{"id":955,"date":"2026-07-19T11:11:14","date_gmt":"2026-07-19T08:11:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.life-on.com.ua\/?p=955"},"modified":"2026-07-19T11:11:15","modified_gmt":"2026-07-19T08:11:15","slug":"velocity-based-training-weightlifting-zones","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.life-on.com.ua\/en\/velocity-based-training-weightlifting-zones\/","title":{"rendered":"Velocity-based training: why \u00ab1.3 m\/s\u00bb is a lie for weightlifting exercises."},"content":{"rendered":"

Velocity-based training promises accuracy: you look at the speed of the barbell and know what quality of strength you are training. Instead of percentages of maximum, the coach focuses on repetition speed. But a new study of 14 athletes has shown otherwise. The universal velocity-based training thresholds that everyone uses simply don't work for snatch and clean and jerk movements. We'll look at why one number doesn't fit seven exercises and how this changes the approach to planning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What did the research show about velocity-based training<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The team, led by Weakley, analysed seven weightlifting exercises: the power snatch, hang power snatch, snatch pull, hang snatch pull, hang power clean, clean pull and hang clean pull. Fourteen athletes (6 men, 8 women) performed each movement with a load ranging from 20% to 90% of their one-rep maximum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The peak barbell velocity was measured using the Perch camera system at 30 frames per second. These data were used to construct \u00abload-velocity\u00bb profiles for each exercise individually. The main conclusion from velocity-based training proved inconvenient: all exercises had their own velocity zones, which strongly diverged from classical recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most striking example is the power snatch. With light weights, the peak speed exceeded 3.0 m\/s. This is twice as fast as the threshold that had for decades been regarded as the limit of \u00abstarting power\u00bb. Even with the 90%, the maximum power snatch speed hovered around 2.1 m\/s. The classic model at this weight would already be expecting \u00ababsolute strength\u00bb with the barbell virtually stationary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Each exercise's profile was built using linear mixed-effects models. Speed was expected to decrease with increasing weight across all seven movements. However, the rate of this decline and the absolute values themselves differed so greatly that no pair of exercises fit the same pattern.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why the universal threshold of 1.3 m\/s doesn't work<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In the traditional system, speed qualities are divided into five bands: starting strength, speed-strength, strength-speed, acceleration strength, and absolute strength. The threshold for \u00abstarting strength\u00bb is set above 1.3 m\/s. Absolute strength is set below 0.5 m\/s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem is that these figures were derived from the squat and bench press \u2013 movements where the barbell moves slowly and doesn't leave the body. In the snatch and clean and jerk, the barbell is ballistic. It flies separately from the athlete at a speed that a squat will never achieve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The result is absurd. In the study everyone<\/strong> The zones of absolute force in weightlifting exercises were found to exceed 1.3 m\/s. In other words, according to the old logic, a weightlifter who lifts a maximum of 90% is supposedly \u00abalways training for starting strength\u00bb. Physically, he is working at his limit, yet the figures suggest the opposite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is precisely where naive velocity-based training breaks down. Take a ready-made table of zones from a textbook and apply it to the snatch. The athlete will never go beyond the \u00abstarting strength\u00bb limit \u2013 the ballistic movement simply cannot move that slowly. The terminology that was meant to refine training instead becomes noise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How do the exercises differ from each other<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The difference between the movements is not cosmetic. Power snatches and hang power snatches begin the absolute strength zone at approximately 2.2-2.3 m\/s. Snatches and clean pulls, however, start this same zone around 1.4 m\/s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reason is the amplitude. A successful power snatch requires taking the barbell from the floor to an overhead position. A clean pull only brings it to the waist. Different distances mean different speeds and different momentum to complete the movement. The squatting exercise must be faster, otherwise the athlete physically won't have time to secure the barbell overhead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Technical complexity also plays a role. The snatch and the clean and jerk require coordination, which the deadlift does not. This changes both the maximal weights and the speeds at each percentage of the maximum. Therefore, two exercises with the same name, \u00abstrength\u00bb, yield completely different numbers on the sensor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The figures from the study\u2019s tables confirm this. On the 25%, the maximum power snatch speed is almost 2.9 m\/s, whilst the clean pull is only around 2.0 m\/s. At 80%, the gap remains: 2.2 versus 1.4 m\/s. Two exercises, the same percentage of body weight, yet the speed differs by a factor of one and a half. Apply a single threshold to them, and half the reading will be incorrect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even the rate at which speed decreases under the weight varies. In one exercise, adding 20% of weight reduces speed moderately, whilst in another it drops sharply. The authors calculated that the percentage of weight accounts for between 26% and 51% of the variation in speed, depending on the movement. The remainder is determined by technique, anthropometry and the athlete\u2019s individual style. This is further evidence that applying someone else\u2019s profile to your own exercise is rather like measuring your height with someone else\u2019s ruler.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, a single set of velocity zones for all exercises, as the team writes, is \u00abillogical and often physically impossible\u00bb for an athlete. Velocity-based training only makes sense when the zones are tied to a specific exercise, rather than borrowed from a squat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What should the coach do with this<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The practical conclusion of velocity-based training is simple: do not transfer thresholds from the squat to the snatch. Each weightlifting exercise requires its own profile. The authors provide ready-made reference ranges for seven movements in their tables \u2014 these can be taken as a starting point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, to work on the propulsive force in a hang clean, a coach will target a peak velocity of 1.4-1.6 m\/s. For a power snatch, this same quality falls within a completely different range. One exercise, one target. This is the essence of correct velocity-based training: a figure on a screen only means something when paired with the name of the movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In practice, this is not a complication, but a simplification. You don't need to keep one \u00abmagic\u00bb threshold in mind and then wonder why it doesn't align with the athlete's feelings. The coach works with the real profile of a specific person on a specific exercise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the same logic as in our posts about strength training dose<\/a> and about Heavy squats for cyclists<\/a>. The general figures sound convenient, but the body reacts to specifics, not averages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Velocity-based training is not universal<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A few caveats that the authors themselves put forward. Firstly, the sample size was small \u2013 14 well-trained athletes. Novices and people without weightlifting experience will have different zones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, researchers took the peak speed, whereas classical thresholds counted the average. The peak is always higher than the average, so a direct comparison of the figures is conditional and conceptual. It is not advisable to interpret \u00ab3.0 versus 1.3\u00bb as precise arithmetic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thirdly, this is a snapshot, not a training experiment. The study described what speeds occur at what weights. Whether training in a specific zone truly provides specific adaptation is a separate question that requires longer studies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fourthly, the zones themselves are guidelines, not rigid walls. Speed is continuous, and dividing it into discrete bands in which \u00aball athletes must operate\u00bb is called fallacious by the authors. Therefore, velocity-based training remains a monitoring tool, not a law of physics: it shows a tendency, and the coach still makes the decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fifthly, there is a technical limit to the measurement itself. The camera recorded the bar at 30 frames per second, and during ballistic movements, the speed changes so rapidly that the device can miss the true peak. Additionally, the authors honestly note: different sensors and systems can give systematically different figures. This means that the zone read by one device is not always equal to the zone from another \u2013 and this is another argument for calibrating velocity-based training to your own equipment, rather than blindly transferring someone else's numbers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Practical steps<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

First, determine the one-rep maximum for each exercise individually, rather than a percentage of the classic snatch or clean and jerk. Next, set up a camera or speed sensor and film a few repetitions with different weights. This will give you the athlete's individual profile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then compare it with the research tables, but not as rigid boundaries. Speed is a continuous quantity. It varies between athletes. The authors directly state: use the ranges as a starting point, not as prescriptive thresholds. Individual calibration is more important than any published figure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And finally. Re-check the profile every few weeks. The speed at the same percentage of maximum changes as the athlete gets stronger or technically cleaner. One measurement is a photograph, and training is a film. A profile taken in March may be out of date by summer. So the sensor should work regularly, not just once per cycle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Velocity-based training works \u2013 but only when velocity zones are linked to specific exercises. A single threshold of 1.3 m\/s falls apart in ballistic weightlifting movements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Sources<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n