Programming with VBT
Translating bar-speed data into actual training plans: sets, reps, loads, and the day-to-day adjustments that follow.
Programming with VBT is the discipline of using bar-speed data — both prescriptive (target velocities) and descriptive (measured velocities) — to drive the actual load on the bar. It’s a small, specific change to traditional periodisation that compounds: programs become self-correcting session-to-session instead of frozen against a 6-week-old 1RM.
What it changes about a program
In order of how often they show up:
- Loads follow the velocity, not the percentage. Instead of pinning a working set to a fixed percentage, you pin it to a target velocity and let the load be whatever produces that speed today. On a recovered day the bar gets heavier; on a flat day it gets lighter. The training stimulus equalises across days that would otherwise differ. (Velocity targets come from the velocity zone you’re training, read against the athlete’s own profile.)
- Volume is capped by fatigue, not by rep counts. Instead of a fixed rep target, you run sets to a velocity-loss cutoff. Fresh athletes get the volume; tired athletes don’t accumulate damage.
- Block transitions read from the data. When the load–velocity profile flattens (slope decreases), the block has produced its adaptation; move on. When it doesn’t, the block needs another week.
The shift from %1RM to velocity targets
%1RM is a forecast — a load that should produce a particular effort if the 1RM is current and the athlete is on a normal day. Velocity targets are a measurement — the load that did produce the targeted effort, today, with this body.
Both are useful. %1RM is faster to write and easier for new lifters to follow; velocity targets self-correct for readiness and don’t require recent maxing. Most experienced coaches blend the two: %1RM as the planning tool, velocity targets as the in-session enforcement.
Where %1RM still wins
VBT-driven programming isn’t always the right tool. Where staying with percentages is the cleaner call:
- High-rep accessory work. A lateral raise’s load is too light for velocity to read well, and the precision isn’t worth the data-collection overhead.
- Athletes without a stable velocity profile. New lifters and athletes returning from injury often have noisy velocity data — their profile shifts week-to-week as technique stabilises. Use percentages until the profile holds.
- Skill-dominant lifts. Olympic lift technique work (skill rep counts at moderate loads) is about quality, not load. Velocity is downstream of skill on these; chase the technique, not the number.
Looking for the protocol? Turning these principles into a worked program — block layout, target velocities, the day-to-day adjustments — is its own write-up.
Applications and example uses of velocity based training (VBT)
Articles in this topic
Does velocity-based training actually make you stronger?
Machines vs free weights for strength and power: Which is better?
You're probably overcomplicating velocity-based training
Analysing a single rep - VBT metrics use case
Adapting Dan John's rule of ten to velocity based training
Henneman's Size Principle explained - How it can help your lifting
Charts in this topic
Load–velocity profile
The load-vs-speed function for a given lift and athlete. Plot a few sub-maximal sets and you can read 1RM from the line, compare lifts side-by-side, and see why a single percentage of 1RM lands different athletes in different velocity zones.
Bar velocity drops across a set
Per-rep velocity loss for a single working set. The cutoff line marks where the set should end.
RPE × reps table
Percentage of 1RM at every RPE × rep combination. Coaches use it forward (load → effort) and backward (effort → load), in both directions every session.
Bryan Mann's 5 velocity zones
The canonical 5-zone velocity model. Mean concentric bar speed maps to a dominant training quality across the 0.00–2.00 m/s range.
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.
Minimum velocity threshold by lift
Minimum velocity threshold values for back squat, front squat, bench, all three deadlifts, barbell row, and overhead press — by training level (novice / elite) and by effort tier (max out / tough / moderate).
20% velocity loss maximises strength
Pareja-Blanco 2017 — squat 1RM gains scale with the velocity-loss cap inside each set. Strength response peaks around 20 % v-loss, then drops as fatigue overruns adaptation.
VBTcoach 3-zone model
A simplified velocity-zone model defined on the % 1RM axis. Three load bands — Speed, Power, Strength — instead of Mann's five velocity-axis zones.
VBT has better results than %s
Vasiljevic 2024 — velocity-based training out-performed percentage-based on every test, including 1RM squat, 1RM bench, squat jump, and countermovement jump.
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.
Cluster sets boost strength gains
Akhil Samson 2018 — cluster sets out-performed traditional sets on every compound lift tested over 8 weeks — bench, shoulder, row, sumo squat, back squat, calf raise.
Cluster sets sustain bar speed
Tufano 2016 — cluster set training (3×5×2 with intra-set rest) maintains mean concentric velocity across all 36 reps; traditional 3×12 sets decline within sets and cumulatively across sets.
Training to failure slows jump recovery
Gonzalez-Badillo 2016 — jump performance crashed 44 % immediately after a higher-effort squat workout (3×8) and stayed depressed for 48 hours; the lower-effort 3×4 group bounced back inside 6 hours.
Lower velocity loss, better gains
Pareja-Blanco 2016 — training to 20 % velocity loss out-gained 40 % on 1RM, bar velocity, jump, and type-II muscle fibres, while doing significantly less total volume.
Back squat 1RM fluctuates daily
Zourdos 2016 — three trained powerlifters tested daily for 36 days. Day-to-day variation runs ± 3-5 % from the previous day's reading, even with no programmed change in load.
Prilepin's chart
The canonical reps × intensity × session-volume table from Soviet weightlifting research. For each load band, the prescribed reps per set, optimal session total, and acceptable total range.
VBT-adjusted loads beat fixed loads
Muñoz de la Cruz 2023 — six weeks of resistance training with daily VBT-adjusted loads out-gained a fixed-load prescription on every outcome, including strength, jumps, and 30 m sprint metrics.
Individualised VBT beats group loads
Dorrell 2020 — six weeks of VBT, with one group prescribed loads from a shared group-mean profile and the other from each athlete's own load-velocity profile. The individualised group out-gained on every measure.
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.
RPE conversion chart
All four common effort languages on one chart — RPE 5.5–10, RIR 5–0, velocity loss 5–45 %, last-rep velocity 0.52–0.25 m/s. Drop a finger on any row to read across.