Velocity-Based Training beats tempo training — but not the way you think

Velocity-based training (VBT) — steering your sets by barbell velocity instead of fixed tempo cues — delivers more training volume on the bench press than tempo training. And without cutting time under tension. That is what a recent study in Sports Health (Fitas et al., 2026) shows, co-authored by Brad Schoenfeld — one of the most cited hypertrophy researchers worldwide.

Sounds like a clear win for VBT. But before you rush out to buy a linear encoder: the details matter.

VBT vs. TBT: same eccentric, different concentric — and 12 % more volume. Data: Fitas et al. (2026)

What was tested?

The researchers around Afonso Fitas (Universidade de Lisboa) compared two training approaches on the free-weight bench press in 14 trained men (average age 24 years, 1RM approx. 81 kg). Both conditions used 70 % of 1RM and went to muscular failure — the only difference was the execution cue.

Under VBT, participants were told to perform the concentric (upward movement) with maximum intended velocity. The eccentric (lowering) stayed controlled at 1.5 seconds. Under tempo-based training (TBT), everything was strictly metronomic: 1.5 seconds eccentric, 1.5 seconds concentric — like a metronome.

The study design was a randomised crossover — every participant went through both conditions, which minimises individual differences as a confounding factor. Mechanical data were captured by a linear encoder (GymAware); metabolic data were estimated indirectly from oxygen uptake measurements at lower loads (more on that in the metabolism section).

The results: more volume, same tension

VBT clearly beat TBT on the two central volume metrics: participants managed 14.4 instead of 12.7 reps on average (p=0.01) and hit a volume load of 823 instead of 733 kg (p=0.02). That is about 12 % more volume per set.

The surprising point: total time under tension (TUT) did not differ significantly — 32 vs. 31 seconds (p=0.81). VBT participants moved the bar concentrically faster (0.39 vs. 0.31 m/s) but performed more reps in return. The faster reps and higher rep count cancelled out in terms of time.

What does that mean metabolically?

VBT shifted the energy ratio: the aerobic share rose to about 41 % (vs. 33 % under TBT), the anaerobic share fell accordingly. Accumulated oxygen deficit — a measure of anaerobic load — did not differ, however. In concrete terms: VBT taxes aerobic metabolism more without raising anaerobic load. The additional reps come almost "for free" via the aerobic pathway.

Important context: these metabolic figures are estimated indirectly, not measured directly at 70 % 1RM. The researchers extrapolated from V̇O₂ measurements at lower loads (12–24 % 1RM). The method is established in exercise physiology, but the values are approximations — not exact measurements under working conditions.

For practice this matters because aerobic energy supply produces fewer fatigue metabolites (lactate, H⁺ ions) than the anaerobic pathway. In theory this could shorten recovery between sets — but the study did not test that directly.

The critical assessment

Before you switch your entire training over to VBT: this study shows an acute effect in a single set of bench press. That is an important piece of the puzzle, but not the full picture. Some aspects you should be aware of.

The sample comprised 14 trained men. That is defensible for a mechanistic study, but no basis for generalising across all training populations. Women, older lifters or beginners could respond differently. Only the bench press was tested — whether VBT delivers the same advantage on squats or deadlifts remains open.

The biggest blind spot: there is no long-term comparison. More acute volume per set is a valid proxy for hypertrophy potential, but not the same as actually measured muscle growth over weeks or months. The question "Does VBT lead to more muscle mass than TBT?" remains unanswered.

What does this mean for your training?

VBT is not hype but a data-driven approach with a growing evidence base. This study adds another data point: if you press with maximum intended velocity instead of a fixed tempo, you get more reps and more volume out — at the same time under tension and without higher anaerobic load.

For hypertrophy this is a relevant argument, because training volume is considered one of the strongest predictors of muscle growth. For pure strength or power goals the finding transfers less directly — there it is less about volume to failure.

You do not necessarily need an expensive linear encoder for this. Smartphone apps like Metric VBT (iOS), My Lift or RepOne now deliver usable velocity data via camera or accelerometer. If you want to go more professional, reach for hardware like GymAware or PUSH Band. The actual point is the intention: execute the concentric explosively, the eccentric under control. You can implement that without a sensor too — you only lose the objective feedback.

An additional benefit of VBT with tracking: velocity loss as fatigue management. If your barbell velocity drops by 20–30 % compared with the fastest rep, you are in the optimal range for strength gains. From a 40–50 % drop you reach failure — more hypertrophy stimulus, but also more recovery demand. This study went to failure, but in everyday training velocity loss is a smart tool for managing intensity by daily readiness instead of rigid percentages.

Bottom line

The study by Fitas et al. shows clearly: on the bench press VBT delivers more volume than tempo training — at the same TUT and without a metabolic surcharge. That is a solid result with good internal validity. But it is a single set, one exercise, one intensity, one participant group. The evidence is growing, but not yet conclusive.

For you this means concretely: if you train with a hypertrophy focus, maximum intended velocity on the concentric is a simple lever for more volume. Whether you track that via an app or simply press "as fast as possible" depends on how data-driven you want to be.

More data per rep, more volume per set — VBT fits neatly into the logic of data-driven training. But technology replaces neither fundamentals nor common sense.

Source: Fitas A, Miras-Moreno S, Oliveira JH, Cidrais M, Pezarat-Correia P, Schoenfeld BJ, Mendonca GV. Bench-Press Performed With a Velocity- and Tempo-Based Approach: Are There Differences in Volume Load, Time Under Tension, and Metabolic Demands? Sports Health. 2026. DOI: 10.1177/19417381261416535 | Open access on PMC