Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 20, 2026

Getting to Compliance in Forced Exercise in Rodents: A Critical Standard to Evaluate Exercise Impact in Aging-related Disorders and Disease
Published on: August 22, 2014
The Coach's Eye: A Randomized Repeated-Measure Observational Study Assessing Coaches' Perception of Velocity Loss
Antonio Dello Iacono1, Scott Henry2, Asaf Ben-Ari3,4
1Division of Sport, Exercise and Health, School of Health and Life Sciences, Sport and Physical Activity Research Institute (SPARI), University of the West of Scotland, Hamilton, UK. antonio.delloiacono@uws.ac.uk.
Background:
Resistance training (RT) coaches regularly instruct their trainees to terminate a set when the repetition velocity drops below a certain threshold, aligned with the principles of velocity loss in velocity-based training (VBT). However, absent of a velocity-tracking device, coaches are required to detect velocity loss through observation-a topic that has never been studied. Here, we assess the accuracy of RT coaches in detecting when trainees reach specific repetition velocity loss thresholds.
Methods:
Twenty RT coaches participated in a single experimental session. They observed videos of two trainees completing sets of the barbell bench press and barbell back squat exercises, using three loads (45%, 65%, and 85% of 1 repetition-maximum [1RM]), and recorded from two views (front and side). We asked them to detect when repetition velocity dropped below two velocity loss thresholds (20% and 40% relative to their first repetition). We examined whether load, velocity loss threshold, view, mental fatigue, and gaze strategy (bar or no-bar tracking) influenced accuracy. We compared outcomes using a negative binomial generalized mixed-effects model.
Results:
The average absolute error across all conditions was 2.6 repetitions. Coaches improved their accuracy (negative estimates indicate reduced error) when observing a higher velocity loss threshold (40% vs 20%; - 1.8, 95%CI [- 2.3, - 1.3]); observing heavier loads (- 0.8, 95% CI [- 1.5, - 0.1] for 65% 1RM, and - 3, 95%CI [- 3.4, - 2.6] for 85% 1RM compared to 45% 1RM); and employing a bar tracking gaze strategy compared to a no-bar strategy (- 1.7, 95%CI [- 2.7, - 0.4]). In contrast, point of view and mental fatigue had a negligible effect.
Conclusions:
While coaches detect velocity loss with some degree of accuracy, their error rates vary depending on the threshold, load, and gaze strategy. These factors should be considered when using perceived velocity loss in practice.
More Related Videos
05:59Visualization of Intensity Levels to Reduce the Gap Between Self-Reported and Directly Measured Physical Activity
Published on: March 7, 2019
10:08Effects of a Novel Neuromuscular Training Intervention on Jump, Sprint, and Change of Direction in Adult Female Soccer Players
Published on: June 10, 2025