4 Strength Training Programming Models with VBT: Which One to Choose?

Updated on 26 de June de 2026 by Adrián Escobar Morales

When designing a strength training cycle, one of the most important decisions is how to organize the intensity and volume over the weeks. Do you increase the load progressively? Do you vary it every day? Do you keep it constant?

There are four classic programming models, and for years the debate over which is most effective has generated more opinion than evidence. A recent study using velocity-based training (VBT) has a surprising — and very practical — answer.

Periodizing vs. scheduling: an important distinction

Before entering into the models, it is worth clarifying two terms that are used interchangeably but mean different things (Cunanan et al., 2018):

• Periodize It is the macro-organization of training: deciding how much time is dedicated to each phase (hypertrophy, maximum strength, power) in relation to the competition.
• Program It is the micro-organization: how intensity, volume, frequency and density are distributed within each phase.

This article focuses on programming — specifically how to organize loading week by week within a VBT strength training block.

The 4 strength training programming models

The study by Riscart-López and collaborators (2021) compared four programming models for 8 weeks, with 2 weekly full squat sessions. All groups worked with a average intensity of 67.5% of 1RM and one 20% maximum speed loss per set — that is, the total volume and intensity was identical in all groups. The only thing that changed was how those loads were distributed throughout the sessions:

1. Linear programming

The intensity progressively increases week by week as the volume decreases. It is the most classic and well-known model: you start with lighter loads and many repetitions, and you end with maximum loads and few repetitions. Intuitively it seems the most logical to gain strength, but as we will see, it has no advantage over the others.

2. Reverse programming

Unlike the linear one: the volume increases progressively as the intensity decreases. Less common, but useful in certain contexts, especially when you want to accumulate volume of work towards the end of the block.

3. Wave programming

The intensity and volume fluctuate from session to session, alternating high intensity/low volume days with low intensity/high volume days. It is the model that best adapts to the daily variability of the athlete’s performance.

4. Constant programming

The relative intensity is keeps fixed (67.5% RM) throughout the block. However, the absolute load in kg is adjusted each session to keep that percentage constant — because with adaptations to training, the 1RM increases and you have to increase the kilos to continue at the same %RM. This is where VBT is essential: without measuring speed, it would be impossible to know when to adjust the load.

Study result: all 4 models work equally well

The main finding of the study is clear: all groups improved similarly in all the variables analyzed — 1RM in the squat, speed with all loads, vertical jump (CMJ) and 20-meter sprint time.

The authors’ conclusion is direct: when relative intensity and volume are equivalent, the programming model does not significantly influence the final result. All four models are equally effective at improving performance.

What does this mean in practice? The freedom to choose

This result may seem disappointing at first glance — why debate models if they all work the same? But in reality it is a excellent news for coaches, because it removes the pressure of finding the “right” model and shifts the focus to what really matters: control the actual intensity and effective volume of each session.

The study itself emphasizes that this was only possible because the execution speed was recorded in all repetitions. Without that objective control, the groups would not have had the same actual intensity or the same effective volume — and the results would have been different and difficult to compare.

When to use each model? Practical guide

If all models produce similar results, the choice should be based on contextual factors of the athlete and the time of the season:

Use linear programming when…

• The athlete is beginner or intermediate and needs simple, predictable progression.
• There is a clear competition at the end of the block and you want to arrive with the greatest intensity possible.
• The athlete responds well to gradual progression and tolerates the increased load well.

Use ripple programming when…

• The athlete has a dense competitive calendar and performance varies greatly from session to session.
• You want to train different qualities (strength, power, speed) within the same block.
• The athlete becomes bored or stagnant with the monotony of linear progression.

Use constant scheduling when…

• You have access to a sports encoder to adjust the load in each session according to the estimated 1RM of the day.
• The athlete has a high daily variability in performance — very marked good days and bad days.
• You want the most individualized model adapted to the real state of the athlete in each session.

Use reverse programming when…

• The block starts with high accumulated fatigue (for example, after a competition) and you need to start with high loads and low volume so as not to overload.
• You want to accumulate workload towards the end of the block as a progressive overload strategy.

The key role of VBT in any programming model

The most important fact that this study reveals is not which model to choose, but why all models worked equally well: because in all groups the speed of execution in each repetition was controlled.

This allowed two fundamental things:

• Estimate 1RM daily with a submaximal load, ensuring that the programmed percentages corresponded to the actual intensity of that day — not that of the initial test weeks ago.
• Control the nature of the effort with a speed loss threshold of 20%, guaranteeing that all subjects had the same RIR and degree of fatigue regardless of the number of repetitions performed.

Without measuring speed, the four models would have produced different actual intensities and volumes between subjects, making comparison impossible. VBT isn’t just a way to program — it’s the tool that makes any programming model work accurately.

If you want to apply any of these models with the same rigor as in the study, the ADR Encoder It allows you to record the speed of each repetition in real time and estimate the 1RM at the beginning of each session. The app ADR System It automatically calculates intra-set speed loss and notifies you when you reach the configured threshold, so that volume and intensity control is objective and consistent regardless of the model you use.

Conclusion

The evidence is clear: There is no programming model superior to the others when relative intensity and volume are equivalent. Linear, reverse, undulating and constant produce similar improvements in strength, speed, vertical jump and sprint.

The most important practical implication is not which model to choose, but to ensure that the chosen model is executed accurately — and that is only possible by controlling the speed of execution on each repetition. The model matters less than the quality of the load control.

Literature

Los siguientes estudios respaldan los datos y conclusiones de este artículo sobre modelos de programación del entrenamiento de fuerza con VBT:

1. Riscart-López, J. et al. (2021). Effects of Four Different Velocity-Based Training Programming Models on Strength Gains and Physical Performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. See study →
2. Cunanan, A.J. et al. (2018). The General Adaptation Syndrome: A Foundation for the Concept of Periodization. See study →

Adrián Escobar Morales