Randomized-crossover study compares volume load and metabolism in two training approaches.
Background: Velocity-based training (VBT) is a resistance training approach that uses lifting velocity to determine training load and track strength progress. This study determined the impact of a VBT versus a tempo-based training (TBT) approach on volume load and time under tension during a single set of submaximal bench press performed to failure. Hypothesis: VBT would result in larger volume load and similar time under tension as TBT. Study Design: Randomized-crossover design. Level of Evidence: Level 3. Methods: A total of 14 healthy men (24.1 ± 5.8 years) performed free-weight bench-press exercise at low intensities (12%, 16%, 20%, and 24% of 1-repetition maximum [1RM]) with oxygen uptake ( V . O 2 ) measurements. V . O 2 was then extrapolated to a set performed at 70% 1RM to failure and the accumulated O 2 deficit was calculated together with the relative energy contribution of aerobic and anaerobic metabolism. Mechanical data were collected with a linear encoder. Results: Despite the lack of differences between conditions for total time under tension ( P > 0.05), VBT achieved a higher volume load at set failure ( P < 0.05). Moreover, the VBT condition resulted in a larger total V . O 2 from set initiation to termination ( P < 0.01). Conversely, the accumulated O 2 deficit did not differ between conditions ( P > 0.05). Compared with TBT, VBT elicited a higher relative contribution of aerobic energy (VBT, ~41%; TBT, 33%) and a lower relative contribution of anaerobic energy (VBT, ~59; TBT, 67%) during exercise ( P < 0.01). Conclusion: VBT is an effective strategy to enhance volume load during bench-press performed to failure at 70% 1RM. This effect occurs without compromising time under tension. These findings are associated with a higher contribution of aerobic energy supply to exercise. Clinical Relevance: VBT may be beneficial for athletes aiming to maximize volume load in response to resistance exercise.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fitas et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: