches the same athlete’s bench peak. VBT lets you find each one in a single session by sweeping loads and computing F × V at each.
Max power calculator
Why VBT suits power work
A few reasons:
- Power is hard to feel. Strength athletes can self-rate effort; power athletes can’t reliably self-rate “power output” in the way the metric demands. Velocity readings give the missing feedback.
- The window is narrow. Stray above peak-power load and you drift toward pure strength; stray below and you drift toward pure speed. Neither is wrong, but neither is power. Velocity targets keep the work in the right zone.
- The athletes care about the number. Power-development populations (weightlifters, throwers, jumpers) already think in terms of bar speed. The data fits the mental model; less translation cost than for traditional rep-based athletes.
Where it fits in a block
Power work usually sits alongside a core strength or speed day rather than carrying the week on its own. The recurring shapes it takes:
- Pre-strength priming. Light sets at peak-power load before the heavy work, waking the nervous system up without accumulating fatigue.
- A stand-alone power day. Crisp sets at peak-power load with full intent and generous rest, where velocity confirms each set landed in the target zone instead of slowing into strength work.
- Contrast pairs. A heavy strength set followed by an explosive set at peak-power load; the velocity on the explosive set tells you whether potentiation actually happened.
The exact set-and-rep schemes and rest windows are programming decisions, not part of the concept.
What it doesn’t replace
Power is downstream of strength. An athlete without a base of maximum strength has nothing to express explosively, and their peak-power load itself is undertrained. Pure power blocks come after strength bases, not in place of them.
VBT also doesn’t replace technical jump or throw practice — those skills are trained on the field, not under the bar. Bar-speed-derived power work is preparation, not transfer.
Articles in this topic
Faster reps vs slow reps: Why you should be using both in your program
Power metrics in the weightroom are flawed, but you should still use them
Explosive weight training to increase your vertical jump with VBT
Henneman's Size Principle explained - How it can help your lifting
Cluster set training — the complete guide for strength, size and power
Published! My first velocity based training research paper
Charts in this topic
Force–velocity curve
The hyperbolic relationship between contractile force and shortening velocity. Theoretical, derived from isolated-muscle physiology — distinct from the load–velocity profile.
Load–power profile
Mechanical power output across the working load range, plotted in watts. The parabolic shape peaks at an intermediate load — typically 30–50 % 1RM for the squat.
Maximum-power profile
A load–power profile with the apex called out — a horizontal dashed line at peak power in watts and a vertical dashed line at the load that produces it, meeting at the maximum-power point.
Cluster sets boost power gains
Morales-Artacho 2018 — cluster sets out-gained traditional 6×6 sets at every load tested (25 / 50 / 75 % 1RM), with the biggest gap at the peak-power region around 25 % 1RM.
Velocity feedback boosts transfer
Weakley 2019 — 4 weeks of augmented velocity feedback in rugby union players. Feedback group beat the no-feedback group on every test, including a peak-power loss the no-feedback group couldn't avoid.
Load–velocity and power curves
Linear LV profile (descending) and parabolic power curve (peaking mid-load) overlaid on the same load axis, dual y-axes. Shows why peak power lives between heavy strength loads and light speed loads.
How cluster sets break up a set
Four cluster-set protocols (4×5, 7×3, 10×2, 20×1) drawn to scale on a 10-minute session timeline. All four equate to ~20 reps at the same %1RM but distribute them very differently.
Intended vs actual velocity
Behm & Sale 1993 — a limb strapped down so it couldn't move, training with the intent to move fast, gained just as much high-speed strength as the limb that actually moved fast.
Intent cueing vs traditional cueing
Rheese 2021 — 3 weeks of knee-extension training at a fixed 30°/s. Cueing high intended velocity produced no neural or performance advantage, and less than half the power gain of a steady-and-controlled cue.
Power vs 1RM as a predictor
Loturco 2018 — bar power correlated more strongly with jump and sprint performance than 1RM squat on every test, and on the 5 m sprint the 1RM relationship was negative.
Power output by exercise
Baker 1995 — estimated power output at 100 % 1RM across five exercises for one 75 kg athlete. The hang pull and power clean produce 3–9 times the watts of the squat, deadlift and bench press.
Fatigue: max force vs peak RFD
D'Emanuele et al. 2021 — across four individual studies and 43 pooled strength studies, fatigue cuts peak rate of force development further than it cuts maximal force. Max force −8 % to −23 %, peak RFD −11 % to −30 %.
Bands vs chains for strength and power
Yan 2025 — a squat-only meta-analysis of 20 studies. Elastic bands drove maximal strength (g = 0.67) while chains did nothing; chains drove explosive power (g = 0.37) while bands did nothing.
Variable vs traditional resistance
Yan 2025 — a squat-only meta-analysis of 20 studies. Variable resistance beat constant resistance on strength, acute output and jumping, and did nothing for sprinting.
Power vs strength + power
Cormie 2007 — 12 weeks of jump squats, matched for total work. Adding 3×3 back squats at 90 % 1RM produced the same jump and power gains as power-only training, plus everything the power-only group failed to gain.
Power cycle anchor loads
A load–power curve marked with the three loads a 16-week power cycle works across — 92.5 % for overspeed, 100 % for max power, 107.5 % for overload — read as percentages of the load that produces peak watts.
Squat depth and power transfer
Rhea 2016 — 28 highly trained athletes, 16 weeks, identical programs bar squat depth. Quarter squats put 15 % on the vertical jump and 2 % on the 40; full squats put on 1 % and nothing.
Ballistic power vs heavy strength
Cormie 2010 — 24 relatively weak men, 10 weeks, jump squats at 0–30 % 1RM versus back squats at 75–90 % 1RM. Jump and sprint improved the same in both groups. Squat 1RM went up 31 % versus 4.5 %.
Strength vs power with age
Skelton 1994 — 50 healthy men aged 65–89. Across the age bands isometric strength falls to 71 % of the 65–69 value while leg extensor power falls to 38 %. Power declines at roughly double the rate.
RFD recovery after ACL
Angelozzi 2012 — 44 athletes tested before injury and at 6 and 12 months after ACL reconstruction. At 6 months maximal strength was back to 97 % of pre-injury while rate of force development sat at 80 % and 63 %.