TY - JOUR
T1 - Validity of load-velocity relationship to predict 1 repetition maximum during deadlifts performed with and without lifting straps
T2 - the accuracy of six prediction models
AU - Jukic, Ivan
AU - García-Ramos, Amador
AU - Malecek, Jan
AU - Omcirk, Dan
AU - Tufano, James J.
N1 - Copyright information:
© 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association
PY - 2022/4/30
Y1 - 2022/4/30
N2 - This study aimed to compare the accuracy of six 1 repetition maximum (1RM) prediction models during deadlifts performed with (DLw) and without (DLn) lifting straps. In a counterbalanced order, 18 resistance-trained men performed 2 sessions that consisted of an incremental loading test (20-40-60-80-90% of 1RM) followed by 1RM attempts during the DLn (1RM = 162.0 ± 26.9 kg) and DLw (1RM = 179.0 ± 29.9 kg). Predicted 1RMs were calculated by entering both group and individualized mean concentric velocity of the 1RM (V1RM) into an individualized linear and polynomial regression equations, which were derived from the load-velocity relationship of 5 ([20-40-60-80-90% of 1RM], i.e., multiple-point method) or 2 ([40 and 90% of 1RM] i.e., 2-point method) incremental warm-up sets. The predicted 1RMs were deemed highly valid if the following criteria were met: trivial to small effect size, practically perfect r, and low absolute errors (<5 kg). The main findings revealed that although prediction models were more accurate during the DLn than DLw, none of the models provided an accurate estimation of the 1RM during both DLn (r = 0.92-0.98; absolute errors: 6.6-8.1 kg) and DLw (r = 0.80-0.93; absolute errors: 12.4-16.3 kg) according to our criteria. Therefore, these results suggest that the 1RM for both DLn and DLw should not be estimated through the recording of movement velocity if sport professionals are not willing to accept more than 5 kg of absolute errors.
AB - This study aimed to compare the accuracy of six 1 repetition maximum (1RM) prediction models during deadlifts performed with (DLw) and without (DLn) lifting straps. In a counterbalanced order, 18 resistance-trained men performed 2 sessions that consisted of an incremental loading test (20-40-60-80-90% of 1RM) followed by 1RM attempts during the DLn (1RM = 162.0 ± 26.9 kg) and DLw (1RM = 179.0 ± 29.9 kg). Predicted 1RMs were calculated by entering both group and individualized mean concentric velocity of the 1RM (V1RM) into an individualized linear and polynomial regression equations, which were derived from the load-velocity relationship of 5 ([20-40-60-80-90% of 1RM], i.e., multiple-point method) or 2 ([40 and 90% of 1RM] i.e., 2-point method) incremental warm-up sets. The predicted 1RMs were deemed highly valid if the following criteria were met: trivial to small effect size, practically perfect r, and low absolute errors (<5 kg). The main findings revealed that although prediction models were more accurate during the DLn than DLw, none of the models provided an accurate estimation of the 1RM during both DLn (r = 0.92-0.98; absolute errors: 6.6-8.1 kg) and DLw (r = 0.80-0.93; absolute errors: 12.4-16.3 kg) according to our criteria. Therefore, these results suggest that the 1RM for both DLn and DLw should not be estimated through the recording of movement velocity if sport professionals are not willing to accept more than 5 kg of absolute errors.
U2 - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003596
DO - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003596
M3 - Article
C2 - 32287093
AN - SCOPUS:85127914985
SN - 1064-8011
VL - 36
SP - 902
EP - 910
JO - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
JF - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
IS - 4
ER -