Using a Load-Velocity Relationship to Predict One repetition maximum in Free-Weight Exercise: A Comparison of the Different Methods

Average optimal minimum velocity threshold: A practical variable to increase the accuracy of one-repetition maximum estimation during the free-weight back squat

The prediction of one-repetition maximum (1RM) using the submaximal load-velocity relationship (LVR) is highly relevant for the field of strength and conditioning. The optimal minimum velocity threshold (MVT) was recently proposed to increase the accuracy of 1RM predictions. However, using the average optimal MVT would allow for more practical estimations. LVRs of the free-weight back squat were obtained in 53 participants, throughout 2 sessions. LVRs were obtained using the multi- and two-point methods. Estimations of 1RM were made based on the average actual MVT (1RM velocity) and the average optimal MVT. The accuracy of 1RM predictions was examined using absolute-percent error and Bland-Altman plots. Cross-validation was performed using a leave-one-out approach. The number of selected loads did not affect the slope, y-intercept, optimal MVT or the accuracy of 1RM predictions. Predictions based on the average optimal MVT displayed greater accuracy than those obtained with the average actual MVT (~6% vs. ~8% absolute-percent error, respectively). However, wide 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were found between actual and estimated 1RM using both approaches (~13%1RM). The average optimal MVT offers more accurate 1RM estimations than the average actual MVT. However, errors prove substantial, making it challenging to precisely track minor changes in 1RM.

Optimal Minimum-Velocity Threshold to Predict One-repetition Maximum for the Back Squat

The prediction of one-repetition maximum (1RM) is highly relevant for strength and conditioning. The optimal minimum-velocity threshold (MVT) was recently proposed to increase the accuracy of 1RM predictions. Individual load-velocity profiles (LVP) were obtained in 18 athletes enrolled in recreational soccer. Reliability analyses were computed for all LVP-derived variables. Estimations of 1RM were made based on general (0.3 m.s- 1), pre-individual (mean velocity at 1RM obtained in a preliminary session) and optimal MVT (velocity that eliminates the difference between actual and predicted 1RM, determined in a preliminary session). The accuracy of 1RM predictions was examined using absolute-percent error and Bland-Altman plots. Between-day reliability of the LVP and 1RM was good (intraclass-correlation coefficients - ICCs>0.9 and coefficients of variation - CVs<5%). The individual and optimal MVT reached moderate-to-good reliability (ICCs>0.9 and CVs<10%, respectively). The predictions based on the optimal MVT displayed greater accuracy than those obtained with the individual and general MVT (absolute percent error: 2.8 vs. 5.5 vs. 4.9%, respectively). However, wide limits of agreement (LoA) were found between actual and estimated 1RM using this approach (~15 kg). Data indicate that the optimal MVT provides better estimations of 1RM for the free-weight back squat than the general and the individual MVT.

Validity of Using the Load-Velocity Relationship to Estimate 1 Repetition Maximum in the Back Squat Exercise: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT

LeMense, AT, Malone, GT, Kinderman, MA, Fedewa, MV, and Winchester, LJ. Validity of using the load-velocity relationship to estimate 1 repetition maximum in the back squat exercise: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 38(3): 612-619, 2024-The one repetition maximum (1RM) test is commonly used to assess muscular strength. However, 1RM testing can be time consuming, physically taxing, and may be difficult to perform in athletics team settings with practice and competition schedules. Alternatively, 1RM can be estimated from bar or movement velocity at submaximal loads using the minimum velocity threshold (MVT) method based on the load-velocity relationship. Despite its potential utility, this method's validity has yielded inconsistent results. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the validity of estimated 1RM from bar velocity in the back squat exercise. A systematic search of 3 electronic databases was conducted using combinations of the following keywords: "velocity-based training," "load-velocity profiling," "mean velocity," "mean propulsive velocity," "peak velocity," "maximal strength," "1RM," "estimation," "prediction," "back squat," and "regression." The search identified 372 unique articles, with 4 studies included in the final analysis. Significance was defined as a p level less than 0.05. A total of 27 effects from 71 subjects between the ages of 17-25 years were analyzed; 85.2% of effects were obtained from male subjects. Measured 1RMs ranged from 86.5 to 153.1 kg, whereas estimated 1RMs ranged from 88.6 to 171.6 kg. Using a 3-level random effects model, 1RM back squat was overestimated when derived from bar velocity using the MVT method (effect sizes [ES] = 0.5304, 95% CI: 0.1878-0.8730, p = 0.0038). The MVT method is not a viable option for estimating 1RM in the free weight back squat. Strength and conditioning professionals should exercise caution when estimating 1RM from the load-velocity relationship.

Prediction of One Repetition Maximum in Free-Weight Back Squat Using a Mixed Approach: The Combination of the Individual Load-Velocity Profile and Generalized Equations

ABSTRACT

Fitas, A, Santos, P, Gomes, M, Pezarat-Correia, P, Schoenfeld, BJ, and Mendonca, GV. Prediction of one repetition maximum in free-weight back squat using a mixed approach: the combination of the individual load-velocity profile and generalized equations. J Strength Cond Res 38(2): 228-235, 2024-We aimed to develop a mixed methods approach for 1 repetition maximum (1RM) prediction based on the development of generalized equations and the individual load-velocity profile (LVP), and to explore the validity of such equations for 1RM prediction. Fifty-seven young men volunteered to participate. The submaximal load-velocity relationship was obtained for the free-weight parallel back squat. The estimated load at 0 velocity (LD0) was used as a single predictor, and in combination with the slope of the individual LVP, to develop equations predictive of 1RM. Prediction accuracy was determined through the mean absolute percent error and Bland-Altman plots. LD0 was predictive of 1RM ( p < 0.0001), explaining 70.2% of its variance. Adding the slope of the LVP to the model increased the prediction power of 1RM to 84.4% ( p < 0.0001). The absolute percent error between actual and predicted 1RM was lower for the predictions combining LD0 and slope (6.9 vs. 9.6%). The mean difference between actual and estimated 1RM was nearly zero and showed heteroscedasticity for the LD0 model, but not for the combined model. The limits of agreement error were of 31.9 and 23.5 kg for LD0 and LD0 combined with slope, respectively. In conclusion, the slope of the individual LVP adds predictive value to LD0 in 1RM estimation on a group level and avoids error trends in the estimation of 1RM over the entire spectrum of muscle strength. However, the use of mixed methods does not reach acceptable accuracy for 1RM prediction of the free-weight back squat on an individual basis.

The velocity of resistance exercise does not accurately assess repetitions-in-reserve

This study assessed the reliability of mean concentric bar velocity from 3- to 0-repetitions in reserve (RIR) across four sets in different exercises (bench press and prone row) and with different loads (60 and 80% 1-repetition maximum; 1RM). Whether velocity values from set one could be used to predict RIR in subsequent sets was also examined. Twenty recreationally active males performed baseline 1RM testing before two randomised sessions of four sets to failure with 60 or 80% 1RM. A linear position transducer measured mean concentric velocity of repetitions, and the velocity associated with each RIR value up to 0-RIR. For both exercises, velocity decreased between each repetition from 3- to 0-RIR (p ≤ 0.010). Mean concentric velocity of RIR values was not reliable across sets in the bench press (mean intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.40, mean coefficient of variation [CV] = 21.3%), despite no significant between-set differences (p = 0.530). Better reliability was noted in the prone row (mean ICC = 0.80, mean CV = 6.1%), but velocity declined by 0.019-0.027 m·s-1 (p = 0.032) between sets. Mean concentric velocity was 0.050-0.058 m·s-1 faster in both exercises with 60% than 80% 1RM with (p < 0.001). At the individual level, the velocity of specific RIR values from set one accurately predicted RIR from 5- to 0-RIR for 30.9% of repetitions in subsequent sets. These findings suggest that velocity of specific RIR values vary across exercises, loads and sets. As velocity-based RIR estimates were not accurate for 69.1% of repetitions, alternative methods to should be considered for autoregulating of resistance exercise in recreationally active individuals.

The Predictive Validity of Individualised Load-Velocity Relationships for Predicting 1RM: A Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Load-velocity relationships are commonly used to estimate one-repetition maximums (1RMs). Proponents suggest these estimates can be obtained at high frequencies and assist with manipulating loads according to session-by-session fluctuations. Given their increasing popularity and development of associated technologies, a range of load-velocity approaches have been investigated.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis sought to quantify the predictive validity of individualised load-velocity relationships for the purposes of 1RM prediction.

METHODS

In September 2022, a search of MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science and Scopus was conducted for published research, with Google Scholar, CORE and British Ethos also searched for unpublished research. Studies were eligible if they were written in English, and directly compared a measured and predicted 1RM using load-velocity relationships in the squat, bench press, deadlift, clean or snatch. IPD were obtained through requests to primary authors and through digitisation of in-text plots (e.g. Bland-Altman plots). Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) and the review conducted in accordance with PRISMA-IPD guidelines and an a priori protocol. Absolute and scaled standard error of the estimates (SEE/SEE%) were calculated for two-stage aggregate analyses, with bootstrapping performed for sampling variances. Estimates were pooled using three-level hierarchical models with robust 95% confidence intervals (CIs). One-stage analyses were conducted with random intercepts to account for systematic differences across studies and prediction residuals calculated in the absolute scale (kg) and as a percentage of the measured 1RM. Moderator analyses were conducted by including a priori defined categorical variables as fixed effects.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-seven models from 26 studies were included with each identified as having low, unclear or high risk of bias. Twenty studies comprising 434 participants provided sufficient data for meta-analyses, with raw data obtained for 8 (32%) studies. Two-stage analyses identified moderate predictive validity [SEE% 9.8, 95% CI 7.4% to 12.2%, with moderator analyses demonstrating limited differences based on the number of loads (β2Loads:>2Loads = 0.006, 95% CI - 1.6 to 1.6%) or the use of individual or group data to determine 1RM velocity thresholds (βGroup:Individualised =  - 0.4, 95% CI - 1.9 to 1.0%)]. One-stage analyses identified that predictions tended to be overestimations (4.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 7.4 kg), which expressed as a percentage of measured 1RM was equal to 3.7 (95% CI 0.5 to 6.9% 1RM). Moderator analyses were consistent with those conducted for two-stage analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Load-velocity relationships tend to overestimate 1RMs irrespective of the modelling approach selected. On the basis of the findings from this review, practitioners should incorporate direct assessment of 1RM wherever possible. However, load-velocity relationships may still prove useful for general monitoring purposes (e.g. assessing trends across a training cycle), by providing high-frequency estimates of 1RM when direct assessment may not be logistically feasible. Given limited differences in predictions across popular load-velocity approaches, it is recommended that practitioners opting to incorporate this practice select the modelling approach that best suits their practical requirements.

REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/agpfm/ .

Applicability of the Load-Velocity Relationship to Predict 1-Repetition Maximum in the Half-Squat in High-Level Sprinters

PURPOSE

To investigate the indirect measurement of 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) free-weight half-squat in high-level sprinters using the load-velocity relationship.

METHODS

Half-squat load and velocity data from 11 elite sprinters were collected in 2 separate testing sessions. Approximately 24 hours prior to the first testing session, sprinters completed a fatiguing high-intensity training session consisting of running intervals, staircase exercises, and body-weight exercises. Prior to the second testing session, sprinters had rested at least 48 hours. Two different prediction models (multiple-point method, 2-point method) were used to estimate 1RM based on the load and either mean or peak concentric velocity data of submaximal lifts (40%-90% 1RM). The criterion validity of all methods was examined through intraclass correlation coefficients, coefficient of variation (CV%), Bland-Altman plots, and the SEM.

RESULTS

None of the estimations were significantly different from the actual 1RM. The multiple-point method showed higher intraclass correlation coefficients (.91 to .97), with CVs from 3.6% to 11.7% and SEMs from 5.4% to 10.6%. The 2-point method showed slightly lower intraclass correlation coefficients (.76 to .95), with CVs 1.4% to 17.5% and SEMs from 9.8% to 26.1%. Bland-Altman plots revealed a mean random bias in estimation of 1RM for both methods (mean and peak velocity) ranging from 1.06 to 13.79 kg.

CONCLUSION

Velocity-based methods can be used to roughly estimate 1RM in elite sprinters in the rested and fatigued conditions. However, all methods showed variations that limit their applicability for accurate load prescription for individual athletes.

Use of force-velocity relationship to estimate the one-repetition maximum leg press exercise among young females

[Purpose] This study aimed to determine the concurrent validity of using force at a velocity of 0 m/s when estimating the one-repetition maximum leg press and develop and assess the accuracy of an equation to estimate the one-repetition maximum value. [Participants and Methods] Ten untrained healthy females participated. We directly measured the one-repetition maximum during the one leg press exercise and developed the individual force-velocity relationship using the trial with the highest mean propulsive velocity at 20% and 70% of the one-repetition maximum. We then used the force at a velocity of 0 m/s to estimate the measured one-repetition maximum. [Results] The force at a velocity of 0 m/s was strongly correlated with the measured one-repetition maximum. A simple linear regression analysis revealed a significant estimated regression equation. The multiple coefficient of the determination of this equation was 0.77, while the standard error of the estimate of the equation was 12.5 kg. [Conclusion] The estimation method based on the force-velocity relationship was highly valid and accurate at estimating the one-repetition maximum for the one leg press exercise. The method provides valuable information to instruct untrained participants at the start of resistance training programs.

Load-velocity relationships and predicted maximal strength: A systematic review of the validity and reliability of current methods

Maximal strength can be predicted from the load-velocity relationship (LVR), although it is important to understand methodological approaches which ensure the validity and reliability of these strength predictions. The aim of this systematic review was to determine factors which influence the validity of maximal strength predictions from the LVR, and secondarily to highlight the effects of these factors on the reliability of predictions. A search strategy was developed and implemented in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL databases. Rayyan software was used to screen titles, abstracts, and full texts to determine their inclusion/eligibility. Eligible studies compared direct assessments of one-repetition maximum (1RM) with predictions performed using the LVR and reported prediction validity. Validity was extracted and represented graphically via effect size forest plots. Twenty-five eligible studies were included and comprised of a total of 842 participants, three different 1RM prediction methods, 16 different exercises, and 12 different velocity monitoring devices. Four primary factors appear relevant to the efficacy of predicting 1RM: the number of loads used, the exercise examined, the velocity metric used, and the velocity monitoring device. Additionally, the specific loads, provision of velocity feedback, use of lifting straps and regression model used may require further consideration.

What Is the Most Sensitive Test to Identify Fatigue through the Analysis of Neuromuscular Status in Male Elite Futsal Players?

The present study aimed to determine which of the neuromuscular status (NMS) monitoring tests (1: Counter-movement jump, CMJ; 2: back squat with additional load) is the most sensitive and effective for evaluating the state of fatigue in futsal players during the preseason. Seventeen professional futsal players were recruited for this study (age: 23.07 ± 6.76 years; height: 1.75 ± 0.06 m; body mass: 75.47 ± 7.47 kg; playing experience in elite: 5.38 ± 2.03 years). All of them were evaluated during the preseason phase in two tests (CMJ and back squat with additional load) before and after each training session (pre- vs. post-test). A jump platform was used to extract jump height during CMJ, while a linear position transducer was used to extract mean velocity (MV) and mean propulsive velocity (MPV) during the back squat exercise. Significant differences were obtained for intra-subject analysis for MV and MPV in loaded back squat exercise (p < 0.001), finding lower values during the post-test. In conclusion, the monitoring of NMS through the back squat provides greater sensitivity and objectivity in comparison with CMJ, due to a more direct neuromuscular extrapolation to the physical demands of futsal.

Repetitions in Reserve Is a Reliable Tool for Prescribing Resistance Training Load

ABSTRACT

Lovegrove, S, Hughes, L, Mansfield, S, Read, P, Price, P, and Patterson, SD. Repetitions in reserve is a reliable tool for prescribing resistance training load. J Strength Cond Res 36(10): 2696-2700, 2022-This study investigated the reliability of repetitions in reserve (RIR) as a method for prescribing resistance training load for the deadlift and bench press exercises. Fifteen novice trained men (age: 17.3 ± 0.9 years, height: 176.0 ± 8.8 cm, body mass: 71.3 ± 10.7 kg) were assessed for 1 repetition maximum (1RM) for deadlift (118.1 ± 27.3 kg) and bench press (58.2 ± 18.6 kg). Subsequently, they completed 3 identical sessions (one familiarization session and 2 testing sessions) comprising sets of 3, 5, and 8 repetitions. For each repetition scheme, the load was progressively increased in successive sets until subjects felt they reached 1-RIR at the end of the set. Test-retest reliability of load prescription between the 2 testing sessions was determined using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV). A 2-way analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for each exercise to assess differences in the load corresponding to 1-RIR within each repetition scheme. All test-retest comparisons demonstrated a high level of reliability (deadlift: ICC = 0.95-0.99, CV = 2.7-5.7% and bench press: ICC = 0.97-0.99, CV = 3.8-6.2%). Although there were no differences between time points, there was a difference for load corresponding to 1-RIR across the 3 repetition schemes (deadlift: 88.2, 84.3, and 79.2% 1RM; bench press: 93.0, 87.3, and 79.6% 1RM for the 3-, 5-, and 8-repetition sets, respectively). These results suggest that RIR is a reliable tool for load prescription in a young novice population. Furthermore, the between-repetition scheme differences highlight that practitioners can effectively manipulate load and volume (repetitions in a set) throughout a training program to target specific resistance training adaptations.

Force-velocity relationship in Paralympic powerlifting: two or multiple-point methods to determine a maximum repetition

BACKGROUND

Due to the absence of evidence in the literature on Paralympic Powerlifting the present study investigated various methods to assess bench press maximum repetition and the way each method influences the measurement of minimum velocity limit (MVT), load at zero velocity (LD0), and force-velocity (FV).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the precision of the multi-point method using proximal loads (40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of one repetition maximum; 1RM) compared to the four-point method (50, 60, 70, and 80% of 1RM) and the two-point method using distant loads (40 and 80% and 50 and 80% of 1RM) in in the MVT, LD0, and FV, in bench press performed by Paralympic Powerlifters (PP).

METHODS

To accomplish this, 15 male elite PP athletes participated in the study (age: 27.7 ± 5.7 years; BM: 74.0 ± 19.5 kg). All participants performed an adapted bench press test (free weight) with 6 loads (40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% 1RM), 4 loads (50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM), and 2 loads (40-80% and 50-80% 1RM). The 1RM predictions were made by MVT, LD0, and FV.

RESULTS

The main results indicated that the multiple (4 and 6) pointsmethod provides good results in the MVT (R2 = 0.482), the LD0 (R2 = 0.614), and the FV (R2 = 0.508). The two-point method (50-80%) showed a higher mean in MVT [1268.2 ± 502.0 N; ICC95% 0.76 (0.31-0.92)], in LD0 [1504.1 ± 597.3 N; 0.63 (0.17-0.86)], and in FV [1479.2 ± 636.0 N; 0.60 (0.10-0.86)].

CONCLUSION

The multiple-point method (4 and 6 points) and the two-point method (40-80%) using the MVT, LD0, and FV all showed a good ability to predict bench press 1RM in PP.

The Effect of Load and Volume Autoregulation on Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Autoregulation has emerged as a potentially beneficial resistance training paradigm to individualize and optimize programming; however, compared to standardized prescription, the effects of autoregulated load and volume prescription on muscular strength and hypertrophy adaptations are unclear. Our objective was to compare the effect of autoregulated load prescription (repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion and velocity-based training) to standardized load prescription (percentage-based training) on chronic one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength and cross-sectional area (CSA) hypertrophy adaptations in resistance-trained individuals. We also aimed to investigate the effect of volume autoregulation with velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% compared to > 25% on 1RM strength and CSA hypertrophy.

Methods

This review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus was conducted. Mean differences (MD), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated. Sub-analyses were performed as applicable.

Results

Fifteen studies were included in the meta-analysis: six studies on load autoregulation and nine studies on volume autoregulation. No significant differences between autoregulated and standardized load prescription were demonstrated for 1RM strength (MD = 2.07, 95% CI – 0.32 to 4.46 kg, p = 0.09, SMD = 0.21). Velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% demonstrated significantly greater 1RM strength (MD = 2.32, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.31 kg, p = 0.02, SMD = 0.23) and significantly lower CSA hypertrophy (MD = 0.61, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.16 cm², p = 0.03, SMD = 0.28) than velocity loss thresholds > 25%. No significant differences between velocity loss thresholds > 25% and 20–25% were demonstrated for hypertrophy (MD = 0.36, 95% CI – 0.29 to 1.00 cm², p = 0.28, SMD = 0.13); however, velocity loss thresholds > 25% demonstrated significantly greater hypertrophy compared to thresholds ≤ 20% (MD = 0.64, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.20 cm², p = 0.03, SMD = 0.34).

Conclusions

Collectively, autoregulated and standardized load prescription produced similar improvements in strength. When sets and relative intensity were equated, velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% were superior for promoting strength possibly by minimizing acute neuromuscular fatigue while maximizing chronic neuromuscular adaptations, whereas velocity loss thresholds > 20–25% were superior for promoting hypertrophy by accumulating greater relative volume.

Protocol Registration The original protocol was prospectively registered (CRD42021240506) with the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-021-00404-9.

Establishing Reference Values for Isometric Knee Extension and Flexion Strength

Single-joint isometric and isokinetic knee strength assessment plays an important role in strength and conditioning, physical therapy, and rehabilitation. The literature, however, lacks absolute reference values. We systematically reviewed the available studies that assessed isometric knee strength. Two scientific databases (PubMed and PEDro) were searched for the papers that are published from the inception of the field to the end of 2019. We included studies that involved participants of both genders and different age groups, regardless of the study design, that involved isometric knee extension and/or flexion measurement. The extracted data were converted to body-mass-normalized values. Moreover, the data were grouped according to the knee angle condition (extended, mid-range, and flexed). A meta-analysis was performed on 13,893 participants from 411 studies. In adult healthy males, the pooled 95% confidence intervals (CI) for knee extension were 1.34–2.23Nm/kg for extended knee angle, 2.92–3.45Nm/kg for mid-range knee angle, and 2.50–3.06Nm/kg for flexed knee angle, while the CIs for flexion were 0.85–1.20, 1.15–1.62, and 0.96–1.54Nm/kg, respectively. Adult females consistently showed lower strength than adult male subgroups (e.g., the CIs for knee extension were 1.01–1.50, 2.08–2.74, and 2.04–2.71Nm/kg for extended, mid-range, and flexed knee angle condition). Older adults consistently showed lower values than adults (e.g., pooled CIs for mid-range knee angle were 1.74–2.16Nm/kg (male) and 1.40–1.64Nm/kg (female) for extension, and 0.69–0.89Nm/kg (male) and 0.46–0.81Nm/kg (female) for flexion). Reliable normative for athletes could not be calculated due to limited number of studies for individual sports.

Validity of the bench press one-repetition maximum test predicted through individualized load-velocity relationship using different repetition criteria and minimal velocity thresholds

BACKGROUND: More practical and less fatiguing strategies have been developed to accurately predict the one-repetition maximum (1RM). OBJETIVE: To compare the accuracy of the estimation of the free-weight bench press 1RM between six velocity-based 1RM prediction methods. METHODS: Sixteen men performed an incremental loading test until 1RM on two separate occasions. The first session served to determine the minimal velocity threshold (MVT). The second session was used to determine the validity of the six 1RM prediction methods based on 2 repetition criteria (fastest or average velocity) and 3 MVTs (general MVT of 0.17 m⋅s-1, individual MVT of the preliminary session, and individual MVT of the validity session). Five loads (≈ 2540557085% of 1RM) were used to assess the individualized load-velocity relationships. RESULTS: The absolute difference between the actual and predicted 1RM were low (range = 2.7–3.7%) and did not reveal a significant main effect for repetition criterion (P= 0.402), MVT (P= 0.173) or their two-way interaction (P= 0.354). Furthermore, all 1RM prediction methods accurately estimated bench press 1RM (P⩾ 0.556; ES ⩽ 0.02; r⩾ 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The individualized load-velocity relationship provides an accurate prediction of the 1RM during the free-weight bench press exercise, while the repetition criteria and MVT do not appear to meaningfully affect the prediction accuracy.

Concurrent Validity of Field-Based Diagnostic Technology Monitoring Movement Velocity in Powerlifting Exercises

ABSTRACT

Mitter, B, Hölbling, D, Bauer, P, Stöckl, M, Baca, A, and Tschan, H. Concurrent validity of field-based diagnostic technology monitoring movement velocity in powerlifting exercises. J Strength Cond Res 35(8): 2170-2178, 2021-The study was designed to investigate the validity of different technologies used to determine movement velocity in resistance training. Twenty-four experienced powerlifters (18 male and 6 female; age, 25.1 ± 5.1 years) completed a progressive loading test in the squat, bench press, and conventional deadlift until reaching their 1 repetition maximum. Peak and mean velocity were simultaneously recorded with 4 field-based systems: GymAware (GA), FitroDyne (FD), PUSH (PU), and Beast Sensor (BS). 3D motion capturing was used to calculate specific gold standard trajectory references for each device. GA provided the most accurate output across exercises (r = 0.99-1, ES = -0.05 to 0.1). FD showed similar results for peak velocity (r = 1, standardized mean bias [ES] = -0.1 to -0.02) but considerably less validity for mean velocity (r = 0.92-0.95, ES = -0.57 to -0.29). Reasonably valid to highly valid output was provided by PU in all exercises (r = 0.91-0.97, ES = -0.5 to 0.28) and by BS in the bench press and for mean velocity in the squat (r = 0.87-0.96, ES = -0.5 to -0.06). However, BS did not reach the thresholds for reasonable validity in the deadlift and for peak velocity in the squat, mostly due to high standardized mean bias (ES = -0.78 to -0.63). In conclusion, different technologies should not be used interchangeably. Practitioners who require negligible measurement error in their assessment of movement velocity are advised to use linear position transducers over inertial sensors.

Validity of Different Velocity-Based Methods and Repetitions-to-Failure Equations for Predicting the 1 Repetition Maximum During 2 Upper-Body Pulling Exercises

ABSTRACT

Pérez-Castilla, A, Suzovic, D, Domanovic, A, Fernandes, JFT, and García-Ramos, A. Validity of different velocity-based methods and repetitions-to-failure equations for predicting the 1 repetition maximum during 2 upper-body pulling exercises. J Strength Cond Res 35(7): 1800-1808, 2021-This study aimed to compare the accuracy of different velocity-based methods and repetitions-to-failure equations for predicting the 1 repetition maximum (i.e., maximum load that can be lifted once; 1RM) during 2 upper-body pulling exercises. Twenty-three healthy subjects (twelve men and eleven women) were tested in 2 sessions during the lat pull-down and seated cable row exercises. Each session consisted of an incremental loading test until reaching the 1RM followed by a set of repetitions-to-failure against the 80% 1RM load. The 1RM was estimated from the individual load-velocity relationships modeled through 4 (∼40, 55, 70, and 85% 1RM; multiple-point method) or 2 loads (∼40 and 85% 1RM; 2-point method). Mean velocity was recorded with a linear position transducer and a Smartphone application. Therefore, 4 velocity-based methods were used as a result of combining the 2 devices and the 2 methods. Two repetitions-to-failure equations (Mayhew and Wathen) were also used to predict the 1RM from the load and number of repetitions completed. The absolute differences with respect to the actual 1RM were higher for the repetitions-to-failure equations than velocity-based methods during the seated cable row exercise (p = 0.004), but not for the lat pull-down exercise (p = 0.200). The repetitions-to-failure equations significantly underestimated the actual 1RM (p < 0.05; range: -6.65 to -2.14 kg), whereas no systematic differences were observed for the velocity-based methods (range: -1.75 to 1.65 kg). All predicted 1RMs were highly correlated with the actual 1RM (r ≥ 0.96). The velocity-based methods provide a more accurate estimate of the 1RM than the Mayhew and Wathen repetitions-to-failure equations during the lat pull-down and seated cable row exercises.

Training for Muscular Strength: Methods for Monitoring and Adjusting Training Intensity

Linear loading, the two-for-two rule, percent of one repetition maximum (1RM), RM zones, rate of perceived exertion (RPE), repetitions in reserve, set-repetition best, autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE), and velocity-based training (VBT) are all methods of adjusting resistance training intensity. Each method has advantages and disadvantages that strength and conditioning practitioners should be aware of when measuring and monitoring strength characteristics. The linear loading and 2-for-2 methods may be beneficial for novice athletes; however, they may be limited in their capacity to provide athletes with variation and detrimental if used exclusively for long periods of time. The percent of 1RM and RM zone methods may provide athletes with more variation and greater potential for strength-power adaptations; however, they fail to account for daily changes in athlete's performance capabilities. An athlete's daily readiness can be addressed to various extents by both subjective (e.g., RPE, repetitions in reserve, set-repetition best, and APRE) and objective (e.g., VBT) load adjustment methods. Future resistance training monitoring may aim to include a combination of measures that quantify outcome (e.g., velocity, load, time, etc.) with process (e.g., variability, coordination, efficiency, etc.) relevant to the stage of learning or the task being performed. Load adjustment and monitoring methods should be used to supplement and guide the practitioner, quantify what the practitioner 'sees', and provide longitudinal data to assist in reviewing athlete development and providing baselines for the rate of expected development in resistance training when an athlete returns to sport from injury or large training load reductions.

Prediction of One Repetition Maximum Using Reference Minimum Velocity Threshold Values in Young and Middle-Aged Resistance-Trained Males

Background: This study determined the accuracy of different velocity-based methods when predicting one-repetition maximum (1RM) in young and middle-aged resistance-trained males. Methods: Two days after maximal strength testing, 20 young (age 21.0 ± 1.6 years) and 20 middle-aged (age 42.6 ± 6.7 years) resistance-trained males completed three repetitions of bench press, back squat, and bent-over-row at loads corresponding to 20–80% 1RM. Using reference minimum velocity threshold (MVT) values, the 1RM was estimated from the load-velocity relationships through multiple (20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM), two-point (20 and 80% 1RM), high-load (60 and 80% 1RM) and low-load (20 and 40% 1RM) methods for each group. Results: Despite most prediction methods demonstrating acceptable correlations (r = 0.55 to 0.96), the absolute errors for young and middle-aged groups were generally moderate to high for bench press (absolute errors = 8.2 to 14.2% and 8.6 to 20.4%, respectively) and bent-over-row (absolute error = 14.9 to 19.9% and 8.6 to 18.2%, respectively). For squats, the absolute errors were lower in the young group (5.7 to 13.4%) than the middle-aged group (13.2 to 17.0%) but still unacceptable. Conclusion: These findings suggest that reference MVTs cannot accurately predict the 1RM in these populations. Therefore, practitioners need to directly assess 1RM.

Concentric-Only Versus Touch-and-Go Bench Press One-Repetition Maximum in Men and Women

BACKGROUND

One-repetition maximum (1RM) tests are time-consuming, and they might not always be logistically possible or warranted due to increased risk of injury when performed incorrectly or by novice athletes. Repetitions-to-failure tests are a widespread method of predicting the 1RM, but its accuracy may be compromised by several factors such as the type of exercise, sex, training history, and the number of repetitions completed in the test.

HYPOTHESIS

The touch-and-go bench press would provide a higher 1RM than the concentric-only bench press for both genders regardless of whether the 1RM was obtained by the direct or repetitions-to-failure method and the error in the 1RM prediction would be positively correlated with the number of repetitions performed to failure and negatively correlated with the 1RM strength and resistance training experience.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

METHODS

A total of 113 adults (87 men and 26 women) were tested on 2 sessions during the concentric-only and touch-and-go bench press. Each session consisted of an incremental loading test until reaching the 1RM load, followed by a repetitions-to-failure test.

RESULTS

The 1RM was higher for the touch-and-go bench press using both the direct (men, 7.80%; women, 7.62%) and repetitions-to-failure method (men, 8.29%; women, 7.49%). A significant, although small, correlation was observed between the error in the estimation of the 1RM and the number of repetitions performed (r = 0.222; P < 0.01), 1RM strength (r = -0.169; P = 0.01), and resistance training experience (r = -0.136; P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The repetitions-to-failure test is a valid method of predicting the 1RM during the concentric-only and touch-and-go bench press variants. However, the accuracy of the prediction could be compromised with weaker and less experienced individuals and if more than 10 repetitions are completed during the repetitions-to-failure test.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The repetitions-to-failure test does not require any sophisticated equipment and enables a widespread use in different training environments.

Validity and Reliability of Using Load-Velocity Relationship Profiles to Establish Back Squat 1 m·s-1 Load

ABSTRACT

Elsworthy, N, Callaghan, DE, Scanlan, AT, Kertesz, AHM, Kean, CO, Dascombe, BJ, and Guy, JH. Validity and reliability of using load-velocity relationship profiles to establish back squat 1 m·s-1 load. J Strength Cond Res 35(2): 340-346, 2021-Although measuring movement velocity during resistance exercise is being increasingly used to monitor player readiness for competition in team sports, the validity and reliability of using set target velocities has not been examined. This study examined test-retest reliability of the load-velocity relationship during the back squat to predict loads corresponding to a mean velocity of 1 m·s-1 (V1Load), test-retest reliability of mean concentric velocity at V1Load, and criterion validity of mean concentric velocity at V1Load. Twenty-seven resistance-trained male rugby league players completed 2 testing sessions on separate days to establish individualized back squat load-velocity relationship profiles (30, 40, 60, and 80% estimated 1 repetition maximum). Velocity during the back squat was assessed at each load and V1Load derived using individualized linear regression equations. A subset of subjects (n = 18) also performed the back squat at predicted V1Load to examine the test-retest reliability and compare the mean concentric velocity with the predicted target of 1 m·s-1. The mean concentric velocity was consistent across all loads during load-velocity relationship testing (p > 0.05, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] ≥0.75, coefficient of variation [CV] ≤5.7%, effect size [ES] ≤0.27), and for predicting V1Load (p = 0.11, ICC = 0.95, CV = 3.9%, ES = 0.11). The mean concentric velocity at V1Load was reliable (ICC = 0.77; CV = 2.6%; ES = 0.39) and not significantly different (p = 0.21) to the target velocity, supporting criterion validity. Individualized load-velocity profiles for the back squat can accurately predict V1Load, and subsequent use of V1Load to assess back squat velocity is valid and reliable. Using V1Load to assess changes in back squat velocity may have application in measuring changes in strength and power or readiness to train.

Load-velocity Profiles Change after Training Programs with Different Set Configurations

This study explored the changes in load-velocity relationship of bench press and parallel squat exercises following two programs differing in the set configuration. A randomized controlled trial was carried out in a sample of 39 physically active individuals. Participants were assigned to rest redistribution set configuration, traditional set configuration, or control groups. Over 5 weeks, the experimental groups completed 10 sessions with the 10 repetitions maximum load of both exercises. Rest redistribution sets consisted in 16 sets of 2 repetitions with 60 s of rest between sets, and 5 min between exercises, whereas traditional sets entailed 4 sets of 8 repetitions with 5 min of rest between sets and exercises. The load-velocity relationships of both exercises were obtained before and after the training period. For bench press, an increase of the velocity axis intercept, and a decrease of the slope at post-test were observed in both rest redistribution (p<0.001, G=1.264; p<0.001; G=0.997) and traditional set (p=0.01, G=0.654; p=0.001; G=0.593) groups. For squat, the slope decreased (p<0.001; G=0.588) and the velocity axis intercept increased (p<0.001; G=0.727) only in the rest redistribution group. These results show that rest redistribution sets were particularly efficient for inducing changes in the load-velocity relationship.

Is the OUTPUT Sports Unit Reliable and Valid When Estimating Back Squat and Bench Press Concentric Velocity?

ABSTRACT

Merrigan, JJ and Martin, JR. Is the OUTPUT sports unit reliable and valid when estimating back squat and bench press concentric velocity? J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-This study evaluated the reliability and concurrent validity of the OUTPUT sports inertial unit to measure concentric velocity of free-weight back squat and bench press exercises. Eleven men and women performed back squat and bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM) testing. One week later, subjects performed 3 repetitions of each exercise with 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, and 85% 1RM (18 total repetitions). The OUTPUT and 4 cable extension transducers (criterion) simultaneously recorded the mean and peak velocity. The OUTPUT had acceptable reliability for all loads except 85% 1RM for back squat and bench press (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.72-0.96, coefficient of variation = 0.03-0.12). High systematic biases existed for the mean and peak velocity for the back squat and bench press, according to Bland-Altman plot's wide limits of agreement and ordinary least products regressions. According to Bland-Altman plots, OUTPUT tended to overestimate bench press velocity and overestimate back squat velocity at slower velocities. Least products regression analyses determined proportional bias existed for the mean and peak velocity of the back squat and peak velocity of the bench press. In conclusion, researchers and practitioners are advised not to compare velocity estimates of the OUTPUT unit with criterion devices because these methods cannot be used interchangeably. However, because of the demonstrated reliability when estimating the mean and peak velocity, strength and conditioning practitioners may find the OUTPUT unit valuable for monitoring performance of the back squat and bench press exercises. Yet, caution should be taken when evaluating loads ≥85% 1RM.

Group versus Individualised Minimum Velocity Thresholds in the Prediction of Maximal Strength in Trained Female Athletes

This study examined the accuracy of different velocity-based methods in the prediction of bench press and squat one-repetition maximum (1RM) in female athletes. Seventeen trained females (age 17.8 ± 1.3 years) performed an incremental loading test to 1RM on bench press and squat with the mean velocity being recorded. The 1RM was estimated from the load-velocity relationship using the multiple- (8 loads) and two-point (2 loads) methods and group and individual minimum velocity thresholds (MVT). No significant effect of method, MVT or interaction was observed for the two exercises (p > 0.05). For bench press and squat, all prediction methods demonstrated very large to nearly perfect correlations with respect to the actual 1RM (r range = 0.76 to 0.97). The absolute error (range = 2.1 to 3.8 kg) for bench press demonstrated low errors that were independent of the method and MVT used. For squat, the favorable group MVT errors for the multiple- and two-point methods (absolute error = 7.8 and 9.7 kg, respectively) were greater than the individual MVT errors (absolute error = 4.9 and 6.3 kg, respectively). The 1RM can be accurately predicted from the load-velocity relationship in trained females, with the two-point method offering a quick and less fatiguing alternative to the multiple-point method.

Bench Press Load-Velocity Profiles and Strength After Overload and Taper Microcyles in Male Powerlifters

Williams, TD, Esco, MR, Fedewa, MV, and Bishop, PA. Bench press load-velocity profiles and strength after overload and taper microcyles in male powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res 34(12): 3338-3345, 2020-The purpose of this study was to quantify the effect of an overload microcycle and taper on bench press velocity and to determine if the load-velocity relationship could accurately predict 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Twelve male powerlifters participated in resistance training structured into an introduction microcycle, overload microcycle (PostOL), and taper (PostTP). At the end of each microcycle, subjects completed a bench press for 1RM assessment consisting of warm-up sets at 40, 55, 70, and 85% of a previously established 1RM. The mean concentric velocity (MCV) was recorded during each warm-up set. A predicted 1RM (p1RM) was calculated using an individualized load-velocity profile (LVP). The average MCV decreased after PostOL (0.66 ± 0.07 m·s) compared with baseline (BL) (p = 0.003; 0.60 ± 0.11 m·s) but increased after PostTP (0.67 ± 0.09 m·s). One-repetition maximum increased from PostOL (146.7 ± 19.8 kg) to PostTP (p = 0.002; 156.1 ± 21.0 kg), with no differences observed between other test sessions (p > 0.05). Bland-Altman analysis indicated that p1RM was consistently higher than measured 1RM (3.4-7.8 kg), and the limits of agreement were extremely wide. However, very large to near perfect correlations (r = 0.89 to 0.96) were observed between p1RM and 1RM during BL, PostOL, and PostTP. The load-velocity relationship established from submaximal sets did not accurately predict 1RM, but MCV was affected by changes in weekly training loads. Velocity-based measurements seem to be more sensitive to changes in training loads than maximal strength.

Effects of velocity loss in the bench press exercise on strength gains, neuromuscular adaptations, and muscle hypertrophy

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the effects of four velocity-based training (VBT) programs in bench press (BP) between a wide range of velocity loss (VL) thresholds-0% (VL0), 15% (VL15), 25% (VL25), and 50% (VL50)-on strength gains, neuromuscular adaptations, and muscle hypertrophy.

METHODS

Sixty-four resistance-trained young men were randomly assigned into four groups (VL0, VL15, VL25, and VL50) that differed in the VL allowed in each set. Subjects followed a VBT program for 8-weeks using the BP exercise. Before and after the VBT program the following tests were performed: (a) cross-sectional area (CSA) measurements of pectoralis major (PM) muscle; (b) maximal isometric test; (c) progressive loading test; and (d) fatigue test.

RESULTS

Significant group x time interactions were observed for CSA (P < .01) and peak root mean square in PM (peak RMS-PM, P < .05). VL50 showed significantly greater gains in CSA than VL0 (P < .05). Only the VL15 group showed significant increases in peak RMS-PM (P < .01). Moreover, only VL0 showed significant gains in the early rate of force development (RFD, P = .05), while VL25 and VL50 improved in the late RFD (P ≤ .01-.05). No significant group × time interactions were found for any of the dynamic strength variables analyzed, although all groups showed significant improvements in all these parameters.

CONCLUSION

Higher VL thresholds allowed for a greater volume load which maximized muscle hypertrophy, whereas lower VL thresholds evoked positive neuromuscular-related adaptations. No significant differences were found between groups for strength gains, despite the wide differences in the total volume accumulated by each group.

Back squat velocity to assess neuromuscular status of rugby league players following a match

OBJECTIVES

Back squat mean concentric velocity (MV) and countermovement jump (CMJ) performance were examined in sub-elite rugby league players post-match to monitor changes in neuromuscular status (NMS) from baseline. Relationships between changes in back squat MV and CMJ performance variables were used to compare back squat MV to an established method to monitor NMS.

DESIGN

Longitudinal observational design.

METHODS

18 male sub-elite rugby league players (mean±SD, 20.5±2.4 yr; 180.0±6.7cm; 93.3±11.2kg) performed 3 repetitions of CMJ and back squat with an individualised, pre-determined load at -2h (baseline), +30min, +24h, and +48h in relation to a match. Back squat MV, CMJ height, CMJ peak power, and CMJ peak velocity were measured with a linear position transducer.

RESULTS

Significant (p<0.05), small to large decreases (ES=0.52-1.24) were observed in back squat MV up to +48h post-match. Significant (p<0.05), small to moderate decreases (ES=0.52-0.70) in CMJ height were also observed up to +24h post-match, returning to baseline at +48h. CMJ peak power and peak velocity post-match changes were not significant compared to baseline (p>0.05). Significant positive correlations were found between changes in back squat MV and CMJ height at +30min (r=0.59; p=0.009) and +48h (r=0.51; p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest back squat MV may be a suitable alternative or addition to CMJ testing for monitoring NMS in rugby league players.

Load-velocity relationship 1RM predictions: A comparison of Smith machine and free-weight exercise

This study aimed to determine differences in the validity and reliability of 1RM predictions made using load-velocity relationships in Smith machine and free-weight exercise. Twenty well-trained males attended six sessions, comprising the Smith machine and free-weight squat, bench press, prone row and overhead press. Load-velocity relationship-based 1RM predictions were performed using minimal velocity threshold (1RM_MVT), load at zero velocity (1RM_LD0) and force-velocity (1RM_FV) methods, with 5- or 7-loads. Measured 1RM did not differ from 1RM_MVT or 1RM_LD0 for any of the Smith machine exercises, while it was higher than 1RM_FV for all exercises except the prone row. For the free-weight variations all 1RM predictions differed from measured 1RM for the squat and overhead press, while measured and predicted 1RM did not differ in the bench press and prone row. No differences were observed between 7-and 5-load predictions. 1RM_MVT was the most reliable and valid of the methods. Smith machine exercises resulted in more reliable predictions than free weight exercises. 1RM_MVT provides valid and reliable predictions for the Smith machine, squat, bench press, prone row and overhead press and free-weight bench press and prone row. Practitioners must be aware of the poor validity of free-weight squat and overhead press predictions.

Effects of the Barbell Load on the Acceleration Phase during the Snatch in Elite Olympic Weightlifting

The load-depended loss of vertical barbell velocity at the end of the acceleration phase limits the maximum weight that can be lifted. Thus, the purpose of this study was to analyze how increased barbell loads affect the vertical barbell velocity in the sub-phases of the acceleration phase during the snatch. It was hypothesized that the load-dependent velocity loss at the end of the acceleration phase is primarily associated with a velocity loss during the 1st pull. For this purpose, 14 male elite weightlifters lifted seven load-stages from 70–100% of their personal best in the snatch. The load–velocity relationship was calculated using linear regression analysis to determine the velocity loss at 1st pull, transition, and 2nd pull. A group mean data contrast analysis revealed the highest load-dependent velocity loss for the 1st pull (t = 1.85, p = 0.044, g = 0.49 [−0.05, 1.04]) which confirmed our study hypothesis. In contrast to the group mean data, the individual athlete showed a unique response to increased loads during the acceleration sub-phases of the snatch. With the proposed method, individualized training recommendations on exercise selection and loading schemes can be derived to specifically improve the sub-phases of the snatch acceleration phase. Furthermore, the results highlight the importance of single-subject assessment when working with elite athletes in Olympic weightlifting.

Reliability and Validity of Using the Push Band v2.0 to Measure Repetition Velocity in Free-Weight and Smith Machine Exercises

Hughes, LJ, Peiffer, JJ, and Scott, BR. Reliability and validity of using the Push Band v2.0 to measure repetition velocity in free-weight and Smith machine exercises. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2019-The purpose of this study was to investigate the test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of using the Push Band device 2.0 (PUSH) to quantify repetition velocity across 4 common resistance training exercises performed using free-weight and Smith machine training modalities. Twenty well-trained men (age: 25.1 ± 2.9 years, height: 182.4 ± 6.0 cm, body mass: 77.9 ± 12.0 kg, training age: 5.2 ± 1.4 years) visited the laboratory on 6 occasions (3 free-weight and 3 Smith machine sessions). Baseline strength assessments were conducted in the first session with each modality for squat, bench press, overhead press, and prone row exercises. The subsequent sessions featured repetitions performed with 30, 60, and 90% 1-repetition maximum. During these sessions, velocity was measured simultaneously using a validated linear position transducer (LPT; considered the criterion for this study) and 2 PUSH devices, one in body mode (PUSHBODY) and the other bar mode (PUSHBAR). Test-retest reliability was examined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV). The LPT demonstrated slightly greater reliability (ICC = 0.80-0.98, CV = 0.4-5.1%) than the PUSHBODY (ICC = 0.65-0.95, CV = 0.8-6.9%) and PUSHBAR (ICC = 0.50-0.93, CV = 0.7-7.1%) devices. Near-perfect correlations existed between velocity measured using LPT and PUSH devices (r = 0.96-0.99). No significant differences existed between mean velocity measures obtained using LPT and either PUSH device. The PUSH device can be used in either bar or body mode to obtain reliable and valid repetition velocity measures across a range of loads and exercises performed using either free weights or a Smith machine.

Movement velocity can be used to estimate the relative load during the bench press and leg press exercises in older women

Background

Movement velocity has been proposed as an effective tool to prescribe the load during resistance training in young healthy adults. This study aimed to elucidate whether movement velocity could also be used to estimate the relative load (i.e., % of the one-repetition maximum (1RM)) in older women.

Methods

A total of 22 older women (age = 68.2 ± 3.6 years, bench press 1RM = 22.3 ± 4.7 kg, leg press 1RM = 114.6 ± 15.9 kg) performed an incremental loading test during the free-weight bench press and the leg press exercises on two separate sessions. The mean velocity (MV) was collected with a linear position transducer.

Results

A strong linear relationship between MV and the relative load was observed for the bench press (%1RM = −130.4 MV + 119.3; r² = 0.827, standard error of the estimate (SEE) = 6.10%1RM, p < 0.001) and leg press exercises (%1RM = −158.3 MV + 131.4; r² = 0.913, SEE = 5.63%1RM, p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the bench press and leg press exercises for the MV attained against light-medium relative loads (≤70%1RM), while the MV associated with heavy loads (≥80%1RM) was significantly higher for the leg press.

Conclusions

These results suggest that the monitoring of MV could be useful to prescribe the loads during resistance training in older women. However, it should be noted that the MV associated with a given %1RM is significantly lower in older women compared to young healthy individuals.