Velocity-Based Training and The Emperor’s New Clothes

TL;DR

Velocity-Based Training (VBT) is not nonsense.

Bar velocity can be measured. Good devices can measure it reasonably well. Velocity loss can provide useful information about fatigue and performance, and there are legitimate applications for velocity feedback—particularly in high-level athletic environments.

But here's the question I keep coming back to:

Does measuring something make it necessary to measure?

And that's where I think VBT sometimes begins to resemble the story of The Emperor's New Clothes.

We have taken something that can be measured—bar velocity—and built an increasingly elaborate training philosophy around it. We now have devices, apps, velocity zones, velocity-loss thresholds, algorithms, readiness scores, repetition-to-failure predictions and increasingly sophisticated ways to quantify what a good coach has traditionally been able to observe.

The technology may be impressive.

That doesn't necessarily mean the training decision is better.

The current research does not demonstrate that VBT is universally superior to conventional resistance training. A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis found no meaningful difference between velocity-based and traditional training for strength, power or sprint performance, although the certainty of evidence was low. A 2026 meta-analysis found similar results for maximal strength and sprint performance, while reporting small advantages for jumping and change-of-direction ability.

So let's separate what VBT can measure from what that measurement actually tells us .

The Emperor's New Clothes

Most people know the Hans Christian Andersen story.

An emperor is convinced that he is wearing magnificent clothing. His advisers and subjects go along with the story because nobody wants to admit that they don't see what everyone else claims to see.

Eventually, a child simply says:

I'm not suggesting that VBT is naked.

I'm suggesting that every training technology deserves the same question:

What does this actually add?

That's an important question because the fitness industry has a long history of confusing measurement with usefulness .

If something produces a number, we tend to assume that the number must be valuable.

It isn't.

A number is only useful if it improves a decision.

Velocity Is Real

Let's get something out of the way immediately.

I have no problem with measuring bar velocity.

Velocity is a legitimate biomechanical variable.

And some velocity-monitoring devices have demonstrated reasonable validity and reliability under appropriate conditions. A systematic review of linear position and velocity transducers found that many devices can validly and reliably monitor movement velocity, particularly during controlled, non-plyometric movements. However, accuracy becomes more problematic with certain movement patterns, multiple planes of movement and other testing conditions.

Another systematic review found that the quality of the evidence supporting velocity-monitoring devices is considerably less impressive when more demanding validity and reliability criteria are applied. Of 66 validity studies examined, only five satisfied all of the authors' proposed criteria; only 16 of 56 reliability investigations met their specified statistical thresholds.

That's not an indictment of the technology.

It's simply reality.

The measurement itself has limitations.

And those limitations matter when we're using tiny changes in velocity to make supposedly precise decisions.

Precision Is Not the Same as Accuracy

This is one of the most important concepts in the entire discussion.

Imagine that your device tells you:

0.47 m/s

Then the next repetition:

0.44 m/s

Then:

0.41 m/s

It looks incredibly precise.

Three decimal places!

But precision in the display doesn't necessarily mean precision in the underlying measurement.

If the device has meaningful measurement error, attachment variability, exercise-specific limitations or systematic bias, then those three decimal places can create an illusion of certainty.

That's the technological version of the emperor's clothing.

A highly precise number can still be an imprecise representation of reality.

And even when the number is accurate, we still have another problem.

What Does 0.41 m/s Actually Mean?

Suppose an athlete performs a squat at 0.41 m/s.

What does that tell you?

It tells you something about the velocity of that repetition.

It does not automatically tell you :

• how much muscular tension was produced;
• how much stimulus the target muscle received;
• how close the athlete is to momentary muscular failure;
• how recovered the athlete is;
• whether the exercise is appropriate;
• whether technique is acceptable;
• whether range of motion is sufficient;
• whether the athlete should add weight;
• whether the athlete should stop the set;
• whether the athlete needs more recovery;
• or whether the athlete is actually progressing in a meaningful way.

The number is information.

It isn't the answer.

A coach still has to interpret it.

Velocity Loss Isn't Failure

One of the most popular applications of VBT is velocity loss.

The basic idea is straightforward.

If the first repetition is performed at a certain velocity and later repetitions become progressively slower, the percentage reduction can be used as a marker of fatigue.

For example:

Rep 1: 0.50 m/s
Rep 6: 0.40 m/s

That's a 20% velocity loss.

The coach might establish a predetermined velocity-loss threshold—perhaps 10%, 20% or 30%—and terminate the set when the athlete reaches it.

There is legitimate science behind this approach.

Research consistently shows that larger velocity losses generally produce greater acute fatigue, greater perceived effort and greater metabolic stress. The exercise, load and individual athlete all influence the relationship.

But here's the critical distinction:

Velocity loss is a measure of velocity loss.

It is not synonymous with muscular failure.

It is not synonymous with stimulus.

And it is not synonymous with "the correct place to stop."

A 2022 review specifically examining methods for determining proximity to failure concluded that the relationship between velocity loss and repetitions in reserve varies according to exercise, loading range and set-to-set conditions.

That should make us cautious about turning a velocity number into a physiological oracle.

The RIR Problem

One of the major selling points of VBT is that it appears to solve the subjectivity of RIR—repetitions in reserve.

Instead of asking:

we supposedly ask the device.

The problem is that the device doesn't actually know how many repetitions you had left.

It knows how fast the bar moved.

Those are different things.

A systematic review published in 2025 examined attempts to predict repetitions to failure from lifting velocity. The researchers found that predictions could be reasonably accurate under fatigue-free conditions, but accuracy deteriorated when athletes were already fatigued, except in highly experienced athletes under certain conditions.

That's an important finding.

Because real training isn't conducted in a laboratory vacuum.

Athletes get tired.

• They train on different days.
• They sleep differently.
• They eat differently.
• They warm up differently.
• They have different levels of motivation.
• They use different exercises.
• They have different technique.

And their performance changes.

That's called being human.

The Human Being Is Not a Spreadsheet

This is where I believe experienced coaching still matters enormously.

Let's say I have trained an athlete for years.

• I know how that athlete moves.
• I know what a good repetition looks like.
• I know what a bad repetition looks like.
• I know how the athlete behaves when fresh.
• I know what happens when fatigue begins affecting technique.
• I know the athlete's normal strength levels.
• I know the athlete's history.
• I know whether today's performance is unusual.
• I know whether the athlete is actually trying.

And I can ask a very simple question:

"How did that feel?"

That information isn't worthless because it doesn't come with three decimal places.

In fact, sometimes it is exactly the information I need.

VBT Doesn't Magically Make Training More Productive

This is perhaps the most important point.

If I put a velocity device on a bar and perform a perfectly mediocre training program, I now have very precise data about a mediocre training program .

Technology doesn't rescue poor programming.

• It doesn't compensate for inadequate exercise selection.
• It doesn't fix poor technique.
• It doesn't create recovery.
• It doesn't create motivation.
• And it certainly doesn't create progressive overload.

The fundamentals remain the fundamentals.

• Exercise selection.
• Resistance.
• Effort.
• Progression.
• Technique.
• Recovery.
• Consistency.

Those things were working long before Bluetooth.

But Doesn't VBT Allow Autoregulation?

Yes.

And this is one of the strongest arguments in favor of VBT.

An athlete's performance can fluctuate from day to day.

A prescribed percentage based on an old 1RM doesn't necessarily reflect what the athlete can do today.

Velocity can provide an objective performance indicator that helps adjust loading.

That's useful.

But here's the interesting part:

VBT is not the only form of autoregulation.

RPE and RIR can also be used.

And a 2025 network meta-analysis comparing autoregulated approaches found no moderate or large effects separating the various approaches for back-squat 1RM, with VBRT ranking below APRE and RPE in that particular analysis.

That doesn't mean RPE is "better."

It means something more interesting:

There is more than one way to autoregulate training.

And the existence of a technological solution doesn't automatically make the non-technological solution obsolete.

Does VBT Produce Better Results?

This is where the marketing often gets ahead of the evidence.

Some studies and reviews report positive effects from VBT.

And that's fair.

VBT works.

But "VBT works" and "VBT works better than good conventional training" are two completely different claims.

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing VBT with traditional resistance training found trivial differences in strength, power and sprint performance, with wide confidence intervals and low or very low certainty of evidence. The authors concluded that there was no evidence that VBT produced different adaptations from traditional resistance training.

More recently, a 2026 meta-analysis of 17 studies involving 348 trained participants found small advantages for VBT in jump performance and change-of-direction ability, but no statistically significant difference in maximal strength or sprint performance compared with percentage-based training.

That's a much more nuanced picture than:

It isn't that simple.

And Then There's the Evidence Quality

Here's something I find particularly interesting.

A 2026 critical appraisal of systematic reviews examining velocity-based resistance training included 17 reviews and 8,222 participants.

The authors reported that 16 of the 17 reviews—94%—were rated as having critically low overall confidence , while only one was rated low.

Read that again.

That's not saying VBT doesn't work.

It's saying that the confidence we should have in the broader body of evidence is much lower than the confidence sometimes conveyed by the marketing surrounding VBT.

That's a very different proposition.

Science doesn't ask:

Science asks:

Those aren't the same question.

The Gadget Can Become the Goal

This is something I have seen repeatedly throughout my career.

A new technology appears.

It produces data.

Coaches become fascinated by the data.

The data becomes part of the training process.

Eventually, the coach begins training the measurement rather than training the athlete.

That's when things get backwards.

The athlete isn't there to produce pretty velocity curves.

The velocity measurement exists to help the athlete.

If the technology improves the decision, great.

If it doesn't, why are we using it?

"But Elite Athletes Use It"

That's true.

Elite athletes use VBT.

Elite athletes also use force plates, GPS, heart-rate monitors, blood testing, motion capture, sleep trackers, lactate measurements, EMG and an enormous amount of other technology.

That doesn't mean every athlete needs all of it.

And here's something people sometimes forget:

Elite athletes are not necessarily the people who need the most technology.

They are often the people who have the most sophisticated coaching environments.

The technology is one tool within a much larger system.

The coach doesn't disappear because a sensor was attached to the bar.

When VBT Makes Sense

I don't want this article to be misunderstood.

There are absolutely situations where I would consider VBT useful.

For example:

1. High-level performance monitoring

When working with highly trained athletes, objective longitudinal data can be valuable.

2. Research

If you're studying movement velocity, having an accurate measurement system is obviously useful.

3. Explosive movements

Velocity feedback can be particularly relevant when the goal itself involves producing force rapidly.

4. Autoregulation

Velocity can provide another objective input when adjusting training loads.

5. Biofeedback

Real-time feedback can sometimes encourage athletes to produce greater effort or intent.

Those are legitimate applications.

My objection isn't:

"Never measure velocity."

My objection is:

"Don't confuse measuring velocity with knowing everything that matters."

What About the "Fastest Rep"?

Another popular concept is using the fastest repetition of a set to estimate things such as load-velocity relationships or repetitions remaining.

Again, there is interesting research here.

But even this has limitations.

Recent research examining velocity-based prediction of repetitions to failure found that prediction accuracy can be acceptable under controlled, fatigue-free conditions but becomes compromised when fatigue accumulates.

That shouldn't surprise anyone who has spent much time actually training people.

The first set of an exercise and the fourth set of an exercise are not necessarily the same physiological event.

Neither is Monday morning and Friday afternoon.

The human organism isn't a machine with a fixed output curve.

The Problem With "More Objective"

VBT is frequently marketed as more objective than traditional coaching.

There is some truth there.

A properly functioning device gives you an objective measurement of velocity.

But the training decision remains subjective .

The coach still decides:

• what velocity matters;
• what threshold matters;
• what exercise matters;
• what load matters;
• when to stop;
• when to continue;
• how much fatigue is acceptable;
• and whether the number should change today's plan.

So we've moved from:

Subjective observation → subjective decision

to:

Objective measurement → subjective interpretation → subjective decision

That's not bad.

It's simply not the revolution some people make it out to be.

The TNT Question

At TNT Strength, I have one question I like to ask about virtually every training tool:

That's not cynicism.

That's quality control.

I've been training people since 1988.

I've worked with world champions, professional fighters, elite tactical personnel, competitive athletes and ordinary people who simply wanted to become stronger.

I have used technology.

I have no philosophical objection to technology.

But I've also watched entire industries become distracted by equipment, gadgets, terminology and measurement systems while forgetting the fundamentals.

Strength training isn't complicated because the human body is simple.

It's complicated because the human body is complicated.

Our job is to make training effective , not unnecessarily complicated.

The Emperor's Clothes

So, is VBT the Emperor's New Clothes?

Sometimes.

Not because velocity measurement is fake.

Not because the technology doesn't work.

Not because velocity doesn't correlate with fatigue or performance.

And not because VBT can't be useful.

The problem occurs when we take a useful measurement and turn it into a mythology.

When a barbell moving at 0.42 m/s is treated as though it possesses some magical ability to tell us exactly what the athlete needs to do next, we've crossed that line.

A number isn't knowledge.

A measurement isn't understanding.

And technology isn't coaching.

The Bottom Line

I don't care whether you use a velocity tracker.

If it makes you a better coach, use it.

If it helps you make better decisions, use it.

If you're working with an athlete whose performance genuinely benefits from objective velocity feedback, absolutely use it.

But don't use it because everybody else is using it.

Don't use it because the screen has impressive graphics.

Don't use it because someone tells you that "the future of strength training" requires a sensor on every barbell.

And don't assume that because something is measurable, it is therefore important.

Measure what matters.

And more importantly:

Understand what you're measuring.

I've spent more than three decades watching strength training move through one trend after another.

Some deserved to survive.

Some didn't.

That's why we called this company Truth Not Trends .

At TNT Strength, we're interested in what actually works—not what happens to be fashionable.

Because at the end of the day, the athlete doesn't care how sophisticated your data collection system is.

They care whether they're getting stronger.

And that's still the metric that matters.

F.A.Q.

Is Velocity-Based Training legitimate?

Yes. VBT is a legitimate training and monitoring method. Research supports the ability of many devices to measure bar velocity under appropriate conditions, and velocity-based programming can produce improvements in strength and athletic performance. The question is whether it consistently produces better outcomes than simpler approaches . Current evidence does not establish that it does.

Does bar velocity tell you how close someone is to failure?

Not precisely. Velocity loss is related to fatigue and can provide useful information, but the relationship between velocity loss and repetitions in reserve varies between exercises, loads and individuals.

Is a velocity device more objective than RPE?

The velocity measurement itself can be objective. The interpretation is not. RPE remains subjective, but it can also provide individualized information that a velocity measurement cannot capture.

Does VBT build more strength than traditional Load / Repetition-based training?

The current evidence does not provide a clear universal advantage. A 2022 meta-analysis found no meaningful difference in strength, power or sprint outcomes, while a 2026 meta-analysis found similar maximal-strength and sprint outcomes between VBT and Load / Repetition-based training.

Is velocity loss useful?

Yes. Velocity loss can be useful for monitoring fatigue and controlling the amount of fatigue accumulated within a set. However, different velocity-loss thresholds produce different training effects, and there is no universally correct percentage that applies to every athlete, exercise or objective.

Does VBT eliminate the need for a strength coach?

Absolutely not.

If anything, good VBT requires a coach who understands what the measurement means—and what it doesn't mean.

Should recreational lifters buy a velocity tracker?

Not necessarily. If someone enjoys data and has a legitimate reason to use it, fine. But for most people, I would put the money toward quality coaching, appropriate equipment and actually training consistently.

Is technology bad for strength training?

No.

Unnecessary technology is bad for strength training.

There's a difference.

References:

1. Wang Y, Qiu J, Dai D, et al. (2026). The effects of velocity-based vs. percentage-based resistance training on sports performance in trained individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, 18, 57.
This is one of the most current meta-analyses directly comparing VBT with percentage-based training. It found small advantages for jump and change-of-direction performance but no significant difference in maximal strength or sprint performance.

2. Wannouch YJ, Leahey SR, Ramírez-Campillo R, et al. (2025). A systematic review using a multi-layered criteria framework for assessing the validity and reliability of velocity monitoring devices in resistance training. PLOS ONE, 20(9), e0324606.
Important for understanding the limitations of the measurement technology itself.

3. Varela-Olalla D, del Campo-Vecino J, Balsalobre-Fernández C. (2025). Influence of proximity to failure, relative intensity, and volume on voluntary performance and fatigue symptoms after resistance training: A systematic review. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 39(9), e1129–e1168.
Useful current review of fatigue, effort and proximity-to-failure considerations.

4. González-Badillo JJ, Sánchez-Medina L, et al. / Related velocity-loss literature. The broader body of research demonstrates that increasing velocity loss generally increases acute fatigue and training stress, but the appropriate threshold depends upon the exercise, load and training objective.

5. Refalo MC, Helms E, Robinson ZP, et al. (2023). Influence of Resistance Training Proximity-to-Failure on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.
Important for understanding why "distance from failure" cannot simply be equated with a single velocity-loss number.

6. Banyard HG, Nosaka K, Sato K, Haff GG. (2019). Reproducibility and Repeatability of Five Different Technologies for Bar Velocity Measurement in Resistance Training. Sports, 7(5).
Demonstrates that different technologies have different levels of measurement error and reproducibility.

7. Pérez-Castilla A, et al. (2021). Validity and Effects of Placement of Velocity-Based Training Devices. Sports, 9(9), 123.
A useful comparison of commercially available velocity-monitoring technologies and the influence of device placement.

8. Moreno-Villanueva A, Pino-Ortega J, Rico-González M. (2024). Validity and reliability of linear position transducers and linear velocity transducers: a systematic review. Sports Biomechanics.
A comprehensive review showing that many devices can be valid and reliable while also identifying important limitations according to exercise and movement conditions.

9. Weakley JJS, et al. (2022). Comparison of the effects of velocity-based vs. traditional resistance training methods on adaptations in strength, power, and sprint speed: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and quality of evidence appraisal. Journal of Sports Sciences.
Particularly important because it evaluated not merely whether VBT works, but whether it performs better than traditional resistance training.

10. Banyard HG, et al. (2025). Improving the Use of Lifting Velocity to Predict Repetitions to Failure: A Systematic Review.
Important evidence regarding the limitations of using velocity to predict repetitions remaining, particularly when fatigue is present.

TAKU's NOTE:

Don't confuse data with information, information with knowledge, or knowledge with wisdom.

A velocity tracker can give you data.

A good coach turns data into information.

Experience turns information into knowledge.

And wisdom is knowing when you don't need the damn gadget in the first place.

Everything Becomes Easier The Stronger You Are.

— Liam "TAKU" Bauer
President & Co-Owner, TNT Strength
Truth Not Trends