Introduction
Over the course of my coaching career, I’ve had the opportunity to work in NCAA Division I athletics, the NBA, international performance environments, and the youth development space. Across every level, one thing has remained consistent: the athletes who develop best over time are usually the ones following simple systems, with steady consistency and high levels of intent.
Youth athletes often experience the opposite. A single young athlete will typically play for a school coach, a club coach, and multiple sports at multiple levels, sometimes all at once. These coaches rarely coordinate with each other or even know one another exists, and poor training fundamentals compound the complexity of the American sport model. Sport coaches and performance coaches alike tend to chase fatigue with what gets marketed as “speed and agility,” leaving youth athletes chasing soreness, paying for random workouts from random coaches, and following social media trends.
This chaotic environment is what we’ve inherited, and as coaches our responsibility is to stay solution-oriented and build systems that actually serve long-term development. My philosophy has evolved toward a simpler approach: full body training throughout the week, with a different emphasis on different days. Alongside max effort and repeat effort rep schemes, Velocity Based Training (VBT) has become one of the most valuable tools I use.
For me, VBT is less about numbers and more about intent. It gives athletes immediate feedback and teaches them to move with purpose. Young athletes are constantly adapting to rapid changes in growth, coordination, and body awareness, so training the nervous system matters as much as building strength. Rather than forcing athletes into fixed percentages, VBT lets me adjust to daily readiness, control fatigue, and keep training engaging.
Why Full Body Training Works Best for Youth Athletes
One of the biggest mistakes I see in youth performance training is athletes, coaches, and families trying to adhere to an unrealistic training schedule. Athletes are balancing year-round practices, games, travel, school stress, poor sleep habits, and inconsistent nutrition.Also, don’t forget about doctor’s appointments, orthodontist appointments, family vacations, and haircuts. Yes, haircuts. I’ve had athletes miss sessions for all of these reasons, and almost always the athlete has no control over it.
Taking into account all of these variables, we have to remember the classic advice: “The best workout program is the one you can stick with.” If we ask our youth athletes to follow a four-day upper/lower split, there is a good chance they will miss one or two sessions per month, considerably reducing the total volume and thus limiting their development. The problem gets even worse if we prescribe a body-part-per-day “bro” split. If you miss chest day, you will not touch your chest again for seven days.
These structures are just not adaptable enough for the chaotic schedule in youth athletics.
In a full body, three-day-per-week structure, we train every movement pattern, every muscle group, in every session. We can survive a missed session every now and then. The total volume will not be completely derailed if there is an unforeseen schedule conflict. The three-day structure also gives us ultimate flexibility as far as what day of the week the athlete trains. The athlete has seven days to get in three workouts. Even in the wild world of youth sports, this is almost always doable.
The most impactful, and underrated, quality of full body workouts is the motor learning effect. The structure creates increased exposure to fundamental movement patterns. Strength training is a skill, no different from developing a jump shot or a golf swing. Athletes improve movement patterns through repeated exposure and practice. The more frequently athletes can squat, hinge, push, pull, sprint, jump, and stabilize correctly, the more technically efficient they become.
The motor learning effect is especially pronounced when working with pre-peak height velocity (PHV) and circa-PHV athletes. In this phase of maturation, athletes’ limbs are growing at rapid rates and the brain can’t keep up. The rapid and (mostly) unpredictable change in body proportions makes self-organizing very difficult at different times, a phase of development often referred to as “adolescent awkwardness.” We all picture the tall, young athlete who has trouble with the most basic patterns.
Much of the research in this area suggests that athletes in this phase of development benefit from relatively high volume at submaximal loads. [4] Each repetition helps make connections from the brain to the body, helping the young person organize their movement in a controlled and less chaotic environment.
Using full body sessions, we get more consistent exposure to multi-joint patterns. Just like learning a subject in school or a skill in sport, consistent exposure is fundamental.
Coaches often cite more opportunity for recovery as another benefit of full body workouts, and while I agree, there are some unique considerations when looking at youth athletes. The athletes I train will use their “free time” to attend more sport practices, extra school work, a job, or other extracurriculars. That is not necessarily “recovery.” I’ve watched an 11-year-old eat pizza and chocolate milk at lunch, go to PE, run a 5k in street clothes, then go back to math class. Imagine doing that! It happens every day at elementary schools around the world. In my experience, youth athletes can handle more than our typical mature athlete. I see freeing up their schedule as a massive benefit of full body workouts and a major reason I believe in them so strongly. But I have no illusions of increased recovery. My approach to recovery is consistent, age-appropriate nutrition education, developing (slowly) great habits, proper periodization, full range-of-motion loaded multi-joint movement, and proper exercise selection. This is where velocity based training comes into play, but we’ll get to that shortly.
The rest of this article does a deep dive into sets, reps, and exercise selection. But before we move on, let’s center ourselves around the belief that for youth athletes, athletic development is less about chasing maximal fatigue and more about building coordination, intent, force production, and movement competency over time. The best results almost always come from athletes who train consistently and focus on mastering basic movement patterns with high intent.
The 8/5/3 Method
Now we apply sets and reps to our full body training program. The three rep schemes I use throughout my program are max effort, repeat effort, and dynamic effort. For max effort rep schemes, I’ve developed The 8/5/3 Method, a combination and adaptation of several influences.
What makes the 8/5/3 system effective for youth athletes is its simplicity. It provides enough variation to keep athletes progressing without overwhelming them with unnecessary complexity, and it balances muscle development, strength, and power within a structured progression model.
The system itself evolved from years of coaching in elite environments and then adapting to the realities of working with youth athletes. Influences came from Jim Wendler’s 5/3/1, Dr. Bryan Mann’s APRE, Jeff Connors’ three-week mini cycles, and practical experience coaching large groups with varying levels of maturity and training age.
Through trial and error, I slowly started to make adjustments to the original programs. I was training athletes between the ages of 12 and 18, in the same room, at the same time. We needed a program that was scalable and self-regulating while accounting for growth and maturation. Eventually I found a systematic way to progress both beginners and advanced lifters, often in the same room, doing mostly the same workout.
After some time, I felt the original 5/3/1 didn’t allow enough time in the rep ranges for athletes to adapt and thrive; there was more meat on the bone. Often Week 1 is spent learning the lifts, Week 2 is the athlete’s first time really training, and by Week 3 the athlete can finally start to push themselves. I wanted to expand 5/3/1 into mini cycles. I’d watched my first boss, Jeff Connors at East Carolina, have incredible success with different forms of “three-week mini cycles,” and I wanted to find a way to expand the original program and give my athletes more time to grow.
This structure worked great while I was training NCAA Division I track and field throwers. We added in some velocity based training and specific accessories, which resulted in some very powerful men and women. However, when I started working with youth athletes, I knew right away this structure was going to be too advanced for my middle school and high school students.
That realization led me to implement different APRE methods. Working through APRE, I found my athletes were making great progress in the higher rep ranges. Most of our strength gains came during the time spent in APRE10 and APRE6. I came to believe that moderate to high repetitions, for the majority of the year, were most beneficial for young athletes. The combination that worked best was an adjusted APRE10, APRE6, and APRE3, applying original 5/3/1 principles and keeping the three-week mini cycle structure: three weeks of 8s, three weeks of 5s, and three weeks of 3s.
An added benefit of the 8/5/3 Method is that we don’t need an estimated 1RM to have a productive session, and it doesn’t matter when the athlete joins the program. Starting with 8s and progressively moving through the program is ideal, but because of the AMAP set (as many reps as possible), an athlete can jump in and start training at any point.
For a brand new student with a training age of zero, Set 1 might be the empty bar; sometimes it’s a 15-lb training bar. We then slowly add weight, working toward the AMAP set. Through the warm-up sets, we aim to find a weight that limits the athlete to roughly 10 challenging reps on the last set. The following week we’ll have an estimated 1RM, prescribing weights for each set strictly based on previous performance, not guessing. The athlete again aims for as many reps as possible on the last set with the assigned weight. The process continues, and the estimated 1RM becomes more and more accurate.
The 8/5/3 Method is the general framework we follow for our max effort primary exercises, typically bench, squat, and deadlift. I’ve also applied the concepts to chin-ups, pull-ups, split squats, lateral squats, push-ups, and shoulder presses. Also, this framework guides our programming for max effort rep schemes: one to two exercises per day follow the 8/5/3 format, followed by three to four exercises of accessory work, which follow either the repeat effort or dynamic effort rep schemes.
What Is Velocity Based Training?
In my program, Velocity Based Training and Dynamic Effort are one and the same. I define this category of exercises as moving submaximal loads at maximal velocities. Remember that Force = Mass × Acceleration. We often focus only on the Mass variable while forgetting that Acceleration plays an equal role. Moving submaximal loads at maximal velocity helps guide weight selection, manage fatigue, assess readiness, and improve neuromuscular intent: all critical elements when developing a youth athlete.
My favorite benefit of VBT is the immediate feedback it gives the athlete. Many young athletes struggle with what the strength training literature often describes as neurological, or autogenic, inhibition: a protective mechanism, associated with structures like the Golgi tendon organ, that researchers believe dampens muscle force output before an athlete reaches their true physical ceiling. [1] The exact mechanisms are still debated in the research, but the practical effect coaches see on the platform is familiar: the brain “puts on the brakes” before the muscle has to. In simple terms, the brain limits output even when the muscle itself may be capable of more.
We need to teach athletes to take their foot off the brakes. The feedback of how fast they are moving each rep pushes them to fight that hesitation. VBT allows us to train the nervous system, not just the muscles. For athletes who are growing and maturing, building that bridge between brain and body is extremely important for transfer to the field or court.
VBT also helps coaches adjust training based on how the athlete is actually performing in that moment. Traditional percentage-based training assumes athletes are ready to perform at the same level every day. As discussed, all of the stressors in an athlete’s life affect performance, and performance will vary day to day. Research specifically looking at adolescent athletes has found that giving real-time velocity feedback reduces the natural drop-off in bar speed across a set and increases motivation and competitiveness compared to training without feedback [2], and a recent meta-analytical review found velocity-based approaches to be an effective way of both prescribing and monitoring training load across a range of populations [3]. Just like the 8/5/3 Method, implementing VBT reinforces our belief in auto-regulation, improved athlete engagement, and immediate training adjustments.
Integrating VBT into the 8/5/3 Method
When I added VBT and dynamic effort work, I wanted it to do more than complement our max effort rep schemes. I wanted the two to amplify each other. Instead of adding intensity across the mini cycle, I increase volume over time while shifting the velocity target:
- Weeks 1–3: 3×3 at 0.75–0.85 m/s
- Weeks 4–6: 3×4 at 0.85–1.0 m/s
- Weeks 7–9: 3×5 at 1.0–1.5+ m/s
Load selection follows the velocity, not the other way around. I start the athlete with a weight in the neighborhood of what worked in the previous cycle, then adjust up or down in small increments, guided by the Vitruve reading on the first working rep, until they’re moving inside the target band. If an athlete comes in under the range, meaning they’re moving too slowly, I decrease the weight by 5-10 pounds. If they’re above it, moving too fast with no sign of fatigue, I add. Missing the range by a small margin on a single rep isn’t a concern, but if velocity is consistently outside the band, or falls off sharply within a set, that’s the cue to reduce the load, cut a rep, or end the set early.
That’s the built-in auto-regulation VBT provides: the number on the bar responds to how the athlete is actually performing that day, not to a percentage written down weeks in advance.
These velocity zones are starting points, not universal constants. They apply most reliably to compound, easily loaded bilateral movements: trap bar jumps, squat variations, bench or push press throws. For less loadable or unilateral exercises, like split squats, single-arm presses, or some pulling variations, I care more about the trend across the cycle than about hitting an exact number. The load-velocity relationship on those movements is less standardized in the research and varies more from athlete to athlete.
Over the full nine weeks, the athlete moves through a broad slice of the force-velocity curve, developing strength-speed, speed-strength, and speed qualities in sequence rather than training all of them the same way year-round.
The velocity progression also lets us tap into elements of post-activation potentiation: the final mini cycle pairs a max effort 4×3 working up to roughly 90% with 3×5 dynamic effort work at 1.0-1.5+ m/s. That cycle typically lands at the end of a season or the end of pre-season, priming athletes to be at their most explosive. The full body organization creates frequent exposure, more data points, and better movement consistency over time. I simply rotate what our VBT emphasis is for each day, looking for balance throughout the week. As an example:
| Day 1 | Day 2 |
|---|---|
| Double Leg (Max Effort) | Upper Body Push (Max Effort) |
| Upper Body Push (Dynamic Effort w/ VBT) | Double Leg (Dynamic Effort w/ VBT) |
Implementing with Vitruve and TeamBuildr
To fully integrate auto-regulation, some element of tracking is required. Tracking allows us to make adjustments in real time and progress accordingly. I fully believe in the saying, “If you aren’t tracking, you aren’t training.”
Vitruve was a major addition to our program. Before implementing their accelerometers, I was limited to cueing by telling athletes to “move it faster.” Moving faster is a hard concept for youth athletes who are already limited in their neuromuscular recruitment and have only ever chased heavier loads. The biggest impact of Vitruve is the real-time velocity feedback during training. If we do nothing else, simply attaching the tether drives intent and helps create a neural adaptation. Instead of guessing how an athlete is moving, we get immediate, objective data on bar speed and output, and we can make quick adjustments to load or volume depending on the goal of the session.
I’ve also found that athletes become much more engaged when they can see their numbers live. Many start competing against their previous scores or against each other, which increases effort and intent on every rep.
On a week-to-week basis, what we actually record is simple: load, reps, and mean concentric velocity for every working set on the max effort lift, plus the target-band velocity and load used on every VBT set. I review that data before writing the next week’s session, not just at the end of a mini cycle. If an athlete’s velocity at a given load has been trending up over two or three sessions, I’ll bump the load slightly ahead of schedule. If velocity is trending down, or bar speed is falling off within sets more than usual, that’s a signal to back off volume or intensity before soreness or a missed session forces the issue. That week-over-week review is what turns the data into decisions, rather than just a spreadsheet of numbers.
TeamBuildr serves a different but equally important role. Teambuildr helps deliver programs, organize training sessions, track progress over time, and improve communication between coach and athlete. For larger groups and teams, the platform creates scalability and consistency without losing structure.
When it comes to implementing The 8/5/3 Method, it’s foundational that we record our weights and reps. TeamBuildr allows for this at scale. We also record velocities from Vitruve so athletes can track their progress beyond just adding weight to the bar. We can now track every element of the force formula, F = MA.
Conclusion: Simplicity, Intent, and Long-Term Development
As coaches, we have to keep coming back to the foundational principles of long-term athletic development. Youth athletes don’t need complicated systems, excessive specialization, or programs built to chase short-term outcomes. They need structured environments that prioritize movement quality, coordination, strength, and consistency over time. The best program is simply the one that meets the athlete where they are: physically, emotionally, and developmentally.
When we teach athletes to move well, build strength in a wide range of positions, and connect the body through full body coordination, the result is a more confident, resilient performer. Stay committed to the fundamentals, coach with intent, and let the athlete develop.
References
- Golgi tendon organ–mediated autogenic inhibition is widely cited in the strength training literature as a factor limiting voluntary force production, though the human evidence for how resistance training modifies this mechanism remains limited. See, e.g., discussions of GTO function in Sports Biomechanics, 1(2), 2002.
- Weakley, J.J.S., Wilson, K.M., Till, K., et al. (2019). Visual feedback attenuates mean concentric barbell velocity loss and improves motivation, competitiveness, and perceived workload in male adolescent athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 33(9), 2420–2425.
- Mann, J.B., Ivey, P.A., & Sayers, S.P. (2022). Velocity-based training in sports: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 36(3), 635–647.
- Lloyd, R.S., & Oliver, J.L. (2012). The Youth Physical Development Model: A New Approach to Long-Term Athletic Development. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 34(3), 61–72.
- Philippaerts, R.M., Vaeyens, R., Janssens, M., et al. (2006). The relationship between peak height velocity and physical performance in youth soccer players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(3), 221–230.
The post Integrating Velocity Based Training in a Full Body Training Program for Youth Athletes appeared first on SimpliFaster.
