Updated on 26 de June de 2026 by Adrián Escobar Morales
If you have been using VBT for some time and estimating the 1RM with the encoder, at some point you will have noticed that the estimate does not always match reality. Sometimes the estimated 1RM is 5 or 10 kg higher than the real one. Other times it goes well for weeks and then suddenly it spikes. The most frequent cause of this error is not in the encoder or the load-speed profile — it is in the minimum technical speed (MVT).
Understanding well what MVT is, why it varies, and how to use it correctly is probably the most important leap in quality that a coach who already uses VBT with some proficiency can make.
Índice
What is the technical minimum speed
The Minimum Technical Velocity (MVT) is the execution speed at which an athlete completes their 1RM — the last possible repetition before failure. It is literally the slowest speed at which that athlete can successfully move a load in that exercise.
Its importance in VBT is critical because it is the anchoring point of the load-speed profile. To estimate 1RM from submaximal loads, the system needs to know how far the velocity can drop — and that point is the MVT. If the MVT you use does not correspond to the athlete’s real one, the entire estimate is shifted.
The good news is that the MVT has a very useful property: it is stable. It does not change whether the athlete gains or loses strength, it does not vary between a submaximal set and a true maximum test, and it does not depend on the percentage of the 1RM used in the warm-up. Izquierdo et al. demonstrated that the speed of the last repetition in sets taken to failure with 60%, 65%, 70% and 75% of 1RM is practically identical — the athlete always “hits bottom” at the same speed regardless of the load.
The main problem: MVT is not universal
Here is the most common mistake in practice. Many VBT trainers and apps use a generic MVT value for all athletes and all exercises. But the MVT varies in two dimensions that are fundamental:
1. Vary between exercises
Each exercise has its own characteristic MVT because it involves different muscles, different ranges of motion, and different activation patterns. The reference values from the literature are very clear in this regard:
| Exercise | Approximate MVT (m/s) |
|---|---|
| bench press | 0.15 – 0.20 |
| Squat | 0.25 – 0.35 |
| Dead weight | 0.15 – 0.25 |
| military press | 0.15 – 0.20 |
| Pronation row | 0.45 – 0.55 |
| hip thrust | 0.25 – 0.35 |
Note the difference between the bench press (0.15-0.20 m/s) and the prone row (0.45-0.55 m/s). If you use the same MVT for both exercises, the error in the 1RM estimate can be huge — up to 15-20 kg in some cases.
2. It varies between athletes
Within the same exercise, MVT is not identical for all athletes. Very advanced powerlifters tend to have lower MVTs — they can “grind” repetitions at extremely slow speeds (0.06-0.10 m/s deadlift) that a less experienced athlete would not be able to complete. This reflects differences in the ability to apply force under high fatigue conditions and in technique under maximum load.
A more explosive athlete or one with less experience in maximum efforts may have an MVT of 0.25-0.30 m/s in the squat while an advanced powerlifter may have 0.18-0.20 m/s in the same exercise. If you apply the same MVT to both, you overestimate the 1RM of the first and may underestimate that of the second.
The optimal MVT: the most recent proposal
In recent years, an interesting concept has emerged in the literature: the Optimal MVT — an individualized value that is not the actual 1RM speed but the speed that minimizes the error between the estimated 1RM and the actual 1RM in a previous calibration session.
Fitas et al. published in 2024 in the International Journal of Sports Medicine that the optimal MVT produces 1RM estimates with an absolute error of 2.8%, compared to 4.9% for the generic MVT and 5.5% for the directly measured individual MVT. This is an interesting development, although the authors point out that the limits of agreement remain wide — around 15 kg — making it difficult to detect small changes in 1RM with individual precision.
The practical conclusion is that optimal MVT improves the estimate but does not make it perfect. It is still a useful approximation, but with margins of error that the coach must be aware of.
Why Most Estimates Overestimate 1RM
The meta-analysis by Greig et al. (2023) that we saw in the article on individualized profiles vs. generics documented that 1RM estimates based on the load-velocity profile tend to overestimate the true value by 3.7% on average. The MVT is the main reason for this systematic overestimation.
Because? Because most systems use a generic MVT which tends to be slightly higher than many athletes’ actual MVT. If the MVT used is higher than real, the system “believes” that the athlete can go slower than they really can, and therefore estimates a higher 1RM than exists.
This explains something that many coaches have experienced: the encoder says that the estimated 1RM is 120 kg, but when the athlete tries 115 kg in a real test, it costs him more than expected or he fails. The MVT was incorrectly calibrated.
How to calibrate the MVT correctly
There are three approaches, from lowest to highest precision:
Option 1 — Use generic values from the literature
Enough to get started and for general monitoring. Use the values from the previous table according to the exercise. The error will be around 5-8% but it is acceptable if the objective is to detect trends, not predict the exact 1RM.
Option 2 — Measure the athlete’s actual MVT
More precise but requires reaching failure in a calibration session. The protocol is simple: choose a submaximal load (70-80% of the estimated 1RM) and perform repetitions to failure with maximum intention of speed in each one. The speed of the last repetition completed is the athlete’s actual MVT for that exercise. With the ADR Encoder This is automatically recorded in the ADR System app.
Option 3 — Optimal MVT (more advanced)
Perform an incremental test up to the actual 1RM in a calibration session. Using the data from that session, calculate which MVT minimizes the error between the actual and estimated 1RM. That value — the optimal MVT — is what you will use in subsequent sessions. Requires a maximum test session, but only once every several months.
The most important instruction: maximum speed intention
Regardless of which MVT you use, there is one factor that affects the accuracy of any estimate that many coaches overlook: the athlete’s speed intention in each repetition.
The load-speed profile only works correctly when the athlete applies the maximum possible intention in each repetition, even if the load is light. If the athlete “goes easy” in the submaximal loads, the recorded speed will be lower than the actual speed and the system will interpret that the load is heavier than it is, inflating the 1RM estimate.
The instruction to the athlete must always be the same: move the load as fast as you can, regardless of the weight on the bar. This is what ensures that the load-speed relationship is reliable and that the MVT is well calibrated.
Conclusion
The MVT is the most important parameter of the VBT and paradoxically the most ignored in practice. An accurate encoder with a poorly calibrated MVT gives worse estimates than a mediocre encoder with a well-tuned MVT. Knowing the reference values per exercise, understanding that they vary between athletes and calibrating periodically is what separates a superficial use of the VBT from a truly precise and useful use for decision making.
Literature
- Fitas, A. et al. (2024). Optimal minimum-velocity threshold to predict one-repetition maximum for the back squat. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 45(12), 923–929. See study →
- Fitas, A. et al. (2024). Average optimal minimum velocity threshold: a practical variable to increase the accuracy of one-repetition maximum estimation during the free-weight back squat. Journal of Sports Sciences, 42(18), 1767–1775. See study →
- Greig, L. et al. (2023). The predictive validity of individualised load-velocity relationships for predicting 1RM: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 53(9), 1693–1708. See study →
- Weakley, J. et al. (2021). Velocity-based training: from theory to application. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 43(2), 31–49. See study →
