The VBT Hype: What Do the Systematic Reviews Really Tell Us?
Velocity-Based Training (VBT) has cemented its place in modern strength and conditioning. From optimizing load selection to managing fatigue, the promise of velocity monitoring is compelling. But how solid is the foundation of evidence supporting these practices? If you’re a coach relying on meta-analyses to guide your programming, you need to hear this: a recent critical appraisal suggests that the confidence we place in many VBT systematic reviews might be misplaced.
Systematic reviews are supposed to be the gold standard—the synthesis that cuts through the noise. However, the reality is sobering. Only a small fraction of these high-level summaries are deemed both methodologically decent and clinically useful. This recent review focused specifically on synthesizing and critically appraising systematic reviews that examined the effects of VBT on health or athletic performance outcomes in adults and older adults.
The Search for Certainty: Methodology Matters
Researchers conducted an extensive search across major databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, SPORTDiscus, Epistemonikos) up to May 2025, looking for reviews of controlled trials investigating VBT. The goal wasn't just to count the studies, but to assess the quality of the reviews themselves using the rigorous AMSTAR-2 tool.
What did they find? They included 17 systematic reviews published between 2019 and 2025. These reviews aggregated data from studies involving a substantial number of participants—8,222 in total. Importantly, the majority (65%) of the reviews focused on non-athlete adults, suggesting the evidence base leans heavily toward general health and fitness rather than elite performance.
The Critical Flaw: Low Confidence in Conclusions
The most striking finding relates to the confidence level assigned to the conclusions of these reviews. Out of the 17 included systematic reviews:
- 16 reviews (94%) were rated as having 'Critically low' overall confidence in their results.
- Only 1 review (6%) managed to achieve a 'Low' rating.
This means that nearly all the high-level summaries available on VBT's impact on performance and health suffer from serious methodological limitations. If the systematic reviews are critically flawed, the conclusions drawn from them are inherently unreliable.
Why the Low Confidence Rating?
Several factors likely contributed to this widespread low rating. A key indicator of poor review quality was the lack of formal evidence certainty evaluation: only 4 out of the 17 reviews (24%) used a formal system to assess the certainty of the evidence they synthesized. Furthermore, the degree of overlap between the primary studies included in different reviews was moderate, suggesting redundancy without necessarily increasing overall certainty.
For coaches and practitioners, this is a crucial takeaway: while VBT is a powerful tool, the current body of synthesized evidence supporting its broad application may not be as robust as we assume. The limitations identified in these reviews suggest that the primary studies themselves might be heterogeneous, poorly controlled, or simply insufficient to draw strong conclusions.
Moving Forward: A Call for Rigor
The authors of this appraisal offer clear guidance for future research and review processes. To elevate the confidence in VBT literature, the scientific community must:
- Involve Methodologists and Statisticians: Future systematic reviews need expert input from individuals skilled in research design and statistical synthesis to ensure protocols are sound.
- Use Transparent Certainty Evaluation: Adopting rigorous, transparent systems (like GRADE or similar frameworks) to evaluate the certainty of the evidence is non-negotiable.
- Adhere to Reporting Standards: Reviewers must strictly follow the latest standards for conduct and reporting to foster a more cohesive and precise understanding of VBT’s true role.
Practical Implications for the Gym Floor
As practitioners, we must remain critical consumers of literature. Velocity-based training remains a valuable tool for monitoring effort, intention, and fatigue in real-time. However, when making major programming shifts based on broad claims derived from systematic reviews, proceed with caution. The current evidence base, when critically appraised at the review level, suggests we need more high-quality, methodologically sound primary research, and certainly, more rigorous systematic reviews, before we can definitively state the optimal application of VBT across all populations.
Keep training smart, keep questioning the literature, and prioritize sound training principles over potentially flawed summaries.
This appraisal is based on the systematic review: A critical appraisal of systematic reviews assessing the effect of chronic velocity-based resistance training on health and athletic performance outcomes: A systematic review. You can find the original article here: PubMed Link (PMID: 41706728).