Abstract
The purpose of the current study was to compare the ability of five different methods to estimate eccentric–concentric and concentric-only bench-press 1RM from load–velocity profile data. Smith machine bench-press tests were performed in an eccentric–concentric (n = 192) and a concentric-only manner (n = 176) while mean concentric velocity was registered using a linear position transducer. Load–velocity profiles were derived from incremental submaximal load (40–80% 1RM) tests. Five different methods were used to calculate 1RM using the slope, intercept, and velocity at 1RM (minimum velocity threshold—MVT) from the load–velocity profiles: calculation with individual MVT, calculation with group average MVT, multilinear regression without MVT, regularized regression without MVT, and an artificial neural network without MVT. Mean average errors for all methods ranged from 2.7 to 3.3 kg. Calculations with individual or group MVT resulted in significant overprediction of eccentric–concentric 1RM (individual MVT: difference = 0.76 kg, p = 0.020, d = 0.17; group MVT: difference = 0.72 kg, p = 0.023, d = 0.17). The multilinear and regularized regression both resulted in the lowest errors and highest correlations. The results demonstrated that bench-press 1RM can be accurately estimated from load–velocity data derived from submaximal loads and without MVT. In addition, results showed that multilinear regression can be used to estimate bench-press 1RM. Collectively, the findings and resulting equations should be helpful for strength and conditioning coaches as they would help estimating 1RM without MVT data.
Highlights
Resistance training is paramount to increase both sports performance and overall health [1,2]
One of the main reasons why load–velocity profiling has become so popular in the strength and conditioning community is because it allows for the estimation of an athlete’s 1-repetition maximum (1RM) without the need for an actual maximal test [3,7]
It should be noted that obtaining the minimum velocity threshold (MVT) is a major drawback of 1RM estimation via load–velocity profiling because it still necessitates a maximal test
Summary
Resistance training is paramount to increase both sports performance and overall health [1,2]. One of the main reasons why load–velocity profiling has become so popular in the strength and conditioning community is because it allows for the estimation of an athlete’s 1-repetition maximum (1RM) without the need for an actual maximal test [3,7]. The association between load and MCV is very strong (i.e., coefficients of determination > 0.94), and holds across different populations (from amateur to highly trained athletes) and exercises (e.g., bench-press, squat or pull-up) [4,5]. The strong association between load and MCV, and the relevant regression equations, hypothetically allows researchers to estimate an athlete’s 1RM if researchers know the individual’s MCV with which they lift 1RM loads. It should be noted that obtaining the MVT is a major drawback of 1RM estimation via load–velocity profiling because it still necessitates a maximal test. Using subject-specific MVT, rather than general or group-based MVT, in load–
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
