Literature DB >> 32287093

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

Ivan Jukic1,2, Amador García-Ramos3,4, Jan Malecek2, Dan Omcirk2, James J Tufano2.   

Abstract

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.
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 32287093     DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003596

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Strength Cond Res        ISSN: 1064-8011            Impact factor:   3.775


  5 in total

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

Authors:  Ingo Sandau; Helmi Chaabene; Urs Granacher
Journal:  J Funct Morphol Kinesiol       Date:  2021-04-16

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

Authors:  Stian Larsen; Eirik Kristiansen; Roland van den Tillaar
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 2.984

3.  The Effect of Load and Volume Autoregulation on Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Landyn M Hickmott; Philip D Chilibeck; Keely A Shaw; Scotty J Butcher
Journal:  Sports Med Open       Date:  2022-01-15

4.  Reliability and validity of the multi-point method and the 2-point method's variations of estimating the one-repetition maximum for deadlift and back squat exercises.

Authors:  Onat Çetin; Zeki Akyildiz; Barbaros Demirtaş; Yılmaz Sungur; Filipe Manuel Clemente; Florin Cazan; Luca Paolo Ardigò
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 2.984

5.  Group versus Individualised Minimum Velocity Thresholds in the Prediction of Maximal Strength in Trained Female Athletes.

Authors:  Elias J G Caven; Tom J E Bryan; Amelia F Dingley; Benjamin Drury; Amador Garcia-Ramos; Alejandro Perez-Castilla; Jorge Arede; John F T Fernandes
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-10-26       Impact factor: 3.390

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.