Comparison of Velocity-Based and Traditional Strength Training Methods on Physiological and Motoric Parameters in Youth Soccer Players
Phase: NA
Conditions: Athletic Performance, Muscle Strength, Resistance Training
Sponsor: Engin Güneş Atabaş

 
Official Study Title: 
Comparison of Velocity-Based and Traditional Strength Training Methods on 
Physiological and Motoric Parameters 
 
NCT Number: 
Not yet assigned 
 
Document Type: 
Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan 
 
Document Date: 
30 December 2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Comparison of Velocity-Based and Traditional Strength Training Methods on 
Physiological and Motoric Parameters 
Engin Güneş Atabaş1 *, Ayşegül Yapıcı2, Gülin Fındıkoğlu Ergin3, Bilal Utku 
Alemdaroğlu2 
1Pamukkale University Sports Sciences and Technology Research and Application 
Center, Denizli, Turkey 
2Pamukkale University Faculty of Sports Sciences, Denizli, Turkey 
3Pamukkale University Faculty of Medicine, Denizli, Turkey 
* Corresponding Author 
Engin Güneş Atabaş 
Pamukkale University Sports Sciences and Technology Research and Application Center, 
Denizli, Turkey 
e-mail: gatabas@pau.edu.tr 
Abstract 
Background Traditional resistance training (TRT) often relies on repetitions to failure, 
which may induce excessive fatigue and impair neuromuscular performance in athletes. 
Velocity-based training (VBT) offers an alternative by monitoring repetition velocity to 
prescribe volume. This study compared the effects of VBT with different velocity loss 
thresholds against TRT on physical performance and muscle adaptations in young soccer 
players. 
Methods Twenty-four young male soccer players (age: 16.25 ± 0.53 years) were 
randomized into three groups: 10% velocity loss (VL10), 20% velocity loss (VL20), and 
traditional training to failure (TRD). Over a 6-week period, all groups performed squats, 
hip thrusts, and deadlifts twice weekly at 80% 1RM. Pre- and post-intervention 
assessments included 5-10-20 m sprints, countermovement jump (CMJ), zigzag change 
of direction speed, isokinetic muscle strength, and ultrasonographic muscle thickness. 
Results Post-intervention analysis revealed significant improvements in 20 m sprint, 
CMJ, and muscle thickness (rectus femoris and gluteus maximus) across groups (p<0.05). 
Notably, the VL10 and VL20 groups achieved performance gains similar to or greater 
than the TRD group but with significantly lower total training volumes. The VL20 group 
demonstrated the most significant hypertrophic development in the rectus femoris muscle 
compared to other methods. 
Conclusions VBT with low velocity loss thresholds (10-20%) is an effective strategy to 
enhance explosive strength and hypertrophy while minimizing fatigue accumulation 
compared to traditional failure training. Specifically, a 20% velocity loss threshold 
appears optimal for hypertrophy, while 10% is efficient for maintaining power with 
minimal volume. These methods are recommended for in-season training to manage 
fatigue while improving athletic performance. 
Document date: December 30, 2025 

Keywords Velocity based training, athletic performance, muscle hypertrophy, resistance 
training, soccer training

Introduction 
Soccer is an aerobic-based game in which players typically cover long distances (ranging 
from 8.6 km to 14.2 km). However, despite covering short distances at high intensity, one 
of the most critical factors affecting soccer performance and player success is the ability 
to engage in tackling, jumping, rapid changes of direction, and sprint ability (5, 8, 22) 
Therefore, soccer coaches emphasize not only the technical skills of the players but also 
the development of their physical capacities, including muscular strength, speed, and 
endurance (16). One of the key factors for enhancing players' explosive movement ability 
is resistance training (RT), which induces various adaptations, including improvements 
in strength, endurance, power, and hypertrophy. This makes RT a fundamental 
component of the long-term athletic development process. Designing an effective RT 
program for athletes requires careful consideration of multiple variables, such as exercise 
selection and frequency, training load, number of repetitions, overall volume, rest 
intervals, movement velocity, and the number of sets. Among these variables, training 
load and volume are considered the most critical factors influencing the nature and extent 
of both acute and chronic adaptations to RT (12, 23). Traditionally, training load is 
prescribed as a percentage of one-repetition maximum (%1RM), while resistance training 
(RT) volume is adjusted by modifying the total number of sets and/or repetitions 
performed per set. Although this approach is relatively simple and effective, it fails to 
account for physiological and psychological factors that may influence an individual’s 
day-to-day RT performance, as well as the variability in performance between individuals 
(24). Determining training load based on %1RM has a significant limitation: it requires 
either lifting a weight to failure at submaximal loads (direct 1RM estimation) or 
performing multiple repetitions (indirect 1RM estimation) (3). Research indicates that 
these methods can impair neuromuscular performance, even in trained athletes, due to the 
high levels of fatigue they induce (7, 13, 18). A notable issue with traditional strength 
training is the inconsistency in the relationship between percentage, velocity, and time, 
as the velocity associated with the planned %1RM can vary during training (18). Another 
problem is that with the development of technology, traditional methods have difficulty 
in keeping up with it. Alternatively, determining the pace in a strength training is 
recommended to adjust the training intensity from the first repetition (6). For this, trainers 
typically set a specific training load based on an individual’s maximal ability (for 
example, 80% of a max rep). However, athletes are often given a certain number of sets 
and repetitions (for example, 3 sets of 8 reps) according to their training goals. Velocity-
based training (VBT) is a modern approach to resistance training that adapts to variations 
in individual physical conditions and daily readiness (15). By incorporating VBT, 
practitioners can precisely establish velocity loss thresholds (e.g., 10%), enabling them to 
target specific kinetic and kinematic outcomes (10, 18). These thresholds, derived from 
the peak velocity achieved during the first repetition of a training set, provide guidance 
on when to conclude a set (18). This method assists practitioners in assessing both 

velocity decline and the level of neuromuscular fatigue experienced (18). Larger 
thresholds (e.g., 30% compared to 10%) have been linked to enhanced hypertrophic 
responses, as they allow for greater training volume before concluding a set (18). 
Conversely, smaller thresholds (e.g., 10% compared to 30%) are associated with 
improvements in strength and power, alongside reduced neuromuscular fatigue and a 
preference for hypertrophy in type II fibers (10, 18). Recent systematic reviews in soccer 
emphasize that VBT protocols provide real-time feedback that allows for more precise 
regulation of neuromuscular fatigue compared to traditional methods, which is crucial for 
maintaining performance during the competitive season (20). Furthermore, VBT has been 
shown to be superior or equally effective in improving jump and sprint performance while 
significantly reducing the total training volume (26). Although further studies are still 
needed on this type of resistance training (VBT), the repetition until failure method 
implemented in our study has not been used in any previous research. Additionally, the 
expected range of repetitions that can be completed within a training session has not been 
detailed. Recent studies have used 10%, 20%, and 30% velocity loss thresholds during 
VBT prescription (2, 4, 18). The aim of this study was to compare the effects of the 
traditional RT program in which same loading (80% 1TM), without any VT limit, and the 
RT program with the same loading (80% 1TM) but different VL limits (10% and 20%), 
used on changes in strength, physical performance, and ultrasound imaging variables. 
However, previous studies have not examined hypertrophic development and explosive 
strength performance of velocity-based strength training and traditional strength training 
together. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of three strength training 
programs that differ in determining the training load on some physiological and motoric 
characteristics. It was hypothesized that the groups performing velocity loss training 
would show similar improvements in both explosive strength performance and 
hypertrophic development similar to the group performing traditional training, however, 
these improvements would be performed with a much lower volume.  
Methods 
Study Design 
The subjects trained twice a week over a 6-week period, completing a total of 12 sessions. 
Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups based on their relative 1RM: 10% 
velocity loss (VL10), 20% velocity loss (VL20), or a traditional training group (TRD). 
To train subjects’ strength development, participants performed squats, deadlifts, and hip 
thrusts on a Smith Machine (Technogym Selection M953 Multipower) (14). Subjects in 
the VL10 and VL20 groups utilized the PUSHBAR mode of the PushBand device (9) 
during each training session, employing the concentric mean velocity (CMV) method. In 
contrast, subjects in the TRD group performed repetitions to failure without the use of 
any device; sets were terminated when they were no longer able to lift the bar. The 
experimental design of this study is depicted in Figure 1. All groups, including the 

velocity-based training groups (VL10 and VL20) and the traditional group (TRD), trained 
with the same relative load (80% 1RM) throughout the program. The VBT groups 
controlled their training by monitoring the lifting velocity of the first repetition using 
PushBand device (Push Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada) device however they differed in the 
velocity loss threshold reached during each exercise set. PushBand was securely attached 
to the training bar, and the concentric mean velocity (CMV) values recorded for each lift 
were transmitted via Bluetooth to a smartphone running the Push application. The 
subjects' height, body mass, sprint times over 5, 10, and 20 meters (T5, T10, T20), 
countermovement jump (CMJ) height, zigzag change of direction (COD) speed, 
ultrasonographic imaging measurements, and isokinetic muscle strength were assessed. 
Subjects were instructed to abstain from any additional resistance training during the 
study period. All three groups were tested both before and after the 6-week training 
intervention. Additionally, all subjects completed a specific warm-up protocol before the 
field tests. Throughout the intervention period, participants were monitored for any 
training-related adverse events or injuries by the research team during all training and 
testing sessions. 
One Repetition Maximum Protocol 
Subjects completed 1RM testing back squat using methods described previously. 
Participants performed a standardized warm-up followed by five repetitions at ~50% 
1RM, three repetitions at ~70% 1RM, and two repetitions at ~80% 1RM (17). Thereafter, 
participants performed 1RM attempts with progressively increased loads. Participants 
were monitored continuously by a member of the research team. To perform squats, 
participants were instructed to squat with their feet shoulder-width apart until their thighs 
were parallel to the floor and then return to the starting position. To perform deadlift, 
participants were instructed to stand with their feet shoulder-width apart, knees bent at 
90°, backs straight, and the bar resting on the vertical guide support just below their knees. 
To perform hip thrust, participants started in a seated position within the designated squat 
rack with the upper back against a hip thruster bench (smith machine) allowing the 
inferior angle of the scapula to sit just above it.  The hands were instructed to be placed 
at a comfortable position on the barbell, in a supinated grip, providing the ability for the 
subject to stabilize the bar while keeping the shoulders in an externally rotated position. 
A maximum of five attempts were permitted and the last successful lift was taken as the 
1RM (17). 
 
Fig. 1 Experimental study design CMJ = countermovement jump; COD = change of 
direction; RM repetition maximal; wk = week. 
Subjects 
Twenty-four young male soccer players (Table 1) in the U17 age category volunteered to 
participate in this study (mean ± SD: VL10, n = 8; age: 16.2 ± 0.5 years; height: 177.7 ± 

5.6 cm; body mass: 66.1 ± 6.5 kg; VL20, n = 8; age: 16.5 ± 0.6 years; height: 176.9 ± 4.5 
cm; body mass: 67.1 ± 4.4 kg; TRD, n = 8; age: 16.2 ± 0.4 years; height: 177.5 ± 3.1 cm; 
body mass: 66.8 ± 7.1 kg; soccer training experience: 6.5 ± 0.6 years). All subjects were 
members of a Turkish first division youth team competing in an elite academy league. 
They participated in 90-minute training sessions five days per week and played official 
matches on weekends. All subjects had a minimum of 2 years of weight-training 
experience as part of their team training program. Only subjects without musculoskeletal 
injuries or other health issues were included in the study. The initial 1RM strength values 
were as follows: squat, 149.3 ± 11.4 kg; deadlift, 100.2 ± 5.1 kg; and hip thrust, 185.4 ± 
17.8 kg. Only subjects who completed all training sessions were included in the statistical 
analysis. All subjects and their parents were informed about the research procedures, 
requirements, potential benefits, and risks before providing written informed consent. The 
study was conducted in accordance with institutional ethical guidelines for human 
experimentation and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Sample size was 
determined based on feasibility and previous studies conducted in elite youth soccer 
populations using similar training interventions. Given the controlled training 
environment and the limited availability of elite U17 players within a single competitive 
team, a total of 24 participants was considered sufficient to detect meaningful within- and 
between-group changes in performance and muscle-related outcomes, as supported by 
prior velocity-based training research. 
 
Table 1 Descriptive characteristics of subjects. 
 
Procedures 
5-10- and 20-m Sprint Test: The players performed 2 times 5-10-20m sprints. Sprint 
performance was measured using timing gates (Newtest, Oy, Finland) positioned at 5m., 
10m., and 20m from the start line in an outdoor field. There was a recovery period of 3 
minutes between the 20m sprints. The shortest time taken to cover the 5-10-20m distance 
in the sprint test was used in the data analysis.  
Vertical Jump Test: After sprint performances, countermovement jump performance was 
assessed using a small pressure-sensitive contact mat (Smart Speed; Fusion Sport, 
Brisbane, Australia) in an indoor sports hall. During the testing, the players were asked 
to keep their hands on their hips to prevent any influence of arm movements on the CMJs 
and to avoid coordination as a confounding variable in the assessment of the leg extensors. 
Each player performed 2 maximal CMJs with 30-second recovery time. The players were 
asked to jump as high as possible; the highest jump was then recorded in centimeters. 
Zigzag Change of Direction Speed Test: The zigzag change-of-direction (COD) test was 
conducted on an outdoor court and consisted of four 5-meter sections (totaling 20 meters 
of linear distance). The course was marked with cones set at 100° angles, requiring the 
athletes to decelerate and accelerate as quickly as possible around each cone. Each athlete 

performed two maximal attempts, with a 5-minute rest interval between attempts. Starting 
from a standing position, with the front foot placed behind the first pair of timing gates 
(Smart Speed, Fusion Equipment, Brisbane, Australia) positioned at the starting line, the 
athletes were instructed to complete the test as quickly as possible. The test ended upon 
crossing the second pair of timing gates, placed 20 meters from the starting line. The 
fastest time from the two attempts was recorded for further analysis. To evaluate each 
athlete’s ability to effectively utilize linear speed during a COD task-given that 180° turns 
are less commonly performed during sport-specific actions in team sports-an adapted 
COD deficit calculation was employed, as previously described in the literature. The 
COD deficit was calculated using the following formula: COD deficit = 20m linear 
velocity - zigzag test velocity 
Muscle Ultrasonography: Measurements were performed in the afternoon after 
participants rested supine for 15 minutes. Muscle thickness was assessed with a B-mode 
ultrasound (GE Logiq E9, 9-MHz linear probe) using a water-based gel (Aquasonic-100). 
The probe was positioned at a 90-degree angle with minimal pressure. A trained specialist 
conducted measurements at these sites: Quadriceps: Midpoint between the anterior 
superior iliac spine and patella. Gluteus Maximus: Distance from the ischial tuberosity to 
the skin-fat interface. Gastrocnemius: Thickest point at the proximal one-third of its 
length. Vastus Intermedius: Midpoint of the anterior thigh beneath the rectus femoris. 
 
Fig. 2 Muscle Ultrasonography Imaging 1 = Rectus femoris ve Vastus Intermedialis 
muscle thickness; 2 = Gluteus maximus muscle thickness; 3 = Gastrocnemius muscle 
thickness 
Isokinetic Muscle Strength: Lower limb strength was assessed using an isokinetic 
dynamometer (HUMAC-NORM, Model 770). The protocol included: Quadriceps: 
Concentric contractions at 60°/s and 180°/s. Hamstrings: Eccentric contractions at 60°/s. 
Gluteus Maximus: Concentric contractions at 30°/s. Participants performed five trial 
repetitions with a 1-minute rest, followed by five maximal effort repetitions. The trunk, 
pelvis, thigh, and tested leg were secured, while the non-tested leg was stabilized. A 3-
minute passive rest was provided between sets. The highest peak torques (Nm) from each 
contraction type were recorded as outcomes. 
 
Statistical Analyses 
All data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). The normality of distribution 
was verified using the Shapiro-Wilk test (p<0.05). Within-group (pre- vs. post-training) 
comparisons were conducted with paired t-tests, while between-group differences in 
training effects were examined using a one-way ANOVA. When significant main effects 
were identified, Bonferroni post hoc tests were applied to determine pairwise differences. 
Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. Effect sizes (ESs) were computed for significant 

outcomes to estimate the magnitude of differences and were interpreted following the 
established thresholds for highly trained populations: <0.25 (trivial), 0.25–0.50 (small), 
0.50–1.00 (moderate), and >1.00 (large). 
 
This study is reported in accordance with the CONSORT guidelines. 
 
Table 2 Characteristics of the squat, deadlift, and hip-thrust training program performed 
by each group 
 
 
Results 
 
Table 3 Comparison of Training Effects 
 
Considering the results of the ANOVA, significant differences in training effects between 
groups were observed in the 20 m sprint time, countermovement jump height, rectus 
femoris muscle thickness, and the concentric peak isokinetic force of the knee extensor 
muscle at angular velocities of 60°/s and 180°/s (p<0.05) (Table 3). No significant 
differences were observed in the 5 m sprint time, 10 m sprint time, zig-zag change of 
direction time, vastus intermedius, gluteus maximus, and gastrocnemius muscle 
thicknesses, the concentric peak isokinetic force of the gluteus maximus muscle at an 
angular velocity of 30°/s, or the eccentric peak isokinetic force of the hamstring muscle 
at an angular velocity of 60°/s (p>0.05) (Table 3). 
Table 4 Changes in variables from pre- to post-training for each group 
Considering the results of the Paired T-test, positive improvement was observed in the 
values of all groups except for 5m sprint time in VL10 group, 20m sprint time and zig-
zag change of direction speed time in TRD group (Table 4) It was found that the groups 
performing 10% and 20% velocity loss training showed similar improvements in both 
explosive force performance and hypertrophic development similar to the group 
performing traditional training, but they made these improvements with much lower 
volume.  
No training-related adverse events or injuries were reported in any of the groups during 
the intervention period. 
Discussion 
Upon reviewing the literature, this study is the first to simultaneously examine explosive 
strength, muscle strength, and hypertrophic development by comparing velocity-based 
strength training (VBT) with traditional strength training (TRD). In this study, sprint 
performance, countermovement jump height, and change of direction time were evaluated 
as indicators of explosive strength performance. While no significant differences were 
observed in performance outcomes between the VBT and TRD methods, the VBT method 
was associated with a lower training volume. Notably, athletes achieved comparable or 

even greater improvements in performance and development with the VBT method, 
despite completing fewer repetitions. According to the hypertrophic outcomes of three 
different training methods, isokinetic strength and ultrasonographic measurements were 
conducted in this study to evaluate strength and determine changes in muscle 
hypertrophy. When numerical increases in hypertrophic results were analyzed, it was 
observed that the VL20 group showed greater improvements in rectus femoris and vastus 
intermedius muscle thickness compared to the other two groups. The greatest 
improvement in the gluteus maximus muscle was observed in the VL10 group, while the 
highest development in the gastrocnemius muscle was found in the TRD group. When 
comparing training methods between groups, it can be concluded that the VL20 training 
method is more effective for hypertrophic increases. Differences in muscle hypertrophy 
after strength training are influenced by various factors, such as training methods, 
volume, and muscle activation. The hypertrophic differences observed in this study are 
hypothesized to stem from the potential persistence of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (an 
increase in the volume of non-contractile muscle cell fluid, i.e., sarcoplasm).  
The VL10 group performed the lowest training volume (number of repetitions: squat = 
147.50; deadlift = 137.62; hip thrust = 144.12). The VL20 group completed more 
repetitions than the VL10 group (number of repetitions: squat = 270.50; deadlift = 232.62; 
hip thrust = 290.75). The TRD group performed the highest training volume among all 
groups (number of repetitions: squat = 386.50; deadlift = 303.12; hip thrust = 468.75). 
According to the results of this study, when planning hypertrophy training, the number of 
repetitions does not appear to have a linear relationship with the development of 
hypertrophy. Considering these findings, it can be said that velocity-based strength 
training is a more effective method for hypertrophy and muscle strength development 
than traditional methods. In the literature, studies examining hypertrophy and velocity-
based strength training in athletes are limited. Pareja-Blanco et al. (19) conducted a study 
with 22 male athletes who were divided into two groups. The groups trained for 8 weeks 
using squat movements with 20% and 40% velocity loss. They observed an increase in 
quadriceps muscle volume in both groups, as assessed via ultrasound imaging. Training 
with a 40% velocity loss led to greater hypertrophic development in the vastus lateralis 
and vastus intermedius muscles compared to training with a 20% velocity loss. However, 
no development was observed in the rectus femoris muscle in either group. In contrast, in 
our study, greater development in the rectus femoris muscle was observed in the VL20 
group compared to the other groups. This result may be attributed to the rectus femoris 
muscle being predominantly activated during squat, deadlift, and hip thrust movements. 
Parpucu (20) divided 60 athletes into two groups (concentric [n=30] and eccentric [n=30]) 
and evaluated quadriceps femoris muscle architecture, muscle strength, knee 
proprioception, and functional performance. After 12 weeks of strength training on the 
dominant leg, similar increases in quadriceps femoris muscle architecture, muscle 
strength, knee proprioception, and functional performance were observed in both groups. 
No difference was found in knee concentric force development at an angular velocity of 
60°/s, nor in vastus lateralis muscle thickness. The primary function of the rectus femoris 
muscle is knee extension. In our study, a significant increase in knee concentric force at 
an angular velocity of 60°/s was observed, with the highest development of the rectus 
femoris muscle found in the VL20 group. The improvement in isokinetic peak force 
values in the VL20 group may be due to the hypertrophic development of the rectus 

femoris muscle, which acts as a key knee extensor. Zaroni et al. (25) conducted an 8-
week study with 18 male athletes, dividing them into two groups: one performed split-
body training and the other performed total-body training, five days a week. Vastus 
lateralis muscle thickness was assessed using ultrasound imaging. The total-body group 
trained with a higher load compared to the split-body group. Despite this, the total-body 
group showed hypertrophic increases similar to those of the split-body group. In our 
study, although the TRD group trained with higher volume, the VL10 and VL20 groups 
demonstrated similar hypertrophic developments with significantly lower training 
volumes. Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that the number of 
repetitions in training does not exhibit a linear relationship with hypertrophic 
development. 
According to the performance outcomes of three different training methods, the number 
of repetitions in the squat exercise was 147.50 ± 35.6 in the group that trained with a 10% 
velocity loss, 270.5 ± 45.9 in the group that trained with a 20% velocity loss, and 386.5 
± 58.7 in the group that trained with the traditional method. Additionally, it was found 
that the group training with a 15% velocity loss performed fewer repetitions (251.2 ± 
55.4) than the group training with a 30% velocity loss (414.6 ± 124.9). Despite the lower 
training volume, the group with a 15% velocity loss showed greater improvements. This 
finding aligns with a recent meta-analysis by Zhang et al. (26), which confirmed that VBT 
induces similar strength gains to traditional training but with significantly lower 
mechanical stress. Moreover, Aloui et al. (1) recently demonstrated that in-season VBT 
with moderate velocity loss thresholds (e.g., 15%) yielded superior improvements in 
change of direction and reactive strength index in elite youth soccer players compared to 
traditional failure training, reinforcing the efficiency of submaximal velocity thresholds 
for this population. When the literature is reviewed, Pareja-Blanco et al. (19) observed 
improvements in 30m sprint performance in both groups after 6 weeks of strength training 
using the average velocity method (CMV) with 15% and 30% velocity losses. 
Improvements in countermovement jump performance were also seen in both groups, but 
a significant difference was observed only in the group that trained with a 15% velocity 
loss, whereas no difference was found in the group that trained with a 30% velocity loss. 
In this study, an increase in 10-20m sprint performance was observed in the VL10 and 
VL20 groups, while a decrease was noted in the TRD group. Countermovement jump 
values improved in all three groups. This improvement could be attributed to lower 
fatigue levels or the allowance for strength training at higher velocities. Similarly, 
Jiménez-Reyes et al. (11) trained 24 male athletes for 8 weeks, dividing them into groups 
using the daily load adjustment method and the constant load adjustment method. Both 
groups showed improvements in 10m and 20m sprint performances and 
countermovement jump performance. However, the constant load adjustment group 
demonstrated greater improvements in both countermovement jump and 20m sprint 
performance than the daily load adjustment group. In this study, the groups training with 
a 10% and 20% velocity loss using the PushBand device showed more significant 
improvements in 20m sprint and countermovement jump performance compared to the 
traditional training group. These results suggest that velocity-based strength training is 
more practical and reliable than the traditional method in evaluating performance 
outcomes. This study found that three different training methods improved athletes' 
performance; however, low-volume velocity-based strength training could be an 

alternative to traditional training methods. It is considered that athletes could utilize VBT 
training methods, particularly during the competition period. 
Practical Applications 
Implementing velocity-based strength training (VBT) with low velocity-loss thresholds 
(≈10–20%) at ~80% 1RM enables coaches to elicit comparable—or in some cases 
greater—gains in countermovement jump height, 20-m sprint performance, and knee 
extensor strength than traditional sets to failure, while using markedly fewer total 
repetitions and incurring less fatigue. Practically, prescribe lower-body lifts (e.g., squat, 
deadlift, hip thrust) twice weekly over mesocycles of ~6 weeks and terminate each set 
when concentric mean velocity drops by the pre-set threshold from the first repetition, 
rather than chasing a fixed rep target or failure. Within this framework, a 20% velocity-
loss threshold appears preferable when the goal is hypertrophic adaptation with 
manageable fatigue, whereas 10% prioritizes strength/power qualities and readiness 
during congested competition periods. Coaches should consider VBT as an 
autoregulatory tool; specifically, using velocity loss cut-offs allows for the daily 
fluctuation of athlete readiness to be accounted for, ensuring that the training stimulus 
matches the athlete's current physiological state (20). Traditional to-failure work can be 
reserved for preparatory phases, recognizing its higher fatigue cost and potential to blunt 
sprint outcomes. Day-to-day load should be adjusted based on the recorded first-rep 
velocity, and session volume should reflect the efficiency of VBT (expect substantially 
fewer total reps than traditional prescriptions) to maintain quality of effort and mitigate 
cumulative fatigue in youth soccer athletes. 
Conclusions 
For coaches, the velocity-based strength training method offers a unique way to further 
improve athlete performance. Coaches can achieve similar efficiency from their athletes 
by training at low velocity losses with a lower total load, as this approach reduces fatigue 
accumulation and facilitates motor neuronal activity. For athletes, the velocity-based 
strength training method provides a unique approach that not only motivates them to train 
but also enhances the overall quality of their training. Considering our study and previous 
research, it has been determined that low velocity loss thresholds do not induce the 
necessary physiological and morphological adaptations in athletes. Traditional training 
performed to exhaustion is observed to reduce training quality due to fatigue, fail to 
positively impact explosive performance, and may even negatively affect it. However, 
training with a 20% velocity loss has been found to be more effective in many aspects of 
development compared to the other two methods, while not inducing fatigue in athletes. 
Therefore, it is suggested that a 20% velocity loss protocol could be implemented during 
periods when athletes are exposed to high training loads, particularly during competition 
phases or times with an increased risk of injury. Furthermore, it is considered that 
traditional training methods could be utilized during the preparatory phase at the 
beginning of the season to examine and enhance tendon and ligament development. On 
the other hand, low velocity loss thresholds (e.g., 10%), which involve lower training 
volume and create less fatigue, may be applied by coaches during competition periods. 
 
Abbreviations 

1RM 
 
One Repetition Maximum 
%1RM  
Percentage of One Repetition Maximum 
ANOVA 
Analysis of Variance 
CMJ 
 
Countermovement Jump 
CMV 
 
Concentric Mean Velocity 
COD 
 
Change of Direction 
ES 
 
Effect Size 
ICC 
 
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 
Nm 
 
Newton-meter 
RM 
 
Repetition Maximum 
RT 
 
Resistance Training 
SD 
 
Standard Deviation 
TRD 
 
Traditional Resistance Training 
VBT 
 
Velocity-Based Training 
VL 
 
Velocity Loss 
VL10 
 
10% Velocity Loss 
VL20 
 
20% Velocity Loss 
wk 
 
Week 
 
Acknowledgements 
 
The authors would like to thank all participants for their commitment and effort throughout the training 
sessions and testing procedures. The authors also gratefully acknowledge Denizlispor for allowing access 
to their athletes and for their assistance during the recruitment process. This study was derived from the 
doctoral thesis of the first author, Engin Güneş Atabaş, titled "Hıza Dayalı ve Geleneksel Kuvvet 
Antrenmanlarının Bazı Fizyolojik ve Motorik Özellikler Üzerine Etkisinin Karşılaştırılması", completed at 
Pamukkale University in 2022. 
 
Author contributions 
 
All authors contributed substantially to the conception, design, execution, and interpretation of the study 
and approved the final version of the manuscript. E.G.A.: conceptualization, methodology, supervision, 
data curation, formal analysis, writing, original draft, review, and editing. A.Y.: investigation, resources, 
writing, review and editing. G.F.E.: project administration, critical revision of the manuscript, and final 
approval. B.U.A.: methodology support, interpretation of results, and writing, review and editing. 
 
Funding 
 
The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article. 
 
Data availability 
All data are within the article. 
 
Declarations 
 
Ethics approval and consent to participate 
 
This study was approved by the Pamukkale University Non-Interventional Clinical Research Ethics 
Committee (60116787-020-28700). All participants were minors. Written informed consent was obtained 
from the parents or legal guardians of all participants prior to enrollment, and assent was obtained from the 
participants themselves.  
 
Consent for publication 
 
Not applicable. 
 

Competing interests 
 
The authors declare no competing interests. 
 
Author Details  
 
1Pamukkale University Sports Sciences and Technology Research and Application Center, Denizli, Turkey 
2Pamukkale University Faculty of Sports Sciences, Denizli, Turkey 
3Pamukkale University Faculty of Medicine, Denizli, Turkey 
References 
1. Aloui, G., Hermassi, S., Hayes, L. D., & Schwesig, R. (2024). Effects of In-Season Velocity-Based vs. 
Traditional Resistance Training in Elite Youth Male Soccer Players. Applied Sciences, 14(20), 9192. 
2. Banyard, H. G., Nosaka, K., Vernon, A. D., & Haff, G. G. (2018). The reliability of individualized load–
velocity profiles. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 13, 763–769. 
3. Dohoney, P., Chromiak, J. A., Lemire, D., Abadie, B. R., & Kovacs, C. (2002). Prediction of one 
repetition maximum (1-RM) strength from a 4–6 RM and a 7–10 RM submaximal strength test in healthy 
young adult males. Journal of Exercise Physiology, 5(3), 54–59. 
4. Drinkwater, E. J., Galna, B., McKenna, M. J., Hunt, P. H., & Pyne, D. B. (2007). Validation of an optical 
encoder during free-weight resistance movements and analysis of bench press sticking point power during 
fatigue. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(2), 510–517. 
5. Fernandes, O., & Caixinha, P. (2004). Part II: Game activity and analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 
22, 500–520. 
6. Garcia-Ramos, A., Pestana-Melero, F. L., Perez-Castilla, A., Rojas, F. J., & Haff, G. G. (2018). Mean 
velocity vs. mean propulsive velocity vs. peak velocity: Which variable determines bench press relative 
load with higher reliability? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 32, 1273–1279. 
7. González-Badillo, J. J., Yañez-García, J. M., Mora-Custodio, R., & Rodríguez-Rosell, D. (2017). 
Velocity loss as a variable for monitoring resistance exercise. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 
38(3), 217–225. 
8. Hammami, M., Gaamouri, N., Shephard, R. J., & Chelly, M. S. (2019). Effects of contrast strength vs. 
plyometric training on lower-limb explosive performance, ability to change direction and neuromuscular 
adaptation in soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 33(8), 2094–2103. 
9. Hughes, L. J., Peiffer, J. J., & Scott, B. R. (2022). Reliability and validity of using the Push Band v2.0 
to measure repetition velocity in free-weight and Smith machine exercises. Journal of Strength and 
Conditioning Research, 36(2), 365–370. 
10. Izquierdo-Gabarren, M., Expósito, R. G. D. T., Garcia-Pallares, J., Sanchez-Medina, L., Villarreal, E. 
S. S., & Izquierdo, M. (2010). Concurrent endurance and strength training not to failure optimizes 
performance gains. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 42(6), 1191–1199. 
11. Jiménez-Reyes, P., Castaño-Zambudio, A., Cuadrado-Peñafiel, V., González-Hernández, J. M., Capelo-
Ramírez, F., Martínez-Aranda, L. M., & González-Badillo, J. J. (2021). Differences between adjusted vs. 
non-adjusted loads in velocity-based training: Consequences for strength training control and 
programming. PeerJ, 9, e10942. 
12. Kraemer, W. J., & Ratamess, N. A. (2004). Fundamentals of resistance training: Progression and 
exercise prescription. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(4), 674–688. 
13. Loturco, I., Pereira, L. A., Cal Abad, C. C., et al. (2015). Vertical and horizontal jump tests are strongly 
associated with competitive performance in 100-m dash events. Journal of Strength and Conditioning 
Research, 29, 1966–1971. 
14. Loturco, I., Kobal, R., Moraes, J. E., Kitamura, K., Cal Abad, C. C., Pereira, L. A., & Nakamura, F. Y. 
(2017). Predicting the maximum dynamic strength in bench press: The high precision of the bar velocity 
approach. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(4), 1127–1131. 
15. Mann, J. B., Ivey, P. A., & Sayers, S. P. (2015). Velocity-based training in football. Strength and 
Conditioning Journal, 37, 52–57. 
16. Metaxas, T. I., Koutlianos, N. A., Kouidi, E. J., & Deligiannis, A. P. (2005). Comparative study of field 
and laboratory tests for the evaluation of aerobic capacity in soccer players. Journal of Strength and 
Conditioning Research, 19, 79–84. 

17. Orange, S. T., Metcalfe, J. W., Marshall, P., Vince, R. V., Madden, L. A., & Liefeith, A. (2018). The 
test–retest reliability of a commercial linear position transducer (GymAware PowerTool) to measure 
velocity and power in the back squat and bench press. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 
Advance online publication. 
18. Padulo, J., Mignogna, P., Mignardi, S., Tonni, F., & D’Ottavio, S. (2012). Effect of different pushing 
speeds on bench press. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 33, 376–380. 
19. Pareja-Blanco, F., Sánchez-Medina, L., Suárez-Arrones, L., & González-Badillo, J. J. (2017). Effects 
of velocity loss during resistance training on performance in professional soccer players. International 
Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 12, 512–519. 
20. Parpucu, T. İ. (2017). The effects of eccentric–concentric isokinetic muscle strength training on 
quadriceps femoris muscle architecture, muscle strength, proprioception and function in healthy young 
people (Master’s thesis). Istanbul Medipol University, Institute of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey. 
21. Ribeiro, J., Afonso, J., Castillo, D., Camões, M., Silva, A. F., & Sarmento, H. (2022). Velocity-based 
training in soccer: A systematic review. Baltic Journal of Health and Physical Activity, 14(3), 1. 
22. Rienzi, E., Drust, B., Reilly, T., Carter, J. E. L., & Martin, A. (2000). Investigation of anthropometric 
and work-rate profiles of elite South American international soccer players. Journal of Sports Medicine and 
Physical Fitness, 40, 162–169. 
23. Schoenfeld, B. J., Grgic, J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2017). Strength and hypertrophy adaptations 
between low- vs. high-load resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Strength 
and Conditioning Research, 31(12), 3508–3523. 
24. Weakley, J., Mann, B., Banyard, H., McLaren, S., Scott, T., & Garcia-Ramos, A. (2021). Velocity-
based training: From theory to application. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 43(2), 31–49. 
25. Zaroni, R. S., Brigatto, F. A., Schoenfeld, B. J., Braz, T. V., Benvenutti, J. C., Germano, M. D., & 
Lopes, C. R. (2019). High resistance-training frequency enhances muscle thickness in resistance-trained 
men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 33, 140–15. 
26. Zhang, X., Feng, S., Peng, R., & Li, H. (2023). 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, 18(5), e0286392. 

Official Study Title: 
Comparison of Velocity-Based and Traditional Strength Training Methods on Physiological 
and Motoric Parameters 
 
NCT Number: 
Not yet assigned 
 
Document Type: 
Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan - Tables 
 
Document Date: 
30 December 2025

Table 1 Descriptive characteristics of subjects *# 
 
 
Height (cm) 
Weight 
(cm) 
Body mass 
(kg) 
Training  
age (y) 
Relative  
squat 
Relative 
deadlift 
Relative 
hip-thrust 
1RM 
squat 
1RM 
deadlift 
1RM 
hip-thrust 
VL10 (n = 8) 
   Mean ± SD 
16,1 ± 0,6 
179,6 ± 
8,4 
66,8 ± 9,7 
6,1 ± 0,6 
2,2 ± 0,4 
1,5 ± 0,3 
2,9 ± 0,5 
163,1 ± 
20,8 
103,7 ± 
16,6 
193,2 ± 
41,5 
VL20 (n = 8) 
   Mean ± SD 
16,3 ± 0,5 
176,5 ± 
3,5 
66,8 ± 4,3 
6,3 ± 0,5 
2,1 ± 0,1 
1,5 ± 0,1 
3,0 ± 0,5 
145 ± 
10,6 
106,2 ± 
11,2 
201,8 ± 
38,3 
TRD (n = 8) 
   Mean ± SD 
16,2 ± 0,4 
177,1 ± 
3,8 
65,6 ± 4,9 
6,2 ± 0,4 
2,1 ± 0,4 
1,5 ± 0,2 
2,9 ± 0,5 
150 ± 
31,0 
100,6 ± 
18,2 
190,1 ± 
29,1 
 
VL10 = group that trained with a mean velocity loss of 10% in each set (n = 8); VL20 = group that trained with a mean velocity loss of 20% in 
each set (n = 8); TRD = group that trained to failure in each set (n = 8) 
* Values are means ± SD. 
# Relative strength on squat, deadlift, and hip-thrust presented as one repetition maximum divided by body mass. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Table 2 Characteristics of the squat, deadlift, and hip-thrust training program performed by each group 
 
Scheduled 
Session 1 
Session 2 
Session 3 
Session 4 
Session 5 
Session 6 
Sets × Velocity loss (%) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
VL10 
3x10% 
3x10% 
3x10% 
3x10% 
3x10% 
3x10% 
VL20 
3x20% 
3x20% 
3x20% 
3x20% 
3x20% 
3x20% 
TRD 
3xfailure 
3xfailure 
3xfailure 
3xfailure 
3xfailure 
3xfailure 
Squat % 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
Deadlift % 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
Hip-thrust % 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Scheduled 
Session 7 
Session 8 
Session 9 
Session 10 
Session 11 
Session 12 
Sets × Velocity loss (%) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
VL10 
3x10% 
3x10% 
3x10% 
3x10% 
3x10% 
3x10% 
VL20 
3x20% 
3x20% 
3x20% 
3x20% 
3x20% 
3x20% 
TRD 
3xfailure 
3xfailure 
3xfailure 
3xfailure 
3xfailure 
3xfailure 
Squat % 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
Deadlift % 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
Hip-thrust % 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
80% 1RM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Actually performed 
Squat total rep 
Squat velocity 
loss (%) 
Deadlift total rep 
Deadlift 
velocity loss 
(%) 
Hip-thrust total 
rep 
Hip-thrust 
velocity loss 
(%) 
VL10 
147,5 ± 35,6 
14,6 ± 0,0 
137,6 ± 15,1 
15,1 ± 0,2 
144,1 ± 25,5 
12,5 ± 0,0 
VL20 
270,5 ± 45,9 
22,7 ± 0,5 
232,6 ± 46,6 
23,5 ± 0,2 
290,7 ± 68,1 
24,2 ± 0,0 
TRD 
386,50 ± 58,7 
 
303,1 ± 20,2 
 
468,7 ± 79,6 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Table 3. Comparison of Training Effects. 
 
 
VL10 
VL20 
TRD 
 
 
 
 
X̄ ±Std 
X̄ ±Std 
X̄ ±Std 
F 
p 
ES 
T5 (s) 
-0,006±0,025 
0,025±0,040 
0,018±0,046 
1,498 
0,247 
0,125 
T10 (s) 
0,018±0,020 
0,038±0,040 
0,032±0,054 
,492 
0,618 
0,045 
T20 (s) 
0,061±0,043# 
0,038±0,021# 
-0,021±0,046 
9,774 
0,001* 
0,482 
CMJ (cm) 
2,263±1,660 
3,371±1,065# 
1,425±1,618 
3,513 
0,048* 
0,251 
Zigzag COD (s) 
0,035±0,111 
0,048±0,192 
-0,048±0,087 
1,174 
0,329 
0,101 
RF thickness (cm) 
0,227±0,088 
0,317±0,112# 
0,167±0,155 
3,053 
0,049* 
0,225 
VI thickness (cm) 
0,106±0,116 
0,155±0,130 
0,212±0,123 
1,483 
0,250 
0,124 
GMAX thickness (cm) 
0,393±0,254 
0,315±0,178 
0,186±0,101 
2,464 
0,109 
0,190 
GASTR thickness (cm) 
0,150±0,094 
0,148±0,080 
0,075±0,080 
2,021 
0,157 
0,161 
30°/s GLUT con (N) 
40,125±28,970 
29,625±11,587 
21,000±13,201 
1,918 
0,172 
0,154 
60°/s KNEE con (N) 
34,875±12,574Ω 
59,000±20,283# 
21,750±13,498 
11,396 
0,000* 
0,520 
60°/s HAMS ecc (N) 
60,500±35,160 
33,375±59,562 
29,875±32,493 
1,155 
0,334 
0,099 
180°/s KNEE con (N) 
31,625±10,155 
38,500±10,433# 
18,250±12,747 
6,796 
0,005* 
0,393 
 
ES = effect size between groups; T5 = 5m sprint time; T10 = 10m sprint time; T20 = 20m sprint time; CMJ=countermovement jump height ; Zigzag 
COD=Zigzag change of direction time; RF=rectus femoris muscle thickness measured by ultrasound imaging; VI=vastus intermedius muscle 
thickness measured by ultrasound imaging; GMAX=gluteus maximus muscle thickness measured by ultrasound imaging; GASTR=gastrocnemius 
muscle thickness measured by ultrasound imaging; 30°/s GLUT con = Concentric peak isokinetic force of the gluteus maximus at an angular 
velocity of 30°/s; 60°/s KNEE con = Concentric peak isokinetic force of the knee at an angular velocity of 60°/s; 60°/s HAMS ecc = Eccentric 
peak isokinetic force of the hamstring at an angular velocity of 60°/s; 180°/s KNEE con = Concentric peak isokinetic force of the knee at an angular 
velocity of 180°/s 
 
* Values are mean ± SD. p value indicates significant between group differences. # significant difference from TRD group. µ significant difference 
from VL10 group. Ω significant difference from VL20 group. 
 

Table 4. Changes in variables from pre- to post-training for each group. 
 
 
VL10 
 
VL20 
TRD 
 
 
Pre 
Post 
Pre 
Post 
Pre 
Post 
p-value 
ES 
T5 (s) 
0,931 ± 0,072 
0,936 ± 
0,059 
0,943 ± 
0,048 
0,918 ± 
0,031 
0,945 ± 
0,053 
0,926 ± 
0,043 
0,247 
0,125 
T10 (s) 
1,615 ± 0,090 
1,596 ± 
0,082 
1,681 ± 
0,029 
1,642 ± 
0,038 
1,666 ± 
0,082 
1,633 ± 
0,043 
0,618 
0,045 
T20 (s) 
2,815 ± 0,079 
2,750 ± 
0,062# 
2,871 ± 
0,095 
2,830 ± 
0,099 
2,936 ± 
0,115 
2,950 ± 
0,131 
0,001 
0,482 
CMJ (cm) 
38,371 ± 
4,137 
40,636 ± 
3,033# 
35,816 ± 
3,205 
39,181 ± 
2,535 
34,185 ± 
4,418 
35,618 ± 
4,376 
0,048 
0,251 
Zigzag COD (s) 
5,235 ± 0,315 
5,200 ± 
0,224 
5,628 ± 
0,586 
5,580 ± 
0,462 
5,406 ± 
0,390 
5,455 ± 
0,341 
0,329 
0,101 
RF thickness 
(cm) 
2,416 ± 0,305 
2,643 ± 
0,298 
2,658 ± 
0,218 
2,976 ± 
0,249µ 
2,473 ± 
0,165 
2,641 ± 
0,184Ω 
0,049 
0,225 
VI thickness 
(cm) 
1,647 ± 0,353 
1,753 ± 
0,280 
1,711 ± 
0,243 
1,866 ± 
0,232 
1,823 ± 
0,319 
2,036 ± 
0,291 
0,250 
0,124 
GMAX 
thickness (cm) 
3,522 ± 0,285 
3,916 ± 
0,217 
2,923 ± 
0,444 
3,238 ± 
0,420µ 
3,213 ± 
0,747 
3,400 ± 
0,773 
0,109 
0,190 
GASTR 
thickness (cm) 
1,713 ± 0,209 
1,863 ± 
0,157 
1,740 ± 
0,328 
1,888 ± 
0,321 
1,998 ± 
0,587 
2,073 ± 
0,568 
0,157 
0,161 
30°/s GLUT 
con (N) 
165,255 ± 
44,803 
208,37 ± 
51,744# 
138,000 ± 
303,164 
167,621 ± 
28,040 
132,758 ± 
53,898 
176,584 ± 
46,927 
0,172 
0,154 
60°/s KNEE 
con (N) 
190,629 ± 
40,184 
225,500 ± 
40,651 
177,624 ± 
24,697 
236,620 ± 
18,543 
175,000 ± 
268,044 
196,755 ± 
28,233Ω 
0,000 
0,520 
60°/s HAMS 
ecc (N) 
191,120 ± 
41,995 
251,628 ± 
49,888 
186,511 ± 
36,415 
219,870 ± 
35,281 
189,000 ± 
44,715 
218,874 ± 
46,693 
0,334 
0,099 
180°/s KNEE 
con (N) 
129,870 ± 
27,828 
161,500 ± 
27,925 
119,754 ± 
45,644 
158,255 ± 
41,934 
110,375 ± 
20,895 
128,621 ± 
15,633 
0,005 
0,393 
 

ES = effect size between groups; T5 = 5m sprint time; T10 = 10m sprint time; T20 = 20m sprint time; CMJ=countermovement jump height ; Zigzag 
COD=Zigzag change of direction time; RF=rectus femoris muscle thickness measured by ultrasound imaging; VI=vastus intermedius muscle 
thickness measured by ultrasound imaging; GMAX=gluteus maximus muscle thickness measured by ultrasound imaging; GASTR=gastrocnemius 
muscle thickness measured by ultrasound imaging; 30°/s GLUT con = Concentric peak isokinetic force of the gluteus maximus at an angular 
velocity of 30°/s; 60°/s KNEE con = Concentric peak isokinetic force of the knee at an angular velocity of 60°/s; 60°/s HAMS ecc = Eccentric 
peak isokinetic force of the hamstring at an angular velocity of 60°/s; 180°/s KNEE con = Concentric peak isokinetic force of the knee at an angular 
velocity of 180°/s 
 
* Values are mean ± SD. p value indicates significant between group differences. # significant difference from TRD group. µ significant 
difference from VL10 group. Ω significant difference from VL20 group.