Athletic PerformanceNCT07447258
Comparison of Velocity-Based and Traditional Strength Training in Youth Soccer Players
A study testing Velocity-Based Training (10% Velocity Loss), Velocity-Based Training (20% Velocity Loss) and Traditional Strength Training in people with Athletic Performance and Muscle Strength, run by Engin Güneş Atabaş at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
This study compared the effects of velocity-based strength training and traditional strength training on physical performance and muscle adaptations in youth soccer players. Twenty-four male youth soccer players were randomly assigned to one of three training groups: velocity-based training with 10% velocity loss… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 15 to 17 years, men onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Athletic Performance, Muscle Strength, Resistance Training
- What is being tested?
- Velocity-Based Training (10% Velocity Loss), Velocity-Based Training (20% Velocity Loss) and Traditional Strength Training
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 24 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 15 Mar 2021to 15 May 2021
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 15 to 17 years
- Men only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child
Who may be able to join
- Male youth soccer players aged 15-17 years
- Competing in an elite youth soccer academy league
- Actively participating in organized soccer training and official competitions
- Minimum of 2 years of structured resistance training experience as part of team training
- Training regularly five days per week with official matches on weekends
- Free from musculoskeletal injury or other health problems at the time of enrollment
- Ability to correctly perform squat, deadlift, and hip thrust exercises
- Written informed consent obtained from parents or legal guardians, and assent obtained from participants
Who cannot join
- History of musculoskeletal injury or surgery within the previous 6 months
- Presence of any neurological, cardiovascular, or orthopedic disorder
- Use of performance-enhancing drugs or supplements affecting neuromuscular performance
- Participation in another structured strength or conditioning research study within the previous 3 months
- Failure to attend more than 10% of the scheduled training sessions
- Inability or unwillingness to comply with the study protocol or testing procedures
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Turkey (Türkiye)1 site
Pamukkale University Sports Science Research Laboratory
Denizli, Pamukkale, 20000
About this study
Official title: Comparison of Velocity-Based and Traditional Strength Training Methods on Physiological and Motoric Parameters in Youth Soccer Players
This study compared the effects of velocity-based strength training and traditional strength training on physical performance and muscle adaptations in youth soccer players. Twenty-four male youth soccer players were randomly assigned to one of three training groups: velocity-based training with 10% velocity loss, velocity-based training with 20% velocity loss, or traditional resistance training performed to failure. All groups trained twice per week for six weeks using the same relative load.
Before and after the training period, participants completed assessments of sprint performance, jump performance, change of direction speed, muscle strength, and muscle thickness. The purpose of this study was to determine whether velocity-based training could provide similar or superior improvements in performance and muscle development compared with traditional training while using a lower total training volume.
Read the detailed description
This randomized, parallel-group interventional study was designed to compare the effects of velocity-based strength training (VBT) and traditional resistance training (TRT) on selected physiological and motoric outcomes in elite youth soccer players. The intervention period lasted six weeks, with training sessions conducted twice weekly under supervised conditions.
Participants were randomly allocated to one of three groups: velocity-based training with a 10% velocity loss threshold (VBT-10), velocity-based training with a 20% velocity loss threshold (VBT-20), or traditional resistance training performed to voluntary concentric failure (TRT). All groups completed the same resistance exercises (squat, deadlift, and hip thrust) using a relative load corresponding to 80% of one-repetition maximum.
In the VBT groups, repetition velocity was continuously monitored using a wearable linear velocity tracking device. Each set was terminated when the predefined velocity loss threshold was reached. In contrast, participants in the TRT group performed sets until concentric failure without velocity monitoring. Rest intervals and exercise order were standardized across groups to ensure consistency.
Outcome assessments were conducted before and after the intervention period by the same research staff using standardized protocols. Participants were instructed to refrain from additional resistance training outside the study during the intervention period. All training sessions and testing procedures were supervised, and no training-related adverse events were reported.
The primary objective of the study was to evaluate whether velocity-based strength training could elicit comparable or superior adaptations in performance and muscle-related outcomes compared with traditional resistance training, while potentially reducing overall training volume and fatigue accumulation.
- Conditions
- Athletic Performance, Muscle Strength, Resistance Training
- Being tested
- Velocity-Based Training (10% Velocity Loss), Velocity-Based Training (20% Velocity Loss), Traditional Strength Training
- Keywords
- Velocity-Based Training, Strength Training, Youth Soccer, Muscle Hypertrophy, Sprint Performance
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Velocity-Based Training (10% Velocity Loss)Other
Resistance training performed using a velocity-based approach, where repetition velocity was monitored using a wearable device and each set was terminated when a 10% loss in movement velocity was reached. Training sessions were conducted twice per week for six weeks at a relative intensity of 80% of one-repetition maximum.
Velocity-Based Training (20% Velocity Loss)Other
Resistance training performed using a velocity-based approach, where repetition velocity was monitored using a wearable device and each set was terminated when a 20% loss in movement velocity was reached. Training sessions were conducted twice per week for six weeks at a relative intensity of 80% of one-repetition maximum.
Traditional Strength TrainingOther
Traditional resistance training performed without velocity monitoring, where sets were completed until voluntary concentric muscular failure. Training sessions were conducted twice per week for six weeks at a relative intensity of 80% of one-repetition maximum.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Velocity-Based Training (10% Velocity Loss) | Experimental | Participants performed resistance training using a velocity-based approach. Each set was terminated when a 10% loss in movement velocity was reached, as monitored by a velocity-tracking device. Training sessions were conducted twice per week for six weeks using the same relative load as the other groups. Receives: Other: Velocity-Based Training (10% Velocity Loss) |
| Velocity-Based Training (20% Velocity Loss) | Experimental | Participants performed resistance training using a velocity-based approach, with each set terminated when a 20% loss in movement velocity was reached. Receives: Other: Velocity-Based Training (20% Velocity Loss) |
| Traditional Strength Training | Active comparator | Participants performed traditional resistance training with sets completed until voluntary muscular failure without velocity monitoring. Receives: Other: Traditional Strength Training |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Maximal Strength (1RM)
Maximal dynamic strength was assessed using the one-repetition maximum (1RM) test in the squat exercise. Measurements were performed at baseline and 6-week training intervention to evaluate changes in maximal strength across groups.
Measured: Baseline and 6 weeks of training
Secondary outcomes (2)
Mean Propulsive Velocity
Mean propulsive velocity during the squat exercise was measured using a linear position transducer. Changes in movement velocity were analyzed to compare neuromuscular performance adaptations between training protocols.
Measured: Baseline and 6 weeks of training
Training Volume Load
Total training volume load was calculated as the product of sets, repetitions, and external load performed during each training session, and summed across the intervention period.
Measured: Throughout the 6-week training period
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 Mar 2026
- Study start15 Mar 2021
- Primary completion15 May 2021
- Study completion15 May 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (6)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Athletic PerformanceStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Participants were randomly assigned to one of three parallel training groups and completed the intervention concurrently for six weeks.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 24 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Engin Güneş Atabaş
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Engin Güneş Atabaş, Pamukkale University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07447258
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- PAU-VBT-2025
- Status last verified
- Jan 2026
- First submitted
- 30 Dec 2025
- Last updated
- 3 Mar 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Individual participant data (IPD) will not be shared publicly due to participant confidentiality considerations and institutional data protection regulations. Aggregate data will be reported in publications.
Publications
Mann, J. B., Ivey, P. A., & Sayers, S. P. (2015). Velocity-based training in football. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 37, 52-57.
Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Yanez-Garcia JM, Mora-Custodio R, Rodriguez-Rosell D. Velocity Loss as a Variable for Monitoring Resistance Exercise. Int J Sports Med. 2017 Mar;38(3):217-225. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-120324. Epub 2017 Feb 13.
PubMed 28192832Liao KF, Wang XX, Han MY, Li LL, Nassis GP, Li YM. 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. 2021 Nov 18;16(11):e0259790. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259790. eCollection 2021.
PubMed 34793506Weakley, 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.
Pareja-Blanco F, Sanchez-Medina L, Suarez-Arrones L, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Effects of Velocity Loss During Resistance Training on Performance in Professional Soccer Players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017 Apr;12(4):512-519. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2016-0170. Epub 2016 Sep 6.
PubMed 27618386Atabaş, E. G., Yapıcı, A., Fındıkoğlu Ergin, G., & Alemdaroğlu, B. U. Comparison of Velocity-Based and Traditional Strength Training Methods on Physiological and Motoric Parameters. (Manuscript in preparation / doctoral thesis derived study). Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 3 Mar 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparison of Velocity-Based and Traditional Strength Training Methods on Physiological and Motoric Parameters in Youth Soccer Players
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07447258
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PAU-VBT-2025
- Conditions
- Athletic Performance, Muscle Strength, Resistance Training
- Keywords
- Velocity-Based Training, Strength Training, Youth Soccer, Muscle Hypertrophy, Sprint Performance
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 24 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Engin Güneş AtabaşUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 15 Mar 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 15 May 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 15 May 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 3 Mar 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study compared the effects of velocity-based strength training and traditional strength training on physical performance and muscle adaptations in youth soccer players. Twenty-four male youth soccer players were randomly assigned to one of three training groups: velocity-based training with 10% velocity loss, velocity-based training with 20% velocity loss, or traditional resistance training performed to failure. All groups trained twice per week for six weeks using the same relative load.
Before and after the training period, participants completed assessments of sprint performance, jump performance, change of direction speed, muscle strength, and muscle thickness. The purpose of this study was to determine whether velocity-based training could provide similar or superior improvements in performance and muscle development compared with traditional training while using a lower total training volume.
Detailed description
This randomized, parallel-group interventional study was designed to compare the effects of velocity-based strength training (VBT) and traditional resistance training (TRT) on selected physiological and motoric outcomes in elite youth soccer players. The intervention period lasted six weeks, with training sessions conducted twice weekly under supervised conditions.
Participants were randomly allocated to one of three groups: velocity-based training with a 10% velocity loss threshold (VBT-10), velocity-based training with a 20% velocity loss threshold (VBT-20), or traditional resistance training performed to voluntary concentric failure (TRT). All groups completed the same resistance exercises (squat, deadlift, and hip thrust) using a relative load corresponding to 80% of one-repetition maximum.
In the VBT groups, repetition velocity was continuously monitored using a wearable linear velocity tracking device. Each set was terminated when the predefined velocity loss threshold was reached. In contrast, participants in the TRT group performed sets until concentric failure without velocity monitoring. Rest intervals and exercise order were standardized across groups to ensure consistency.
Outcome assessments were conducted before and after the intervention period by the same research staff using standardized protocols. Participants were instructed to refrain from additional resistance training outside the study during the intervention period. All training sessions and testing procedures were supervised, and no training-related adverse events were reported.
The primary objective of the study was to evaluate whether velocity-based strength training could elicit comparable or superior adaptations in performance and muscle-related outcomes compared with traditional resistance training, while potentially reducing overall training volume and fatigue accumulation.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
- Model description
- Participants were randomly assigned to one of three parallel training groups and completed the intervention concurrently for six weeks.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Velocity-Based Training (10% Velocity Loss) | Experimental | Other: Velocity-Based Training (10% Velocity Loss)Participants performed resistance training using a velocity-based approach. Each set was terminated when a 10% loss in movement velocity was reached, as monitored by a velocity-tracking device. Training sessions were conducted twice per week for six weeks using the same relative load as the other groups. |
| Velocity-Based Training (20% Velocity Loss) | Experimental | Other: Velocity-Based Training (20% Velocity Loss)Participants performed resistance training using a velocity-based approach, with each set terminated when a 20% loss in movement velocity was reached. |
| Traditional Strength Training | Active comparator | Other: Traditional Strength TrainingParticipants performed traditional resistance training with sets completed until voluntary muscular failure without velocity monitoring. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 15 to 17 years
- Sex
- Male only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Male youth soccer players aged 15-17 years
- Competing in an elite youth soccer academy league
- Actively participating in organized soccer training and official competitions
- Minimum of 2 years of structured resistance training experience as part of team training
- Training regularly five days per week with official matches on weekends
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- History of musculoskeletal injury or surgery within the previous 6 months
- Presence of any neurological, cardiovascular, or orthopedic disorder
- Use of performance-enhancing drugs or supplements affecting neuromuscular performance
- Participation in another structured strength or conditioning research study within the previous 3 months
- Failure to attend more than 10% of the scheduled training sessions
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Velocity-Based Training (10% Velocity Loss)Resistance training performed using a velocity-based approach, where repetition velocity was monitored using a wearable device and each set was terminated when a 10% loss in movement velocity was reached. Training sessions were conducted twice per week for six weeks at a relative intensity of 80% of one-repetition maximum. | Other | Velocity-Based Training (10% Velocity Loss) |
| Velocity-Based Training (20% Velocity Loss)Resistance training performed using a velocity-based approach, where repetition velocity was monitored using a wearable device and each set was terminated when a 20% loss in movement velocity was reached. Training sessions were conducted twice per week for six weeks at a relative intensity of 80% of one-repetition maximum. | Other | Velocity-Based Training (20% Velocity Loss) |
| Traditional Strength TrainingTraditional resistance training performed without velocity monitoring, where sets were completed until voluntary concentric muscular failure. Training sessions were conducted twice per week for six weeks at a relative intensity of 80% of one-repetition maximum. | Other | Traditional Strength Training |
Primary outcome
Maximal Strength (1RM)
Time frame: Baseline and 6 weeks of training
Maximal dynamic strength was assessed using the one-repetition maximum (1RM) test in the squat exercise. Measurements were performed at baseline and 6-week training intervention to evaluate changes in maximal strength across groups.
2 secondary outcomes
Mean Propulsive Velocity
Time frame: Baseline and 6 weeks of training
Training Volume Load
Time frame: Throughout the 6-week training period
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 3 Mar 2026.
- BackgroundMann, J. B., Ivey, P. A., & Sayers, S. P. (2015). Velocity-based training in football. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 37, 52-57.
- Background: PubMed 28192832Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Yanez-Garcia JM, Mora-Custodio R, Rodriguez-Rosell D. Velocity Loss as a Variable for Monitoring Resistance Exercise. Int J Sports Med. 2017 Mar;38(3):217-225. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-120324. Epub 2017 Feb 13.
- Background: PubMed 34793506Liao KF, Wang XX, Han MY, Li LL, Nassis GP, Li YM. 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. 2021 Nov 18;16(11):e0259790. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259790. eCollection 2021.
- BackgroundWeakley, 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.
- Background: PubMed 27618386Pareja-Blanco F, Sanchez-Medina L, Suarez-Arrones L, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Effects of Velocity Loss During Resistance Training on Performance in Professional Soccer Players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017 Apr;12(4):512-519. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2016-0170. Epub 2016 Sep 6.
- Results publicationAtabaş, E. G., Yapıcı, A., Fındıkoğlu Ergin, G., & Alemdaroğlu, B. U. Comparison of Velocity-Based and Traditional Strength Training Methods on Physiological and Motoric Parameters. (Manuscript in preparation / doctoral thesis derived study). Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Individual participant data (IPD) will not be shared publicly due to participant confidentiality considerations and institutional data protection regulations. Aggregate data will be reported in publications.
Related trials for Athletic Performance
Recruiting
Acute Effects of Post-Exercise Hyperoxia on Recovery in Cycling
Athletic Performance, Hyperbaric Oxygenation
Not yet recruiting
Core Strength Training, Anthropometry, and Postural Control in Youth Optimist Sailors
Postural Control, Athletic Performance
Recruiting
Effects of Scapular Training on Adolescent Boxers
Sports Physical Therapy
Active, not recruiting
Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Physical Function, Muscle Adaptations, and Performance in Roller Skaters
Athletic Performance Enhancement
Recruiting
UCLA Magnesium Formulation Athlete Study
Athletic Performance, Recovery
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Velocity-Based Training (10% Velocity Loss), Velocity-Based Training (20% Velocity Loss) and Traditional Strength Training in people with Athletic Performance and Muscle Strength, run by Engin Güneş Atabaş at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 8 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 3 Mar 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Maximal Strength (1RM) (time frame: Baseline and 6 weeks of training). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07447258, which also lists 6 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 3 Mar 2026.