From Velocity-Based Training to PIVoT: Why Intent Matters More Than the Number

By Joe “Big House” Kenn, VP of Performance Education

For over two decades, I've incorporated velocity monitoring into my strength programs. My first exposure came in the early 2000s with the Tendo Power Analyzer, long before velocity-based training became one of the hottest topics on social media. Throughout that time, my philosophy has remained remarkably consistent. Contrary to what some may believe, I am not against velocity-based training. I simply believe there are aspects of its application that deserve to be challenged if our ultimate goal is developing stronger, more resilient athletes.

My introduction to velocity training wasn't rooted in chasing numbers. It grew out of Louie Simmons' Dynamic Effort Method and Dr. Fred Hatfield's Compensatory Acceleration Training. The objective was straightforward: move submaximal loads with maximum intent. The technology simply confirmed whether the athlete was expressing the effort we were coaching. It was never intended to become the coach.

As velocity technology evolved, so did the way coaches used it. Average velocity became a valuable tool for prescribing training zones, regulating loading, and monitoring fatigue. There is certainly value in these applications, and I have used many of them myself. However, over time I began noticing a trend that gave me pause. Too often athletes became preoccupied with hitting a velocity target rather than producing the highest quality repetition possible. Coaches were adjusting loads based solely on velocity numbers, sometimes before allowing the athlete to experience the very stress and strain that drive long-term strength development.

That observation led me to ask a simple question that continues to shape my thinking today.

Is the number driving the training, or is the training driving the number?

That question ultimately became the foundation for what I now call Peak Intent Velocity Training (PIVoT).

PIVoT is built around a principle that has guided my coaching career from the beginning: the athlete's intent matters. I believe the commitment to move every concentric repetition with maximum effort is just as important as the velocity number that appears on the screen. Technology can measure output, but it cannot measure desire. As coaches, we have to develop both.

The PIVoT model integrates concepts that have influenced my coaching for decades. Steve Plisk's work on Maximum Concentric Acceleration reinforced the importance of intent. Dr. Fred Hatfield's Compensatory Acceleration Training demonstrated the value of attacking every repetition with maximal acceleration. Louie Simmons expanded those concepts through the Dynamic Effort Method and the application of accommodating resistance using bands and chains. Layered over the training parameters established through Prilepin's Chart, these concepts form the foundation from which PIVoT continues to evolve.

Rather than replacing these methods, PIVoT attempts to bring them together into a practical coaching system. Percentage-based loading provides structure. Average velocity offers valuable monitoring. Peak velocity provides insight into an athlete's true intent. Together they create a more complete picture than any single metric alone.

As the system has developed, several performance assumptions have emerged that continue to guide both our coaching and ongoing investigation. We believe peak velocity may provide a more direct reflection of athlete intent than average velocity alone. Improving peak velocity may enhance average velocity over time. Velocity data should complement, not replace, traditional loading methods. Athletes still need exposure to meaningful stress and strain to develop absolute strength rather than automatically reducing loads every time velocity declines. Velocity decay often serves as valuable coaching information instead of an immediate signal to change the program. Finally, psychological readiness and cognitive regulation influence performance far more than most technology can measure, reminding us that coaching remains an art supported by science.

Perhaps the most important principle within PIVoT is this: the coach owns the data. Technology should inform coaching decisions, not make them. Numbers provide information. Coaches provide interpretation. Experience, observation, athlete communication, and context remain essential components of effective program design.

PIVoT continues to evolve through collaboration with outstanding coaches and researchers who challenge assumptions and help refine the model. I am fortunate to work alongside professionals including Dr. Quincy Johnson, Dr. Adam Feit, Eric Cash, Mark Hoover, and many others who continue to explore these concepts through both practical application and research-informed practice. Together, we are committed to asking better questions, collecting better information, and ultimately becoming better coaches.

At the end of the day, PIVoT is not an attempt to replace velocity-based training. It is an evolution in how I believe velocity should be applied. By integrating percentage-based loading, average velocity, and peak intent into one coaching model, we can better understand athlete readiness, reinforce maximal intent, improve performance, and continue building the absolute strength that remains the foundation of athletic success.

Because in the end, technology doesn't develop athletes.

Coaches do.

#WordsWin

— Coach Joe “Big House” Kenn