Bar-speed tracking devices promise a more precise way to select weights during resistance training. Instead of relying entirely on a percentage of your one-repetition maximum (1RM), you can measure how quickly the bar moves and adjust the load to reflect your performance that day.
The approach has a clear appeal. A weight that feels manageable on Monday may move noticeably slower after a demanding week of training. Measuring bar speed offers an objective way to detect that difference.
But does more precise load selection actually produce greater muscle growth?
A study published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology on September 12, 2026, compared velocity-based training with conventional percentage-based programming in 19 resistance-trained young men. After 10 weeks, both groups increased pectoralis major cross-sectional area and bench press maximum strength by approximately 15%. The researchers found no significant advantage from velocity-based loading.
The findings raise a useful question for lifters considering a bar-speed sensor: what are you expecting the device to improve?
What Is Velocity-Based Training?
Velocity-based training (VBT) uses the speed of a resistance exercise to inform training decisions. A linear position transducer or another suitable measurement device records how quickly the bar moves, usually during the lifting phase.
As the load increases, the bar generally moves more slowly during a maximal-effort repetition. This relationship can help estimate the resistance being lifted relative to an individual’s current capabilities.
For example, an athlete might lift a given weight faster when well recovered and more slowly after accumulating fatigue. A velocity-based approach can use those measurements to adjust the load instead of assuming that the same percentage of a previously measured 1RM always represents the same relative intensity.
Conventional percentage-based training (PBT) takes a different approach. The training load is prescribed using a percentage of an established maximum, such as 70% or 80% of 1RM.
Both approaches can be used within a structured resistance training program. Their main distinction is how the working load is selected and adjusted.
Velocity-based training should also be distinguished from velocity-loss training. The former can use bar speed to select or modify the load, while the latter uses the reduction in repetition speed during a set to determine when to stop. Some programs combine both methods, but their effects should not be treated as identical.
How the Researchers Compared the Two Methods
Afonso Fitas and colleagues investigated the effects of velocity-based and percentage-based hypertrophy training over 10 weeks.
Nineteen resistance-trained young men were assigned to one of two training conditions.
In the velocity-based group, researchers adjusted training loads at each session using the individual’s load–velocity relationship. In the percentage-based group, loads were prescribed using conventional percentage-based programming.
The investigation focused on the bench press, a compound exercise involving the pectoralis major, anterior deltoids and triceps. Readers unfamiliar with the movement can review the barbell bench press technique and muscles worked before considering how load prescription affects the exercise.
Assessments were performed before training, midway through the intervention and after the 10-week period.
The researchers measured regional pectoralis major cross-sectional area, bench press 1RM, maximal voluntary isometric contraction, surface electromyography (EMG) and the load–velocity relationship.
This combination of measurements allowed the researchers to examine muscle morphology alongside maximal strength and neuromuscular outcomes. Cross-sectional area is particularly relevant because it provides a more direct measure of regional muscle size than changes in body weight or whole-body lean mass.
The published abstract does not establish every detail of the training prescription, so the findings should be interpreted within the comparison reported rather than extended to all possible VBT programs.
Both Groups Increased Chest Muscle Size
The researchers measured the pectoralis major at proximal, medial and distal regions.
Cross-sectional area increased significantly over time in both training groups. The reported increase from pre-training to post-training was approximately 15%, with no significant between-group advantage.
This is the central finding for readers interested in hypertrophy.
Using bar velocity to adjust the training load did not produce detectably greater chest muscle growth than conventional percentage-based loading over the 10-week intervention.
However, the absence of a statistically significant difference should not be interpreted as proof that the methods produce exactly the same results under every condition.
With only 19 participants, the study had limited ability to detect smaller differences. It also examined one main exercise and a relatively short training period.
The evidence supports a narrower conclusion: velocity-based loading did not demonstrate a hypertrophy advantage in this particular bench press program.
Maximum Bench Press Strength Improved by a Similar Amount
The researchers also measured one-repetition maximum strength.
Bench press 1RM increased by approximately 15% from baseline to the end of the study, with similar improvements between groups.
This result matters because VBT is sometimes presented as a more responsive way to prescribe training intensity. Adjusting the weight according to daily bar speed could theoretically help an athlete train at a more consistent relative intensity.
Yet the ability to adjust loads more frequently does not guarantee a larger improvement in maximum strength.
In this trial, percentage-based programming produced comparable gains.
That does not make daily load adjustment irrelevant. An athlete’s training schedule, fatigue, competitive demands and available recovery time may influence the usefulness of autoregulation. The study simply did not demonstrate that velocity-based load selection improved bench press 1RM more than the comparison method.
Muscle Activation Did Not Increase in Either Group
Surface EMG was used to assess neuromuscular activation, while maximal voluntary isometric contraction was measured separately.
Neither outcome changed significantly over the training period.
This finding requires careful interpretation. Surface EMG records electrical activity detected at the skin and is influenced by electrode placement, movement conditions and signal-processing methods. It is not a direct measurement of muscle hypertrophy or a complete measure of neural adaptation.
Similarly, an unchanged isometric strength measurement does not negate improvements in dynamic bench press performance. The tests assess different expressions of force production.
The participants increased their bench press 1RM despite no significant change in the reported EMG or maximal voluntary isometric contraction outcomes.
The results reinforce the need to evaluate training adaptations using measurements appropriate to the outcome of interest.
Less Eccentric Time Under Tension, Similar Muscle Growth
One of the more interesting findings concerned eccentric time under tension.
The velocity-based group accumulated less eccentric time under tension than the percentage-based group, even though the groups completed a similar number of repetitions.
The eccentric phase of the bench press occurs when the lifter lowers the bar toward the chest.
Time under tension describes how long the muscles experience loading during an exercise. It is often discussed in hypertrophy programming, particularly when comparing repetition tempos.
In this study, the group with less eccentric time under tension did not experience inferior measured chest growth.
That observation challenges a simple assumption that accumulating more seconds under load will necessarily produce more hypertrophy.
It does not establish that eccentric duration is unimportant or that faster repetitions are always preferable. The study did not isolate eccentric time under tension as an independently manipulated experimental variable. Other aspects of the training stimulus may have contributed to the similar outcomes.
The practical implication is that total time under tension should not be treated as a standalone measure of training quality.
Does Bar Speed Tracking Have Benefits Beyond Hypertrophy?
The study examined specific muscular and performance adaptations. It was not designed to settle every possible use of velocity-based training.
Bar-speed measurements may still help coaches make decisions during training.
Adjusting Loads to Daily Performance
An athlete’s capacity can vary between sessions. Velocity feedback may help identify whether a prescribed load is moving faster or slower than expected.
This information can support load adjustments when the goal is to manage training intensity relative to current performance.
However, this study did not establish that such adjustments produce superior long-term fatigue management.
Monitoring Repetition Performance
Changes in bar speed can provide information about how repetition performance develops across a set.
Coaches may use this information when monitoring fatigue or applying a separate velocity-loss threshold.
Those applications require their own evidence. The present trial compared load-prescription methods and should not be used to make broad claims about the superiority or inferiority of every velocity-loss strategy.
Supporting Power-Oriented Training
Movement velocity is relevant to explosive performance, particularly when athletes are trying to produce force quickly.
A velocity measurement may therefore be more directly connected to the immediate training objective in some power-focused sessions than in a conventional hypertrophy session.
Whether velocity-based programming improves long-term power adaptations more than alternative approaches depends on the population, exercise and protocol.
Is a Bar-Speed Tracking Device Worth Buying?
For a recreational lifter whose main objective is increasing muscle size, this study provides no evidence that purchasing a velocity-tracking device is necessary.
A conventional program can already prescribe training through load, repetitions, sets and progressive adjustments based on performance.
For example, a lifter using the bench press can track the weight lifted, repetitions completed and consistency of technique. When performance improves sufficiently, the training load can be increased according to the program.
A bar-speed sensor can add another measurement, but the usefulness of that measurement depends on whether it changes a training decision.
Coaches working with competitive athletes may have different requirements. If a program already uses velocity targets to manage loading, the device may fit into an established monitoring system.
The purchasing decision should therefore depend on the intended application, measurement reliability and whether the information justifies the cost.
The study does not provide an economic analysis or compare the accuracy of commercial velocity-tracking devices.
What Are the Study’s Limitations?
The trial has several features that strengthen its relevance to hypertrophy research, including regional muscle-size measurements and a direct comparison of two programming approaches.
Its limitations are equally important.
The sample consisted of only 19 resistance-trained young men. Results may differ in women, older adults, beginners or highly trained strength athletes.
The intervention lasted 10 weeks, which is sufficient to observe training adaptations but does not establish what would happen over longer periods.
The study also focused on the bench press. Its findings cannot automatically be applied to squats, deadlifts or a complete multi-exercise training program.
The abstract reports that participants were assigned to groups, but it does not establish a randomized allocation procedure. The study should therefore not be described as a randomized controlled trial without confirmation from the full methods.
Finally, the absence of a significant difference does not demonstrate statistical equivalence. Establishing equivalence requires a study designed and analyzed for that purpose.
Better Data Only Helps When It Improves a Decision
Velocity-based training offers a way to measure and respond to changes in lifting performance. That can be useful when the measurement serves a defined programming purpose.
For hypertrophy, however, the 2026 bench press study found no additional muscle-growth or maximum-strength benefit from adjusting training loads according to bar speed.
Both groups made substantial progress.
For most lifters, the immediate priority is still a training program that provides sufficient resistance, allows progression and can be followed consistently. Velocity tracking can be added when there is a clear reason to use the information, rather than because more detailed measurement is assumed to produce better results.
Research Reference
Fitas A, Gomes M, Valdés-Álvarez A, Miras-Moreno S, Cardoso C, Correia PP, Mendonca GV. (2026). Effects of velocity-based hypertrophy training on pectoralis major morphology, neuromuscular activation and bench press maximal strength. European Journal of Applied Physiology.
- Published online: September 12, 2026.
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-026-06428-x
- PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42730852/
- Clinical trial registration: NCT06760663.
