VBT in sprinters: more strength and more sprint than traditional training

Updated on 26 de June de 2026 by Adrián Escobar Morales

Velocity-based training (VBT) produces greater improvements in sprint, maximal strength, and change of direction than fixed percentage 1RM training in sprinters. According to the study by Guo et al. (2026) published in Frontiers in Physiology, 6 weeks of squatting with VBT improved the 20m sprint by 3.7% compared to 1.6% with traditional training — more than double the improvement with the same volume, the same exercise and the same relative intensity.

Key findings of the study (Guo et al., 2026)

• VBT improved 20m sprint 3.7% vs 1.6% of training by percentage (p = 0.045)
• VBT improved 1RM squat 16.4% vs 11.5% (p = 0.003)
• VBT improved change of direction 3.2% vs 1.5% (p = 0.026)
• There were no significant differences in CMJ or horizontal jump between methods
• Protocol: 5×5 squat at ~80% 1RM (0.54 m/s), 3 sessions/week, 6 weeks
• Participants: 20 university sprinters with a minimum of 1.5× body weight in the squat

Strength training for sprinters has always sparked debate: how much volume? what exercises? what intensity? But there is a question that until recently no one had answered specifically for this population: Does the method of load prescription — VBT or fixed percentage of 1RM — matter for improving sprinting?

A study published in January 2026 in Frontiers in Physiology gives the clearest answer yet. And the data is hard to ignore.

The study: VBT vs fixed percentage in university sprinters

VBT applied to sprinters consists of prescribing strength training loads based on the speed of execution of each repetition, adjusting the load session by session to maintain a target speed that corresponds to the desired 1RM percentage. Unlike fixed percentage training, VBT takes into account daily fluctuations in the athlete’s neuromuscular performance.

Guo et al. (2026) compared two squat training methods in 20 male collegiate sprinters with at least 3 years of strength training experience and a minimum squat 1RM of 1.5 times their body weight. They weren’t beginners — they were strength-based sprinters.

The design was clean: same exercise (Smith machine squat), same volume (5 sets of 5 repetitions), same relative intensity (~80% of 1RM), three weekly sessions for 6 weeks. The only difference was how the load was prescribed:

• VBT Group: load adjusted session by session to maintain an average concentric velocity of 0.54 m/s (equivalent to ~80% 1RM). If the speed varied ±0.06 m/s from the target, the load was adjusted ±5%. If the difference was ≥0.12 m/s, the adjustment was ±10%.
• PBT Group: fixed load at 80% of 1RM measured before the study, without adjustment during the 6 weeks.

Five variables were measured before and after: CMJ, horizontal jump, 20-meter sprint, 1RM squat and agility (T-test).

The results: three variables where the VBT was significantly better

Both groups improved on all variables — that’s to be expected with any structured strength training. But the differences between groups in three variables were statistically significant and with relevant effect sizes:

20 meter sprint: +3.7% vs +1.6%

This is the most important difference of the study. The VBT group improved the 20m sprint by 3.7% (ES = 1.30), while the PBT group improved only 1.6% (ES = 0.51). The difference between groups was significant (p = 0.045, d = 0.96).

For a sprinter who runs the 20 meters in 3.0 seconds, a 3.7% improvement represents a reduction of 0.11 seconds. That of the PBT group represents 0.05 seconds. In athletics, that difference is enormous.

What is most relevant is not only the magnitude of the improvement but the size of the effect: ES = 1.30 in the VBT group is a large effect according to the Hopkins criteria for sports sciences. The PBT group has an ES = 0.51 — moderate. With the same volume, the same relative intensity and the same exercise.

Maximum strength (1RM squat): +16.4% vs +11.5%

The VBT group increased squat 1RM by 16.4% (from 121.8 to 141.5 kg, ES = 1.57) compared to 11.5% in the PBT group (from 126.3 to 140.8 kg, ES = 0.94). The difference was significant (p = 0.003, d = 1.52).

This result runs counter to the usual finding in the literature, where VBT and PBT tend to produce similar strength gains. The authors attribute this to the VBT’s dynamic load adjustment ensuring that each session is performed near the optimal intensity threshold — something the PBT cannot ensure because actual 1RM fluctuates week to week.

Change of direction (T-test): -3.2% vs -1.5%

The VBT group improved the T-test by 3.2% (ES = 0.54) compared to 1.5% in the PBT group (ES = 0.39), with a significant difference between groups (p = 0.026, d = 1.16). For sprinters competing in events involving acceleration and changes of direction, this result has direct application.

CMJ and horizontal jump: no significant differences between groups

Both groups improved the CMJ similarly (VBT: +7.8%, PBT: +6.7%) and the horizontal jump (VBT: +1.0%, PBT: +1.8%), with no statistically significant differences between them. Strength training improves lower body power regardless of the method — that’s consistent with previous evidence.

Why VBT produces better sprint adaptations

The authors propose three mechanisms to explain the superiority of VBT in sprint and maximum strength:

Dynamic adjustment to the actual capacity of the day. 1RM is not stable — it varies session by session depending on accumulated fatigue, sleep, technical training load, and other factors. The PBT group always trained at 80% of a 1RM measured at the beginning of the study. In some sessions that was equivalent to the real 75%; in others, 85%. The VBT group always trained at the speed that corresponded to ~80% true for that day — no matter how much the 1RM had varied.

Greater intention of speed in each repetition. Real-time speed feedback generates a documented motivational effect: athletes who see their speed on the screen tend to apply more effort in each repetition. That intention for maximum speed — even if the load is heavy and the actual movement is slow — generates specific neural adaptations that transfer to sprinting.

Less accumulation of unnecessary fatigue. When the athlete arrives with residual fatigue from a previous session or technical training, the VBT system automatically reduces the load to maintain the target speed. This avoids low-quality sessions that in the PBT would be indistinguishable from the rest — the athlete would simply struggle with the same load in worse conditions, generating more fatigue and less adaptation.

Comparative results table

Variable	VBT (improvement)	PBT (improvement)	Significant difference
Sprint 20m	−3.7% (ES = 1.30)	−1.6% (ES = 0.51)	✓ Yes (p = 0.045)
1RM squat	+16.4% (ES = 1.57)	+11.5% (ES = 0.94)	✓ Yes (p = 0.003)
T-test (agility)	−3.2% (ES = 0.54)	−1.5% (ES = 0.39)	✓ Yes (p = 0.026)
CMJ height	+7.8% (ES = 0.48)	+6.7% (ES = 0.44)	✗ No
horizontal jump	+1.0% (ES = 0.37)	+1.8% (ES = 0.15)	✗ No

What protocol did they use — and how to adapt it

The study protocol is simple and directly applicable:

• Exercise: full squat
• Volume: 5 sets × 5 repetitions
• Target speed: 0.54 m/s average concentric velocity (~80% 1RM)
• Load adjustment: if the speed differs ±0.06 m/s from the target → adjust load ±5%; if it differs ±0.12 m/s → adjust ±10%
• Frequency: 3 weekly sessions on non-consecutive days
• Duration: 6 weeks

The target speed of 0.54 m/s for squat corresponds to approximately 80% of the 1RM according to the González-Badillo and Sánchez-Medina reference profiles. In practice, if the athlete arrives rested and strong, he will move that speed with more load. If you arrive fatigued, you will move it with less. The system adjusts itself.

Limitations to know

The study has two important limitations that the authors explicitly point out. The sample is small — 10 athletes per group — which reduces the statistical power and ability to generalize the results. And the duration is short — 6 weeks — so we don’t know if the differences are maintained or amplified in longer cycles.

That said, the effect sizes are large and the results are consistent with the physiological mechanism that explains them. These are not isolated findings — they align with the trend documented in the meta-analysis by Wang et al. (2025) with 17 studies and 348 participants, who also found significant advantages of VBT in jumping and changing direction.

How to apply it with the ADR Encoder

To accurately implement the study protocol you need to measure the average concentric velocity of each repetition in real time. He ADR Encoder connected to the app ADR System It gives you that data automatically in each repetition — average speed, average propulsive speed and peak speed — without the trainer having to calculate anything manually.

The workflow is straightforward: set the target speed to 0.54 m/s for squat, perform the first reps of the warm-up to see how fast the athlete is moving that day, adjust the load according to the ±5% or ±10% protocol and begin the work sets. The speed of each repetition is automatically recorded in the cloud for later analysis.

Conclusion

The study by Guo et al. (2026) is the first to compare VBT and fixed percentage training specifically in high-level collegiate sprinters. Their conclusions are clear: with the same volume, the same relative intensity and the same exercise, VBT produces significantly greater improvements in 20-meter sprint, maximum squat strength and change of direction in just 6 weeks.

For physical trainers in athletics, soccer, rugby or any sport where sprinting and explosiveness are crucial, this study provides direct evidence that the method of load prescription matters — and that VBT offers concrete and measurable advantages over fixed percentage training.

What you need to know — summary for coaches

• VBT improves sprinting in sprinters more than twice as much as fixed percentage training with the same volume and intensity
• The target squat speed for sprinters at ~80% 1RM is 0.54m/s concentric medium speed
• The load setting is ±5% when the speed differs ±0.06 m/s from the target, and ±10% when the speed differs ±0.12 m/s
• VBT also significantly improves maximum force and change of direction compared to the fixed percentage
• To implement it you need a linear encoder that measures the average concentric speed in real time

Frequently asked questions

Does VBT improve sprinting more than traditional training?

According to the study by Guo et al. (2026) in college sprinters, yes. The VBT group improved the 20m sprint by 3.7% compared to 1.6% in the fixed percentage training group, with the same relative load and the same volume. The difference was statistically significant with a large effect size (ES = 1.30 in VBT vs ES = 0.51 in PBT).

What target speed to use in the squat for sprinters?

The study used a target mean concentric velocity of 0.54 m/s, which corresponds to approximately 80% of the 1RM in the squat according to literature reference profiles. If the actual speed differs ±0.06 m/s from the target, the load is adjusted ±5%; if it differs ±0.12 m/s, the adjustment is ±10%.

Why does VBT improve sprinting more than percentage training?

Mainly because the VBT adjusts the load to the athlete’s actual state each session, ensuring that they always train close to the optimal intensity threshold. Percentage training uses a 1RM measured at a specific time that may be out of date within a few weeks. Additionally, real-time velocity feedback generates greater effort intention in each repetition, producing more favorable neural adaptations for explosive performance.

What encoder to use to implement VBT in sprinters?

You need a device that accurately measures average concentric velocity in real time. The ADR Encoder is the most economical scientifically validated sports encoder on the market, compatible with the free ADR System app that allows you to configure target speeds, monitor speed repetition by repetition and adjust loads immediately.

Literature

1. Guo, H., Zhang, L., Zheng, Z., Liu, C., Chen, F. & Wu, W. (2026). Neuromuscular adaptations to auto-regulated velocity-based versus fixed percentage-based squat training in sprinters. Frontiers in Physiology, 17, 1757046. See study →
2. Wang, Y. 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. See study →
3. Banyard, H.G. et al. (2021). Superior changes in jump, sprint, and change-of-direction performance but not maximal strength following 6 weeks of velocity-based training compared with 1-repetition-maximum percentage-based training. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 16(2), 232–242. See study →
4. González-Badillo, J.J. & Sánchez-Medina, L. (2010). Movement velocity as a measure of loading intensity in resistance training. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 31(5), 347–352. See in PubMed →