Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002550
D
TE
Author Information:
1
School of Psychology and Exercise Science, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western
Australia
2
EP
Center for Exercise and Sports Science Research (CESSR), School of Medical and Health
Email : Liam.Hughes@murdoch.edu.au
A
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of predicting 1-
strength-trained men (age: 24.3±2.9 years, height: 180.1±5.9 cm, body mass: 84.2±10.5 kg)
were recruited and visited the laboratory on three occasions. The load-velocity relationship
D
was developed using the mean concentric velocity of repetitions performed at loads between
20% and 90% 1RM. Predicted 1RM was calculated using 3 different methods discussed in
TE
existing research; minimal velocity threshold 1RM (1RMMVT), load at zero velocity 1RM
(1RMLD0) and force-velocity 1RM methods (1RMFV). The reliability of 1RM predictions was
examined using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV).
EP
1RMMVT demonstrated the highest reliability (ICC=0.92-0.96, CV=3.6-5.0%), followed by
1RMMVT and 1RMLD0 were very strongly correlated with measured 1RM (r=0.91-0.95). The
only method which was not significantly different to measured 1RM was the 1RMLD0
C
method. However, when analyzed on an individual basis (using Bland-Altman plots), all
methods exhibited a high degree of variability. Overall, the results suggest that the 1RMMVT
C
and 1RMLD0 predicted 1RM values could be used to monitor strength progress in trained
individuals without the need for maximal testing. However, given the significant differences
A
between 1RMMVT and measured 1RM, and the high variability associated with individual
predictions performed using each method, they cannot be used interchangeably; therefore, it
is recommended that predicted 1RM is not used to prescribe training loads as has been
previously suggested.
INTRODUCTION
Assessments of maximal strength are commonly used to profile the physical capacities of an
individual (3, 35), prescribe loads to lift during training (24), and to track changes in
repetition maximum (1RM) to determine muscular strength is valid and reliable (33), these
assessments are time consuming, and physically and psychologically taxing, which can limit
D
their practicality (8, 16, 19). Numerous methods of estimating maximal strength have been
developed to predict 1RM from the number of repetitions performed with a given load (9, 25,
TE
34) or from multiple repetition maximum testing (31); however, despite requiring lighter
loads than 1RM tests, these methods are also time consuming and physically demanding.
relationship between the load lifted and the concentric velocity of a repetition (i.e. the load-
velocity relationship), which can be determined during a pre-training warm-up (7, 21, 22).
C
Early 1RM predictions from load-velocity relationships were based on the notion that the
final successful repetition of a set to failure will always occur at the same velocity (for the
C
same individual and exercise) (20); commonly referred to as the minimal velocity threshold
(MVT). The MVT-based 1RM prediction is performed by extrapolating the linear load-
A
velocity regression to its intersection with the MVT (4), to estimate the heaviest weight with
which an individual could complete a repetition at their specific MVT. Research has reported
strong correlations between the MVT-predicted 1RM (1RMMVT) and measured 1RM for
various Smith machine exercises (r = 0.93-0.95) (7, 21, 26). Multiple studies have also
suggested MVT is reliable for multi-joint exercises performed in a Smith machine (16, 20),
even with training-induced increases in actual 1RM (16). However, recent work from
Banyard et al. (4) has demonstrated poor test-retest reliability for the MVT variable when
using free-weight back squat exercise for well-trained subjects (coefficient of variation [CV]
= 22.5%). Furthermore, while 1RMMVT and measured 1RM were strongly correlated,
predicted 1RM scores significantly overestimated measured 1RM (4). The authors attributed
these differences to poor reliability of the MVT variable (4), suggesting that 1RMMVT
estimations may not be accurate enough to predict 1RM in the free-weight back squat
D
exercise.
TE
To overcome the potential limitations associated with 1RMMVT predictions, an alternative
the load which corresponds with a velocity of 0 m·s-1 (LD0), rather than the MVT (21). This
LD0 value will obviously be greater than 1RM; however, research indicates that the relative
EP
amount by which LD0 overestimates measured 1RM may be consistent for each individual
for a specific exercise (21). If the relative difference between LD0 and measured 1RM is
determined for each participant in key exercises, it can be subtracted from the LD0 value in
C
investigating these 1RMLD0 predictions employed Smith machine based exercise, and the
C
reliability and validity of these predictions for free-weight exercise (which are associated
with more technical variance than machine-based exercise) is not known. It is also possible
A
that inter-individual differences in lifting kinematics (28, 29) will impact on the amount by
which 1RMLD0 overestimates 1RM, meaning that actual 1RM assessment would still be
required. In addition, the difference between LD0 and 1RM may be influenced by changes in
strength or alterations to lifting technique with training, and further investigation into this
In light of recent interest in velocity-based 1RM predictions, a very recent study from Picerno
et al. (30) proposed another novel method to use velocity measures to predict 1RM. This
strategy examines the intersect between the regression line of the force-velocity relationship
(FV) with the weight (load x 9.81m·s-2)-velocity relationship (30). This point represents the
heaviest load at which the force an individual can produce is greater than the resisting weight
(i.e. predicted 1RM) (30). This force-velocity 1RM prediction (1RMFV) prediction was
D
almost perfectly related to measured 1RM for the pin loaded chest press and leg press
exercises
TE
(r > 0.99), and Bland-Altman analyses have demonstrated acceptable validity for the 1RMFV
using these exercises (chest press: bias = -1.32 kg, limits of agreement = -3.58-0.94 kg; leg
press: bias = -1.76 kg, limits of agreement = -5.81-2.29 kg). While this 1RMFV strategy
EP
appears very promising, research has not examined the validity of these predictions in free-
weight exercise, and the reliability of the predictions have not been published.
machine-based exercises. Importantly, the individuals who are most likely to undertake
setting; although these cohorts do make use of machine-based exercises, the majority of their
training is typically comprised of free-weight exercises (10). Therefore, the aim of this study
A
is to examine the reliability and validity of all currently available velocity-based 1RM
hypothesised that each of the load-velocity relationship based 1RM predictions would
demonstrate acceptable levels of test-retest reliability and validity, which would enable them
METHODS
Subjects reported to the laboratory on three occasions over 14 days, each separated by
approximately one week. The first visit served to familiarize subjects with the squat testing
protocol and the desired squatting technique, before determining squat 1RM and the minimal
velocity threshold (i.e. velocity of 1RM). This was followed by experimental Trial 1 and
D
Trial 2. During these trials subjects completed a warm-up protocol lifting progressively
heavier loads (20-90% 1RM), during which concentric velocity was monitored to establish
TE
individual load-velocity relationships. These data were subsequently used to predict 1RM
values based on MVT and LD0. Furthermore, these data were used in conjunction with force
data quantified in newtons to predict 1RM using the FV method. For Trial 1, subjects also
EP
performed another 1RM assessment following the warm-up protocol. This study design was
implemented to test the research hypothesis, specifically by assessing the test-retest reliability
of 1RM predictions between Trial 1 and Trial 2, and by examining the validity of these
Subjects
C
Twenty male subjects (age: 24.3 ± 2.9 yr; height: 180.1 ± 5.9 cm; body mass: 84.2 ± 10.5 kg)
were recruited for this study. This sample size was calculated to detect a 7.5 kg difference
A
between actual and predicted 1RM scores with an effect size of 0.7, and was based on the
results of previous research (21). All subjects had ≥2 years resistance training experience,
were accustomed to performing the back squat exercise with correct technique, and exhibited
squat 1RM of ≥1.5 x body mass (measured squat 1RM = 151.1 ± 25.7 kg). Subjects were
excluded if there were currently injured, taking any performance enhancing supplements, or
had a health condition which could be exacerbated by exercise. During the study, subjects
were instructed not to perform any other strenuous physical activity. All subjects were
provided with information to detail the risks and benefits of participating, and signed an
informed consent form prior to beginning the experiment. The study and all its methodologies
Procedures
D
1-Repetition Maximum Testing
During the familiarization trial, 1RM was determined following established procedures (2, 6).
TE
Briefly, subjects completed a standardized warm-up comprising of five minutes on a cycle
dynamic stretching, during which time subjects performed mobility exercises they typically
EP
employed prior to squat training. The specific mobility activities performed were recorded
and replicated during the warm-up for each subsequent trial. Subjects then completed warm-
up sets comprising of 3 repetitions at 20% of predicted 1RM (as estimated by the subject), 3
repetitions at 40% 1RM, 3 repetitions at 60% 1RM, 1 repetition at 80% 1RM and 1 repetition
C
at 90% 1RM (4), with 2 minutes of rest between each warm-up set. The weight was then
increased by ~5%, and subjects performed a single repetition. This process continued until
C
subjects were unable to successfully perform a lift with correct technique and given 3 minutes
of rest between attempts. The 1RM was defined as the heaviest completed repetition and was
A
During all trials, subjects were instructed to undertake the high-bar back squat exercise with
the eccentric phase performed under control, while the concentric phase was completed as
quickly as possible. With the barbell (Power Bar, Australian Barbell Company, Victoria,
Australia) supported on the superior trapezius, subjects flexed at the knees and hips until the
anterior aspect of the thighs were parallel with the ground. This bar was loaded with
Plates, Force USA, Utah, USA). Subjects were instructed to position the front of their shoes
on a line marked on the floor beneath the squat rack, and to assume a stance width typical of
their normal squat technique. A customized elastic string-line was set to contact subjects’
superior hamstrings at this position to signal that appropriate depth had been reached (32),
D
which was visually confirmed by researchers positioned adjacent to the subject. Subjects
were also given verbal cues on when to halt the eccentric phase, and begin the concentric
TE
phase of the squat, along with consistent verbal encouragement (11).
Load-Velocity Profiling
EP
During Trial 1 and 2, subjects performed the same warm-up procedure as detailed for 1RM
testing, albeit using loads relative to the actual 1RM (rather than estimated 1RM). During
each lift, the displacement of the bar and time between data points were recorded by using a
cable linear position transducer sampling at up to 50Hz (23) (GymAware Powertool; Kinetic
C
Performance Technology, Canberra, Australia). From these data, the concentric phase of each
repetition was automatically identified by the linear position transducer, and the mean
C
concentric velocity was calculated for this portion of the lift. Furthermore, when the mass
lifted was incorporated into the linear position transducer software, this device also quantified
A
the force of each repetition in Newtons. This calculation is performed by first identifying the
acceleration of the system between data points (acceleration = change in velocity / change in
time), and then using this value to determine force (force = mass x acceleration) (13). The
specific linear position transducer used in this study has previously been validated as a means
of quantifying force in research which has compared it to direct measurement of force via a
force plate (13). The retractable cord of this device was fixed inside the barbell collar, with
the unit mounted on the floor directly beneath the bar’s position during the squatting action.
For warm-up sets that comprised of more than one repetition, the repetition with the fastest
mean concentric velocity was used for further analyses of the load-velocity profile as per
previous research (4, 21). Using the fastest repetition at each load ensures that the velocities
used to develop the load-velocity relationship represent the true best-performance of the
individual. With lighter loads (<80% 1RM) the fastest repetition is often likely to be the
D
second or third repetition, particularly in warm-up sets. This is possibly due to an increase in
the calcium flux from the sarcoplasmic reticulum, which improves the efficiency of muscle
TE
contractions (14). With heavier loads (≥80% 1RM) however, each additional repetition
performed is likely to induce fatigue, which would result in a decline in repetition velocity.
Post hoc analysis was undertaken to predict 1RM from these load-velocity profiles using
EP
three separate methods: 1) MVT method; 2) LD0 method, and; 3) FV method (Figure 1).
Data Analysis
The MVT for each individual was determined by measuring the velocity of the final
C
successful 1RM attempt from their initial familiarization trial. The 1RMMVT was calculated
by extrapolating each individual’s load-velocity regression line to their specific MVT, as per
A
Jovanović and Flanagan (22). Predicted 1RM for each subject was calculated primarily using
all of the load-velocity data points recorded (20-90% 1RM). As performing five warm-up sets
may not be practical in real-world setting, two additional four-load models were developed,
using 20-80% 1RM (i.e. excluding only the heaviest weight from the model) and 40-90%
1RM (i.e. excluding only the lightest weight from the model). As the MVT has been recently
shown to exhibit considerable variability (coefficient of variation [CV] = 22.5%) (4), we also
extrapolated the load-velocity regression line to its intercept with a velocity of 0 m·s-1 (LD0)
to provide another strength prediction as per Jidovtseff et al. (21). The percentage in which
the LD0 overestimated 1RM from the familiarisation session was then subtracted from this
value to determine the 1RMLD0 This 1RMLD0 analysis was also performed using the 3
different load combination described previously (20-90% 1RM, 20-80% 1RM and 40-80%
1RM). Finally, the 1RMFV was calculated using a custom Matlab (Math-Works; Natick,
D
Massachusetts) script with all calculations based on the supplementary material provided
Picerno et al. (30). This algorithm determines the intersection of the FV and the weight-
TE
velocity relationships (calculated by multiplying the loads used to develop the load-velocity
relationship by 9.81m·s-2). The load which corresponds with this intersection is the predicted
1RMFV (30). The 1RMFV predictions were also performed using the aforementioned load
EP
combinations (20-90% 1RM, 20-80% 1RM and 40-90% 1RM).
Statistical Analysis
The mean ± SD was calculated for all variables. The test-retest reliability of 1RMMVT,
C
1RMLD0 and 1RMFV predicted scores were determined by comparing 1RM predictions
between trials. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC: model 3, form 1) and coefficient
C
of variation (CV) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a custom made
spreadsheet designed for this purpose (18). This spreadsheet was also used to calculate the
A
ICC and CV values for individual points on the load-velocity relationship in Trial 1 and 2 to
assess the relationships between the measured and predicted 1RM scores. Bland-Altman plots
(5) were used to describe the level of agreement between measured and predicted 1RM
values. To identify any significant trends in these Bland-Altman plots, Pearson’s correlation
analysis was used to examine the relationship between the x (mean 1RM score) and y
(difference between predicted and measured 1RM) variables of each plot to identify any
trends in the data. A two-way ANOVA with repeated measures was performed to assess
differences in measured versus predicted 1RM scores during Trials 1 and 2, using a 4 x 2
design (1RM method x Trial). Where sphericity was violated Greenhouse-Geisser correction
procedure was used. In cases where a significant main effect was observed, Fisher’s Least
Significant Difference post hoc analyses were performed to determine where these
D
differences existed. These analyses assessed whether the 1RMMVT, 1RMLD0 and 1RMFV
predictions were reliable and could be used to accurately determine 1RM. Significance was
TE
set with a type-I error rate of α ≤ 0.05, and these analyses were performed using the SPSS
Mean back squat 1RM for the familiarization trial was 151.1 ± 25.7 kg. The mean measured
1RM for Trial 1 was 153.11 ± 26.8 kg and this variable demonstrated a high degree of test-
retest reliability between the two trials (ICC = 0.99, CV = 0.9%). Table 1 demonstrates the
C
develop the load-velocity relationship, as well as the velocity for 1RM repetitions. The most
C
Mean measured and predicted 1RM scores are presented in Table 2. There were no
significant differences for the 1RMMVT predictions between trials 1 and 2. For the 1RMMVT
there was no significant interaction effect between time and method of1RM assessment
method
(F2,35 = 0.715; p = 0.503; ƞ2 = 0.40). There was no significant main effect for time (F1,17 =
0.549; p = 0.469; ƞ2 = 0.031). There was a significant main effect for the method of 1RM
assessment (F2,31 = 17.431; p ≤ 0.01; ƞ2 = 0.506). Significant differences were observed for
the different strategies of 1RM assessment between measured 1RM and predicted 1RM using
20-90% 1RM (p < 0.001), 20-80% 1RM (p < 0.001) and 40-90% 1RM (p = 0.005). For the
1RMLD0 there was no significant interaction effect between time and method of 1RM
D
assessment method (F2,32 = 0.425, p = 0.425, ƞ2 = 0.024). There was no significant main effect
for time (F1,17 = 0.076; p = 0.786; ƞ2 = 0.004) nor was there significant main effect for the
TE
method of 1RM assessment (F2,29 = 0.674; p = 0.498; ƞ2 = 0.038). For the 1RMFV there was
effect was observed for time (F1, 17 = 1.020; p = 0.327; ƞ2 = 0.057), nor for method of 1RM
The inter-session reliability of 1RM predictions is shown in Table 3. Slightly higher ICC and
C
lower CV values were associated with the MVT based 1RM prediction than the LD0.
However, ICC and CV values for all FV predictions were considerably poorer than all MVT
C
All 1RM predictions from the MVT and LD0 methods exhibited very strong and significant
correlations with measured 1RM (r = 0.91-0.95). For the FV method, the only significant
correlation observed was for the 20-80% prediction in Trial 2 which demonstrated a
Figures 2-4 present Bland-Altman plots to describe the agreement between measured and
predicted 1RM models. The bias is indicated with a thick solid black line, the limits of
agreement with dotted black lines, and the relationship between x and y variables with a thin
black line. Significant relationships between x and y variables were observed for 1RMMVT
using loads of 20-80% 1RM (Figure 2b), and for all 1RMFV predictions (Figure 3) excluding
D
These significant relationships identify that there is a threshold of strength which when
TE
surpassed leads to a greater magnitude of overestimation. For the 1RMMVT method performed
using loads of 20-80% 1RM the relationships suggest maximal strength is overestimated in
individuals with a 1RM greater than 106.1 kg for Trial 1 and 99.5 kg for Trial 2. For the
EP
1RMFV method this threshold is 151.90 kg in Trial 1, and 141.62 kg in Trial 2 for the 20-90%
1RM prediction, 153.53 kg in Trial 2 for the 20-80% 1RM prediction and 151.77 kg in Trial
DISCUSSION
This study examined the reliability and validity of various 1RM prediction methods based on
A
the load-velocity relationship using the free-weight squat exercise. The main findings of this
investigation indicate; 1) 1RMMVT models exhibit high inter-session reliability and very
strong correlations with measured 1RM, although they seem to consistently overestimate
1RM, 2) 1RMLD0 also demonstrate high inter-session reliability and correlations between
predicted and measured 1RM, and 3) 1RMFV models display very poor inter-session
reliability and no significant positive relationship between predicted and measured 1RM.
-
Using a Load-Velocity Relationship to Predict 1RM 13
While these pooled data indicate that 1RMMVT and 1RMLD0 methods might be acceptable for
predicting maximal strength, further analysis via Bland-Altman plots highlighted substantial
The mean velocity during warm-up repetitions using 20% and 90% 1RM exhibited relatively
D
velocities measured with the 20% 1RM load were impacted by the fast velocities measured;
previous research has associated faster repetition speeds with a lower degree of limb
TE
coordination and more varied muscle activation patterns (1, 12, 27). Separately, the variance
in velocities at 90%, and also 100% 1RM, likely arose from technical differences between
repetitions performed with heavy weight. Indeed, Hay et al. (17) reported significant
EP
variations in the forward inclination of the trunk between repetitions of the squat exercise
with loads greater than 80% 1RM. The poor reliability of velocity at 1RM (ICC = 0.45, CV =
26.6%) observed in this study was similar to the results reported by Banyard et al. (4) (ICC =
0.42, CV = 22.5%) also for the free-weight squat. While these results suggest that load-
C
velocity profiling may be most reliable if weights ≤20% or ≥90% 1RM are excluded, we did
not observe this in our data (Table 2). A potential explanation for this is that the three
C
combinations of loads used to form load-velocity relationships in this study included at least
one of these ‘less reliable’ loads. If these predictions were made using loads between 40-80%
A
1RM, it is possible that reliability of 1RM predictions may be increased; however, this
approach was not used in our study as it would have limited the load-velocity profile to three
incremental loads (40%, 60% and 80% 1RM), and previous research has recommended that
at least four incremental loads are required to develop a load-velocity profile (22) .
Considering the 1RM predictive methods, the 1RMMVT method demonstrated the greatest
degree of reliability, closely followed by the 1RMLD0 method. Our reliability data indicate
that these 1RM predictions may be able to determine changes in strength between
assessments to within ~5% and ~9%, respectively. However, it must be acknowledged that
both of these predictive methods demonstrate poorer reliability when compared with direct
measurement of 1RM observed in this study (ICC = 0.99, CV = 0.9%). The usefulness of
D
these predictive methods may be limited for assessing maximal strength in response to a
training intervention, particularly for trained individuals who can only make small
TE
improvements in strength (36). In addition, the variability in these strength predictions limits
this method being used to estimate daily 1RM during a warm-up as a means of modulating
the loads to be lifted during training, as has been previously suggested by (22). Interestingly,
EP
the 1RM predictions performed using the 1RMFV method were shown to be unreliable for the
free-weight back squat exercise, which indicates that this method should not be used for free-
1RMMVT methods has reported very strong correlations between the measured and estimated
C
1RM scores for the Smith machine bench press exercise (r = 0.95-0.98) (21). Our data
indicate similarly strong relationships between predicted and measured 1RM scores for both
A
research has observed that 1RMFV is very strongly correlated with measured 1RM for the
machine chest press and leg press exercises (r = 0.99) (30), we did not observe similar
significant relationships in our study. It is likely that the mode of exercise is responsible for
these differences; Picerno et al. (30) utilized machine-based exercises, while the current study
calculating the 1RMFV throughout this study that the predicted 1RM value was highly
sensitive to any change in each of the points used to develop both force-velocity and weight-
velocity relationships. 1RMFV calculations featuring faster than expected velocities with low
loads (20-40% 1RM) resulted in unrealistic overestimations of 1RM (e.g. 681.1 kg).
Conversely excessively slow velocities achieved with heavy loads (80-90% 1RM) seemed to
result in impossible underestimations of maximal strength (e.g. –62182.1 kg). Therefore, the
D
variance observed in the velocity of repetitions performed with 20% 1RM and 90% 1RM
(Table 1) is likely to have contributed to the differences in validity between the results of this
TE
paper and that published by Picerno et al. (30).
While the majority of research investigating the validity of velocity-based 1RM predictions
EP
has employed correlational analyses, it is important to acknowledge that this is often
inadequate and misleading when assessing agreement between two variables as they
represent the linear association and not the similarity of magnitudes (15). Indeed, recent work
from Banyard et al. (4) highlighted that despite strong correlations between 1RMMVT and
C
measured 1RM, predictive methods were associated with a large magnitude of error (SEE =
10.6-17.3kg,
C
CV = 7.4-12.8%). Our results concur with those from Banyard et al. (4), as both MVT and
LD0 predicted 1RM scores demonstrated a high degree of variability despite the very strong
A
relationships between measured and predicted values. To expand on this point further we
utilized Bland-Altman plots, which can account for within-subject variation and error in
assessing the relationship between a direct measure and an alternative technique (15). These
plots demonstrate substantial variability and poor agreement between measured and estimated
1RM scores across all predictive models. While the correlations and the analysis of the
pooled data seemed to suggest these methods may be effective to quantify maximal strength,
changes in maximal strength, and to prescribe individualized training load. Therefore, any
investigation into these methods of predicting 1RM should analyze validity at an individual
D
Significant trends were also observed in several of the Bland-Altman plots constructed in this
TE
individuals and underestimate strength in weaker individuals. It is important to consider
though that while these trends were statistically significant, they should be interpreted with
caution, as very large sample sizes are recommended to provide conclusive information on
EP
trends in Bland-Altman plots (5). While it is difficult to conduct very large laboratory-based
studies with sample sizes appropriate to investigate these trends, future research should aim
to determine whether there are differences between weaker and stronger individuals in the
usefulness of load-velocity 1RM predictions. Overall the results from this study highlight that
C
daily 1RM estimates based on load-velocity relationships may not be accurate enough to be
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
A
The results of this study demonstrate that the reliability of velocities achieved at very light
and very heavy loads is poorer than that using moderate loads. This indicates that load-
velocity profiles constructed with ≥ 4 incremental weights between 40-80% 1RM may be
most accurate. The 1RMMVT models provide the most reliable methods currently available to
predict 1RM from load-velocity profiles for free-weight squat exercise. However, these
models consistently over-estimated 1RM, meaning that predictive and measured 1RM values
load-velocity relationship predicted 1RM values). While 1RMLD0 predictions were slightly
less reliable than 1RMMVT, the average overestimation of maximal strength was only ~4kg
(1RMLD0) instead of ~14 kg (1RMMVT). The 1RMLD0 method may therefore be considered for
use when the MVT for an individual or exercise is not known. Importantly though, Bland-
D
1RM predictions calculated, which may have been potentially masked by the basic
correlational analyses performed in previous studies. Therefore, our results emphasize that
TE
caution should be used when predicting 1RM values from load-velocity profiles, particularly
REFERENCES
EP
1. Almåsbakk B and Hoff J. Coordination, the determinant of velocity specificity? J
3. Baker D and Nance S. The relation between running speed and measures of strength
C
and power in professional rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res 13: 230-235,
1999.
A
4. Banyard HG, Nosaka K, and Haff GG. Reliability and Validity of the Load-Velocity
Relationship to Predict the 1RM Back Squat. J Strength Cond Res, 2016.
5. Bland JM and Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat
estimate bench press 1 RM from the force-velocity relationship. J Sports Sci Med 9:
459-463, 2010.
8. Brechue WF and Mayhew JL. Upper-body work capacity and 1RM prediction are
D
9. Brzycki M. Strength testing-predicting a one-rep max from reps-to-fatigue. J Phys
TE
10. Cotterman ML, Darby LA, and Skelly WA. Comparison of muscle force production
using the Smith machine and free weights for bench press and squat exercises. J
12. Darling WG and Cooke J. Movement related EMGs become more variable during
13. Dorrell H, Moore J, Smith MF, and Gee T. Validity and whole system reliability of a
14. Endo M. Calcium release from the sarcoplasmic reticulum. Physiological Reviews 57:
A
71-108, 1977.
2015.
loading intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports Med 31: 347-352, 2010.
17. Hay JG, Andrews JG, Vaughan CL, and Ueya K. Load, speed and equipment effects
19. Horvat M, Franklin C, and Born D. Predicting strength in high school women
D
athletes. J Strength Cond Res 21: 1018-1022, 2007.
TE
Eslava J, and Gorostiaga EM. Effect of loading on unintentional lifting velocity
declines during single sets of repetitions to failure during upper and lower extremity
relationship for 1RM prediction. J Strength Cond Res 25: 267-270, 2011.
22. Jovanović M and Flanagan EP. Researched applications of velocity based strength
24. Kraemer WJ and Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and
exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports and Exerc 36: 674-688, 2004.
A
26. Loturco I, Kobal R, Moraes JE, Kitamura K, Abad CCC, Pereira LA, and Nakamura
FY. Predicting the maximum dynamic strength in bench press: The high precision of
the bar velocity approach. J Strength Cond Res 31: 1127-1131, 2017.
27. Marsden C, Obeso J, and Rothwell J. The function of the antagonist muscle during
28. McKean MR, Dunn PK, and Burkett BJ. Quantifying the movement and the influence
of load in the back squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1671-1679, 2010.
29. Newton RU, Murphy AJ, Humphries BJ, Wilson GJ, Kraemer WJ, and Häkkinen K.
Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on the kinematics, kinetics and muscle
D
activation that occurs during explosive upper-body movements. Eur J Appl Physiol
TE
30. Picerno P, Iannetta D, Comotto S, Donati M, Pecoraro F, Zok M, Tollis G, Figura M,
31. Reynolds JM, Gordon TJ, and Robergs RA. Prediction of one repetition maximum
32. Scott BR, Dascombe BJ, Delaney JA, Elsworthy N, Lockie RG, Sculley DV, and
Slattery KM. The validity and reliability of a customized rigid supportive harness
C
during Smith Machine back squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res 28: 636-642, 2014.
33. Seo D-i, Kim E, Fahs CA, Rossow L, Young K, Ferguson SL, Thiebaud R, Sherk VD,
A
Loenneke JP, and Kim D. Reliability of the one-repetition maximum test based on
muscle group and gender. J Sports Sci Med 11: 221, 2012.
34. Shimano T, Kraemer WJ, Spiering BA, Volek JS, Hatfield DL, Silvestre R, Vingren
JL, Fragala MS, Maresh CM, and Fleck SJ. Relationship between the number of
exercises in trained and untrained men. J Strength Cond Res 20: 819-823, 2006.
maximal squat strength with sprint performance and vertical jump height in elite
36. Zatsiorsky VM and Kraemer WJ. Science and practice of strength training.
D
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Examples of load-velocity relationships used to predict 1RM (predicted 1RM value
TE
indicated by ); A) MVT method with load-velocity relationship (dotted black line), MVT
(grey line) and predicted 1RM score ( ) labelled. B) LD0 method with load-velocity
relationship (dotted black line), LD0 overestimation (grey line) and predicted 1RM score ( )
labelled. C) FV method with force- velocity relationship (dotted black line), weight-velocity
relationship (solid grey line) and predicted 1RM score ( ) labelled.
Figure 2. Bland-Altman plots representing the difference in measured 1RM and the
EP
1RMMVT calculated using loads of (a) 20-90% 1RM, (b) 20-80% 1RM and (c) 40-90%
1RM against the mean 1RM values across both methods. The horizontal solid line represents
the bias and the horizontal dotted lines represent the limits of agreement. The relationship
between x and y variables is represented by the sloping black line, with the Pearson’s product
moment correlation and its significance noted in the bottom left of each plot.
Figure 3. Bland-Altman plots representing the difference in measured 1RM and the 1RMLD0
C
calculated using loads of (a) 20-90% 1RM, (b) 20-80% 1RM and (c) 40-90% 1RM against
the mean 1RM values across both methods. The horizontal solid line represents the bias and
the horizontal dotted lines represent the limits of agreement. The relationship between x and
C
y variables is represented by the sloping black line, with the Pearson’s product moment
correlation and its significance noted in the bottom left of each plot.
Figure 4. Bland-Altman plots representing the difference in measured 1RM and the 1RMFV
A
calculated using loads of (a) 20-90% 1RM, (b) 20-80% 1RM and (c) 40-90% 1RM against
the mean 1RM values across both methods. The horizontal solid line represents the bias and
the horizontal dotted lines represent the limits of agreement. The relationship between x and
y variables is represented by the sloping black line, with the Pearson’s product moment
correlation and its significance noted in the bottom left of each plot. It is important to note
that the axis values on each plot are different and must be taken into consideration when
interpreting this figure. Furthermore, a data point (-31021.23, 62322.46) has been excluded
from (a) Trial 2 so as to not distort the graphic representation of the other data.
D
Mean Velocity 90%1RM 0.04 ± 0.06 0.25 (-0.29-0.63) 14.2% (10.5-22.9)
TE
∆ ̅ = change in mean velocity, ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient, CV = coefficient of variation, CI = 95%
confidence intervals.
Note: The test-retest reliability of the mean velocity at 100% 1RM was examined between the familiarization
session and Trial 1 as this load was not used in Trial 2.
EP
C
C
A
D
20-80% 152.9 ± 30.7 153.75 ± 29.2
TE
Predicted 1RMFV (kg) 20-90% 158.7 ± 78.3 -3267.5 ± 14704.1
D
20-80% (kg) 0.89 ± 1.45 0.78 (0.57-0.9) 8.5% (6.6-12.1)
TE
1RMFV 20-90% (kg) 3426.20 ± 14675.11 0.00 (-0.39-0.39) -
∆ ̅ = change in mean velocity, ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient, CV = coefficient of variation, CI = 95%
EP
confidence intervals.
Note: Coefficient of variation (CV) can only be calculated for ratio data, due to the 1RMFV prediction method
resulting in negative values the CV for this method could not be calculated.
C
C
A