When I started my career in Strength & Conditioning, I became interested in using objective data to understand how athletes responded to training.

One question stayed with me:

Was the athlete in front of me physically ready for the session I had programmed?

A back squat at 100 kg might be manageable on Monday but feel considerably harder later in the week, particularly after demanding swimming sessions, sprint training or accumulated fatigue.

The external load was unchanged. But the athlete's ability to express force and produce movement could be different.

That curiosity introduced me to Velocity-Based Training (VBT).

Starting With the PUSH Band

One of the first technologies I used was the PUSH Band.

Initially, I was fascinated by the ability to measure movement velocity rather than simply judge whether a repetition looked fast or slow.

I started using it during strength exercises, squat jumps and loaded explosive movements.

But eventually I realised that measuring velocity was only the beginning.

The important question wasn't how fast the athlete moved. It was what that velocity meant for the training session.

Establishing a Reference Point

I began comparing movement velocity at a consistent load across sessions.

For example, if an athlete normally squatted 100 kg at approximately 0.70 m/s but was moving it at 0.62 m/s, I knew their performance had changed.

However, a slower repetition did not automatically mean fatigue.

I needed to consider their training history, sleep, soreness, warm-up, movement execution and the normal variability of the measurement.

Over time, I also understood why consistent testing conditions mattered. Comparing velocities is only useful when the exercise, load, range of motion, measurement method and movement intent are reasonably consistent.

That was an important shift in my thinking.

Learning to Adjust the Training Dose

As I gained experience, I stopped treating VBT as simply a way to estimate training intensity.

It became another tool for autoregulating sessions.

I began paying closer attention to both reference-load velocity and velocity loss within sets.

Adjusting Training to the Athlete

If an athlete was moving slower than usual, particularly alongside other signs of reduced readiness, I might adjust the session.

Instead of prescribing 4 × 5, I could use 4 × 3 or 3 × 4.

Sometimes I maintained the load but reduced the total repetitions. Other times, I increased rest periods, reduced accessory volume or limited the velocity loss allowed within sets.

The objective wasn't always to make training easier.

It was to preserve the intended training stimulus without creating unnecessary fatigue.

And sometimes the best decision was to change nothing.

When the Numbers Matched Performance

One of the most interesting patterns I noticed involved swimmers and track athletes.

There were periods when athletes consistently produced strong velocity numbers, jumped well and appeared physically sharp during training.

Quite often, those periods also coincided with improvements in sporting performance.

Swimmers dropped time.

Track athletes achieved personal bests.

That observation stayed with me.

Looking Beyond the Numbers

Of course, good VBT numbers did not cause those performances. Swimming and athletics involve technical preparation, conditioning, tapering, psychological readiness and race execution.

But when movement velocity, jump performance, athlete feedback and sport-specific training were all positive, it gave me greater confidence that the athlete was physically prepared to express their performance.

Equally, one poor velocity reading never meant an athlete would perform badly.

I began looking for patterns rather than reacting to individual numbers.

Moving From PUSH to Output Sports

Later, I started using Output Sports.

By then, my approach to monitoring had evolved.

Initially, I wanted to know the movement velocity.

Then I wanted to know whether it had improved or declined.

Eventually, I became more interested in whether the change was meaningful enough to justify adjusting the program.

Understanding Meaningful Change

This was where understanding individual baselines and measurement variability became important.

A small reduction in velocity might simply reflect normal day-to-day variation rather than a meaningful change in physical readiness.

I also began considering how much fatigue athletes accumulated within sets and how velocity loss could help regulate that training dose.

The technology was useful, but learning to interpret the data was far more valuable.

Force Plates Added Another Perspective

As I started working with force plates, including VALD ForceDecks, my understanding of athlete monitoring developed further.

VBT helped me understand how quickly athletes moved a given load.

Force plates allowed me to examine how they produced a movement.

Two athletes might achieve the same countermovement jump height but use different strategies to get there.

Even within the same athlete, jump height could remain relatively stable while movement time, countermovement depth or force-production characteristics changed.

That did not necessarily indicate fatigue, but it gave me another perspective worth investigating.

Understanding What the Data Can Tell Us

I also became more cautious about interpreting every reduction in performance as CNS fatigue.

A lower jump or slower bar velocity tells us something about the performance observed during that test. It does not independently identify the physiological cause.

This reinforced something I had gradually learned:

More data does not automatically produce better decisions. Better interpretation does.

What I Do Differently Today

Today, I try to keep athlete monitoring practical.

I establish what is normal for the athlete, standardise the measurements where possible, and look for changes that are meaningful rather than simply different.

I consider movement velocity, velocity loss, jump performance, training load, sleep, soreness and athlete feedback together.

If several indicators suggest reduced readiness, I may adjust the training dose.

If the athlete is performing well and responding positively, I have greater confidence in continuing with the plan.

I don't believe any single metric can explain an athlete's readiness.

And I don't believe every decline in performance requires an intervention.

The Biggest Lesson

The PUSH Band introduced me to objective movement velocity.

Output Sports helped me integrate monitoring more effectively into daily training.

Force plates gave me a deeper understanding of how athletes produce movement.

But the most important evolution wasn't technological.

It was learning to distinguish between collecting information and making useful coaching decisions.

Some of my most rewarding coaching observations came when athletes were moving well in the gym, feeling physically fresh and subsequently producing their best performances in the pool or on the track.

Those experiences reinforced the value of monitoring, while reminding me that no single measurement predicts performance.

Today, the question I ask is no longer just whether the athlete is fatigued.

It's whether the athlete standing in front of me needs the training dose I originally planned.