Abstract

The study aim was to compare different predictive models in one repetition maximum (1RM) estimation from load-velocity profile (LVP) data. Fourteen strength-trained men underwent initial 1RMs in the free-weight back squat, followed by two LVPs, over three sessions. Profiles were constructed via a combined method (jump squat (0 load, 30–60% 1RM) + back squat (70–100% 1RM)) or back squat only (0 load, 30–100% 1RM) in 10% increments. Quadratic and linear regression modeling was applied to the data to estimate 80% 1RM (kg) using 80% 1RM mean velocity identified in LVP one as the reference point, with load (kg), then extrapolated to predict 1RM. The 1RM prediction was based on LVP two data and analyzed via analysis of variance, effect size (g/), Pearson correlation coefficients (r), paired t-tests, standard error of the estimate (SEE), and limits of agreement (LOA). p < 0.05. All models reported systematic bias < 10 kg, r > 0.97, and SEE < 5 kg, however, all linear models were significantly different from measured 1RM (p = 0.015 <0.001). Significant differences were observed between quadratic and linear models for combined (p < 0.001; = 0.90) and back squat (p = 0.004, = 0.35) methods. Significant differences were observed between exercises when applying linear modeling (p < 0.001, = 0.67–0.80), but not quadratic (p = 0.632–0.929, = 0.001–0.18). Quadratic modeling employing the combined method rendered the greatest predictive validity. Practitioners should therefore utilize this method when looking to predict daily 1RMs as a means of load autoregulation.

Highlights

  • IntroductionFrequent maximum testing could create unwanted fatigue, potentially impacting on performances throughout the year [5]

  • The results of this study provide practitioners with confidence that a quadratic model that uses mean velocity of 80% 1RM

  • Utilizes both ballistic and non-ballistic exercises is an effective method for estimating an individual’s 1RM in the free-weight back squat, ensuring load manipulation and fatigue management can be achieved on a sessional basis

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Frequent maximum testing could create unwanted fatigue, potentially impacting on performances throughout the year [5]. While this is unlikely to be problematic in settings where 1RMs are relatively stable (e.g., strength sports), maximum strength might fluctuate in athletes competing in these sports due to training priorities [5], sleep [6], nutrition [7], and/or fatigue [8]. Alternative strategies such as 1RM prediction from load-velocity profile (LVP) data might be an effective strategy to manipulate load (i.e., autoregulation), which is thought to be vital to optimize athletic development [9]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call