Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Reliability and Validity of the Load-Velocity Relationship to Predict the 1RM Back Squat.
J Strength Cond Res. 2017 Jul; 31(7):1897-1904.JS

Abstract

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 31(7): 1897-1904, 2017-This study investigated the reliability and validity of the load-velocity relationship to predict the free-weight back squat one repetition maximum (1RM). Seventeen strength-trained males performed three 1RM assessments on 3 separate days. All repetitions were performed to full depth with maximal concentric effort. Predicted 1RMs were calculated by entering the mean concentric velocity of the 1RM (V1RM) into an individualized linear regression equation, which was derived from the load-velocity relationship of 3 (20, 40, 60% of 1RM), 4 (20, 40, 60, 80% of 1RM), or 5 (20, 40, 60, 80, 90% of 1RM) incremental warm-up sets. The actual 1RM (140.3 ± 27.2 kg) was very stable between 3 trials (ICC = 0.99; SEM = 2.9 kg; CV = 2.1%; ES = 0.11). Predicted 1RM from 5 warm-up sets up to and including 90% of 1RM was the most reliable (ICC = 0.92; SEM = 8.6 kg; CV = 5.7%; ES = -0.02) and valid (r = 0.93; SEE = 10.6 kg; CV = 7.4%; ES = 0.71) of the predicted 1RM methods. However, all predicted 1RMs were significantly different (p ≤ 0.05; ES = 0.71-1.04) from the actual 1RM. Individual variation for the actual 1RM was small between trials ranging from -5.6 to 4.8% compared with the most accurate predictive method up to 90% of 1RM, which was more variable (-5.5 to 27.8%). Importantly, the V1RM (0.24 ± 0.06 m·s) was unreliable between trials (ICC = 0.42; SEM = 0.05 m·s; CV = 22.5%; ES = 0.14). The load-velocity relationship for the full depth free-weight back squat showed moderate reliability and validity but could not accurately predict 1RM, which was stable between trials. Thus, the load-velocity relationship 1RM prediction method used in this study cannot accurately modify sessional training loads because of large V1RM variability.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Center for Exercise and Sports Science Research (CESSR), School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

27669192

Citation

Banyard, Harry G., et al. "Reliability and Validity of the Load-Velocity Relationship to Predict the 1RM Back Squat." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, vol. 31, no. 7, 2017, pp. 1897-1904.
Banyard HG, Nosaka K, Haff GG. Reliability and Validity of the Load-Velocity Relationship to Predict the 1RM Back Squat. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(7):1897-1904.
Banyard, H. G., Nosaka, K., & Haff, G. G. (2017). Reliability and Validity of the Load-Velocity Relationship to Predict the 1RM Back Squat. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(7), 1897-1904. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001657
Banyard HG, Nosaka K, Haff GG. Reliability and Validity of the Load-Velocity Relationship to Predict the 1RM Back Squat. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(7):1897-1904. PubMed PMID: 27669192.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Reliability and Validity of the Load-Velocity Relationship to Predict the 1RM Back Squat. AU - Banyard,Harry G, AU - Nosaka,Kazunori, AU - Haff,G Gregory, PY - 2016/9/27/pubmed PY - 2017/12/13/medline PY - 2016/9/27/entrez SP - 1897 EP - 1904 JF - Journal of strength and conditioning research JO - J Strength Cond Res VL - 31 IS - 7 N2 - 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 31(7): 1897-1904, 2017-This study investigated the reliability and validity of the load-velocity relationship to predict the free-weight back squat one repetition maximum (1RM). Seventeen strength-trained males performed three 1RM assessments on 3 separate days. All repetitions were performed to full depth with maximal concentric effort. Predicted 1RMs were calculated by entering the mean concentric velocity of the 1RM (V1RM) into an individualized linear regression equation, which was derived from the load-velocity relationship of 3 (20, 40, 60% of 1RM), 4 (20, 40, 60, 80% of 1RM), or 5 (20, 40, 60, 80, 90% of 1RM) incremental warm-up sets. The actual 1RM (140.3 ± 27.2 kg) was very stable between 3 trials (ICC = 0.99; SEM = 2.9 kg; CV = 2.1%; ES = 0.11). Predicted 1RM from 5 warm-up sets up to and including 90% of 1RM was the most reliable (ICC = 0.92; SEM = 8.6 kg; CV = 5.7%; ES = -0.02) and valid (r = 0.93; SEE = 10.6 kg; CV = 7.4%; ES = 0.71) of the predicted 1RM methods. However, all predicted 1RMs were significantly different (p ≤ 0.05; ES = 0.71-1.04) from the actual 1RM. Individual variation for the actual 1RM was small between trials ranging from -5.6 to 4.8% compared with the most accurate predictive method up to 90% of 1RM, which was more variable (-5.5 to 27.8%). Importantly, the V1RM (0.24 ± 0.06 m·s) was unreliable between trials (ICC = 0.42; SEM = 0.05 m·s; CV = 22.5%; ES = 0.14). The load-velocity relationship for the full depth free-weight back squat showed moderate reliability and validity but could not accurately predict 1RM, which was stable between trials. Thus, the load-velocity relationship 1RM prediction method used in this study cannot accurately modify sessional training loads because of large V1RM variability. SN - 1533-4287 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/27669192/Reliability_and_Validity_of_the_Load_Velocity_Relationship_to_Predict_the_1RM_Back_Squat_ L2 - http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001657 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -