Validity of Load–Velocity Relationship to Predict 1 Repetition Maximum During Deadlifts Performed With and Without Lifting Straps: The Accuracy of Six Prediction Models

Abstract

Jukic, I, García-Ramos, A, Malecek, J, Omcirk, D, and Tufano, JJ. Validity of load–velocity relationship to predict 1 repetition maximum during deadlifts performed with and without lifting straps: The accuracy of six prediction models. J Strength Cond Res 36(4): 902–910, 2022—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.

Effects of subjective and objective autoregulation methods for intensity and volume on enhancing maximal strength during resistance-training interventions: a systematic review

“…However, studies have also shown that the PUSH devices for measuring and monitoring velocity may provide inaccuracies ( Jovanovic & Jukic, 2020 ; Pérez-Castilla et al, 2019 ). Therefore, it is speculated, that the combination of innaccuracy (overestimating 1-RM) when predicting the 1-RM from the load-velocity relationship with different regression equations ( Banyard, Nosaka & Haff, 2017 ; Hughes et al, 2019 ; Jukic et al, 2020 ; Lake et al, 2017 ; Ruf, Chéry & Taylor, 2018 ), together with potentially innaccuracies in velocity measurement devices ( Jovanovic & Jukic, 2020 ; Pérez-Castilla et al, 2019 ), could be a possible limitation for accurate predicting intensity of the real 1-RM when using velocity targets to prescribe load.…”

“…To avoid such inaccuracies, Weakley et al (2020) recommended in their review to periodically assess the load-velocity relationship for accurate prescription of relative loads. However, several studies have presented less favourable findings with respect to quantifying 1-RM using the load-velocity relationship ( Banyard, Nosaka & Haff, 2017 ; Hughes et al, 2019 ; Jukic et al, 2020 ; Lake et al, 2017 ; Ruf, Chéry & Taylor, 2018 ). In these studies, the use of different regression equations to predict 1-RM from the load-velocity relationship mostly tended to overestimate the predicted 1-RM, when compared to the real 1-RM lifted.…”

Using Velocity to Predict the Maximum Dynamic Strength in the Power Clean

“…García-Ramos et al [ 38 ] have presented data that suggest that MV is the most appropriate variable to monitor during ballistic exercises, such as the bench press throw, performed in a Smith machine. Conversely, Jukic et al [ 39 ] have recently reported that when the MV is used as part of a five-point linear equation, the deadlift 1-RM is overestimated by 7.3 ± 6.6 kg when compared to the actual 1-RM. In the present study when a four-point linear regression analysis was used, the predicted 1-RM (69.4 ± 12.9 kg) was significantly less (−6.59 ± 11.13 kg, p = 0.023, d = −0.52) than the criterion measure (76.5 ± 12.4 kg).…”

Predictive Validity of the Snatch Pull Force-Velocity Profile to Determine the Snatch One Repetition-Maximum in Male and Female Elite Weightlifters

“…Besides statistical modeling, LvR-profiling is a widely accepted approach to predict 1RM performance that has, in fact, not yet been used for weightlifting competition exercises (i.e., snatch, clean and jerk). However, being similar to the snatch and clean, recent research was conducted on the prediction accuracy of 1RM in the power clean and deadlift exercise using individual LvR profiles [ 11 , 12 , 25 ]. For instance, Haff, Garcia-Ramos, and James [ 11 ] used the individual LvR to predict the 1RM power clean performance in recreationally trained males aged 26 years.…”

“…These authors reported a measurement error (systematic bias ± SDD) of 1.4 ± 7.2 kg. Additionally, the individual LvR was used for the deadlift exercise to predict 1RM performance in resistance trained men aged 24 years [ 12 , 25 ]. Results indicated measurement errors (systematic bias ± SDD) of 0.6 ± 8.5 kg [ 25 ] and 0.7 ± 4.7 kg [ 12 ].…”