SSMT Claim Register
SSMT-2026-0011v12026-07-26 Type P · Practice Biomechanics draft
Claim, as marketed
“Autoregulate every set.”
Canonical claim
Prescribing training by velocity improves outcomes compared with percentage-of-1RM prescription.
Scope
Young, trained, mostly male athletes over 6–8 week interventions. No usable evidence outside that.
Verdict
Partially supported Equal on strength; small real gains on jump, sprint and change of direction, often at lower volume.
Real evidence, narrower than the claim.
This claim is split. The practice limb. Measurement accuracy is graded separately at SSMT-2026-0010.
SSMT-2026-0010 →
Claim drift — 3 of 7
▲Population–Setting–Comparator▲Outcome▲Magnitude⋯Reproducibility–Independence
Outcome drifts because the marketing implies better strength, while the trials find equal 1RM and locate the benefit elsewhere.
Evidence located
5
practice trials
5
meta-analyses / appraisals
28
largest trial n
16/17
reviews rated critically low
Findings

On strength — null, consistently. A meta-analysis of 6 studies (n=124) found squat 1RM mean difference 3.03 kg (95% CI −3.55 to 9.61, p=0.37), CMJ SMD 0.27 (p=0.21), sprint p=0.86, change of direction p=0.13. Independent trials agree.

On jump, sprint and change of direction — small but real. A 17-study meta-analysis (n=348) found jump SMD 0.27 (0.03–0.51) and change of direction SMD 0.45 (0.17–0.73). A network meta-analysis of 14 trials ranks low velocity loss (≤20%) first for strength, jump and sprint.

On efficiency — the most interesting finding. Two independent trials found equal or better gains at significantly lower total training volume.

Three honest caveats. One trial found the opposite — percentage-based prescription was significantly better for medicine-ball and sport-specific power in 24 combat athletes. An umbrella appraisal of 17 systematic reviews (8,222 participants) rated 16 of 17 'critically low' on AMSTAR-2, with four finding no difference on any outcome. And the mechanism may not be velocity at all: one network meta-analysis ranked APRE above VBT and above RPE for squat 1RM, suggesting the benefit is autoregulation generally.

What would change this verdict
A properly powered (n≥60 per arm), preregistered, GRADE-assessed RCT showing velocity-based prescription beating percentage-based on 1RM strength — not just on jump and sprint. Plus replication of the volume-efficiency finding with an equal-volume control, so the benefit is attributable to velocity feedback rather than simply to lower fatigue.
Practitioner read
Expect the same 1RM gains for less total volume, and slightly better jump and change of direction — not a strength breakthrough. Pooled effects are small (SMD 0.27–0.45) and the strength comparisons come out even.
Could not be verified
Listed rather than dropped. Counts are floors, not censuses.
Sources
  1. Liao K-F, et al. (2021). PLOS ONE 16(11):e0259790 — meta-analysis ↗
  2. Held S, et al. (2022). Front Physiol 13:926972 — network meta-analysis ↗
  3. Wang et al. (2025). BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil — 17 studies, n=348 ↗
  4. Loaiza-Betancur AF, et al. (2026). PLOS ONE 21(2):e0342992 — umbrella appraisal ↗
  5. Chen et al. (2025). PeerJ 13:e19928 — the contrary trial ↗
Every source must resolve at a DOI or PubMed ID.
Changelog
Cite this card
SSMT. "Prescribing training by velocity improves outcomes compared with percentage-of-1RM prescription." Claim SSMT-2026-0011 v1, graded 2026-07-26. https://sportssciencetech.com/c/SSMT-2026-0011
Disagree with this grade? Every card carries “what would change this verdict” so the specification is explicit. Send evidence and it will be logged and the card re-versioned in public — including when it moves a grade in a manufacturer's favour. Submit evidence →