VBT vs training by percentage of 1RM: what the science says

Updated on 26 de June de 2026 by Adrián Escobar Morales

It is the most frequently asked question when someone discovers speed-based training: Is it worth it or does it give the same results as continuing to train with 1RM percentages? If you have been programming with %1RM for years and the results are good, does it make sense to change?

The answer is not simple — and that is precisely what makes it interesting. The latest scientific evidence shows that VBT and percentage training are not equivalent in all aspects of performance. Understanding the differences allows you to decide when and for whom it makes sense to use each method.

What is 1RM percentage training and what is its main limitation?

The traditional method is to determine the athlete’s 1RM through a maximum test and prescribe training loads as a percentage of that value — for example, 4 sets of 6 repetitions at 80% of 1RM. It is a simple system, widespread and backed by decades of practice.

Its fundamental problem is that the 1RM It is not a stable value. It varies from session to session depending on rest, accumulated fatigue, nutritional status and dozens of other factors. An athlete whose 1RM squat is 150 kg on Monday may have an actual 1RM of 142 kg on Thursday after a hard session. If you continue training at 80% of 150kg (= 120kg) in that second session, you are actually working at 84-85% of your actual capacity that day — more than the programming indicates.

This causes unintentional overloads, accumulation of fatigue greater than expected and, over time, a mismatch between the prescribed load and the actual load that the athlete is managing. VBT solves this problem directly: since the execution speed reflects the actual relative effort at each moment, the load is automatically adjusted to the athlete’s condition that day.

The most recent meta-analysis: 17 studies, 348 athletes, clear answer

In 2025 it was published in BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation the most complete meta-analysis carried out so far comparing VBT with training by percentage of 1RM. It included 17 studies with 348 participants — more than twice as many as previous meta-analyses on the same topic — and analyzed four performance variables: maximum strength, vertical jump, sprint speed and change of direction.

The results are nuanced but consistent:

Maximum strength: technical tie

In improving 1RM, VBT and percentage training produce similar gains when volume and intensity are equal. The effect size was small and not significant (SMD = 0.21, 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.43, p = 0.06). Put practically: if your only goal is to increase 1RM, both methods work equally well.

This result is important because it dismantles the argument that VBT is “worse for strength.” It is not — it is equivalent, and without the disadvantages of the percentage method.

Vertical jump: significant advantage of VBT

VBT produced significantly greater improvements in vertical jump (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.51, p = 0.03). It is a small difference in absolute terms but consistent in all the included studies — and statistically significant, which is not common in comparisons of strength training methods.

The physiological explanation makes sense: VBT, by prescribing execution speeds and not fixed loads, maintains greater mechanical quality in each repetition — especially in the last repetitions of each series, which in the percentage method are inevitably executed slower and with greater fatigue. This higher quality of execution shines through better in explosive performance tests such as the vertical jump.

Change of direction: significant advantage of VBT

In the ability to change direction, VBT also showed a significant advantage over percentage training. This result is especially relevant for team athletes — football, basketball, rugby, handball — where change of direction is one of the most determining capabilities of performance.

Sprint speed: no significant differences

In linear sprint speed both methods produced similar improvements. This result is consistent with previous evidence and suggests that sprint speed depends more on sprint-specific factors (technique, stride frequency, specific training) than on the method of load prescription in the gym.

Why VBT is superior for explosive performance

The advantage of VBT in jumping and changing direction is not coincidental. It has at least three explanatory mechanisms:

Greater intention of speed in each repetition. The VBT requires moving the load with the maximum speed possible in each repetition. That intention for maximum speed, even if the load is heavy and the actual movement is slow, generates specific neural adaptations — higher frequency of motor unit discharge, better synchronization — that are directly transferred to explosive movements.

Less accumulated fatigue per series. By controlling speed loss as an indicator of fatigue, VBT prevents the last repetitions of each set from being performed under conditions of severe fatigue. These “slow and forced” repetitions of percentage training generate adaptations more oriented toward resistance than power.

Self-regulation of load. An athlete who arrives fatigued trains with a lower effective load that day — without the coach having to guess how much to reduce. This maintains the quality of training even in weeks of high competitive load.

The comparison table: when to use each method

Objective or context	Recommended method	Because
Gain maximum strength (1RM)	Both equivalent	No significant differences in evidence
Improve vertical jump	VBT	Significant advantage in 2025 meta-analysis
Improve change of direction	VBT	Significant advantage in 2025 meta-analysis
Team athletes in season	VBT	Self-regulation according to match fatigue — load adjusted each day
Athletes with high performance variability	VBT	Daily estimated 1RM avoids overloads and underloads
Context without encoder access	RM1 percentage	VBT requires speed measurement — without device not applicable
Beginners with no 1RM history	Both valid	With VBT the initial maximum test is avoided — safety advantage

The advantage that studies do not measure: real-time information

Meta-analyses compare end results — strength gained, jumping improved — but they don’t capture something that every coach values ​​equally: the information you get during training.

With percentage training you know how many kilos are on the bar and how many repetitions the athlete does. With VBT you know all that and also: how fast each repetition moves, how intra-set fatigue evolves, what the estimated 1RM is that day, how the athlete is doing compared to their usual reference and how much they have lost in performance compared to the previous session.

That information allows you to make real-time decisions that percentage training simply doesn’t make possible. It is not only a method of prescribing loads — it is also a system for continuous monitoring of the athlete’s condition.

Do I need an encoder to train via VBT?

Technically, VBT can be applied with any device that reliably measures speed — linear encoders, accelerometers, mobile apps. But accuracy and comfort vary greatly between options.

He ADR Encoder is a scientifically validated sports linear encoder — the most economical on the market with validation published in high-impact magazines. Connected via Bluetooth to the free app ADR System, measures in real time the average speed, average propulsive speed and peak speed of each repetition, estimates the daily 1RM, controls the intra-set speed loss and stores the complete history of each athlete in the cloud.

In practice, having an accurate encoder is what makes VBT truly applicable on a day-to-day basis — not as a one-time experiment but as a continuous training and monitoring system.

Conclusion

The evidence from the most recent meta-analysis is clear: VBT is not inferior to percentage training on any performance variable, and is significantly superior in vertical jump and change of direction. At maximum strength both methods produce equivalent gains.

But the real advantage of VBT goes beyond the final results: it is the ability to adjust the load to the athlete’s actual state each day, to control volume precisely through speed loss, and to obtain continuous performance information that percentage training simply does not provide.

If you train athletes who need strength and explosive performance at the same time — and that includes virtually all sports — the evidence clearly points toward VBT as the most comprehensive method available.

Frequently asked questions

Is VBT better than 1RM percentage training?

It depends on the objective. To improve maximal strength (1RM), both methods produce equivalent gains based on the most recent scientific evidence. To improve vertical jump and change of direction, the VBT is significantly superior. For in-season team athletes, VBT offers the additional advantage of adjusting the load to the athlete’s actual state each day.

What is VBT and how does it work?

VBT (Velocity Based Training) is a method that uses the speed of execution of each repetition to prescribe and control the intensity of strength training. Instead of working with a fixed percentage of 1RM, the athlete works with a speed zone that reflects the actual relative effort in each session. To apply it you need a device that measures the speed of the bar in real time, such as the ADR Encoder.

How much does the vertical jump improve with VBT compared to traditional training?

The 2025 meta-analysis (17 studies, 348 participants) found a significant difference in favor of VBT in the vertical jump with an effect size of SMD = 0.27. In practical terms this represents an additional improvement of approximately 1-3 cm in vertical jump compared to percentage training, while maintaining the same total volume and intensity.

Can I combine VBT and 1RM percentage training?

Yes, and many physical trainers do it. A common strategy is to use VBT for the main exercises (squat, bench press) where self-regulation of loads has more impact, and maintain fixed percentages for accessory exercises where precision is less critical.

What encoder to use to start with VBT?

The ADR Encoder is the most economical scientifically validated linear encoder on the market. Includes the free ADR System app with all VBT features: daily 1RM estimation, speed loss monitoring, cloud history and unlimited athlete management without subscription.

Literature

1. Wang, Y. et al. (2025). 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. See study →
2. Liao, K.F. et al. (2021). Effects of velocity based training vs. traditional 1RM percentage-based training on improving strength, jump, linear sprint and change of direction speed performance: a systematic review with meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 16(11), e0259790. 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. Jukic, I. et al. (2023). The acute and chronic effects of implementing velocity loss thresholds during resistance training: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and critical evaluation of the literature. Sports Medicine, 53, 177–214. See study →