PURPOSE: This study compared pooled against individualized load-velocity profiles (LVPs) in the free-weight back squat and power clean. METHODS: A total of 10 competitive weightlifters completed baseline 1-repetition maximum assessments in the back squat and power clean. Three incremental LVPs were completed, separated by 48 to 72 hours. Mean and peak velocity were measured via a linear-position transducer (GymAware). Linear and nonlinear (second-order polynomial) regression models were applied to all pooled and individualized LVP data. A combination of coefficient of variation (CV), intraclass correlation coefficient, typical error of measurement, and limits of agreement assessed between-subject variability and within-subject reliability. Acceptable reliability was defined a priori as intraclass correlation coefficient > .7 and CV < 10%. RESULTS: Very high to practically perfect inverse relationships were evident in the back squat (r = .83-.96) and power clean (r = .83-.89) for both regression models; however, stronger correlations were observed in the individualized LVPs for both exercises (r = .85-.99). Between-subject variability was moderate to large across all relative loads in the back squat (CV = 8.2%-27.8%) but smaller in the power clean (CV = 4.6%-8.5%). The power clean met our criteria for acceptable reliability across all relative loads; however, the back squat revealed large CVs in loads ≥90% of 1-repetition maximum (13.1%-20.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Evidently, load-velocity characteristics are highly individualized, with acceptable levels of reliability observed in the power clean but not in the back squat (≥90% of 1-repetition maximum). If practitioners want to adopt load-velocity profiling as part of their testing and monitoring procedures, an individualized LVP should be utilized over pooled LVPs.
PURPOSE: This study compared pooled against individualized load-velocity profiles (LVPs) in the free-weight back squat and power clean. METHODS: A total of 10 competitive weightlifters completed baseline 1-repetition maximum assessments in the back squat and power clean. Three incremental LVPs were completed, separated by 48 to 72 hours. Mean and peak velocity were measured via a linear-position transducer (GymAware). Linear and nonlinear (second-order polynomial) regression models were applied to all pooled and individualized LVP data. A combination of coefficient of variation (CV), intraclass correlation coefficient, typical error of measurement, and limits of agreement assessed between-subject variability and within-subject reliability. Acceptable reliability was defined a priori as intraclass correlation coefficient > .7 and CV < 10%. RESULTS: Very high to practically perfect inverse relationships were evident in the back squat (r = .83-.96) and power clean (r = .83-.89) for both regression models; however, stronger correlations were observed in the individualized LVPs for both exercises (r = .85-.99). Between-subject variability was moderate to large across all relative loads in the back squat (CV = 8.2%-27.8%) but smaller in the power clean (CV = 4.6%-8.5%). The power clean met our criteria for acceptable reliability across all relative loads; however, the back squat revealed large CVs in loads ≥90% of 1-repetition maximum (13.1%-20.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Evidently, load-velocity characteristics are highly individualized, with acceptable levels of reliability observed in the power clean but not in the back squat (≥90% of 1-repetition maximum). If practitioners want to adopt load-velocity profiling as part of their testing and monitoring procedures, an individualized LVP should be utilized over pooled LVPs.
Entities:
Keywords:
load–velocity relationship; maximal strength; resistance exercise; strength and conditioning; velocity-based training
Authors: Ruggero Romagnoli; Sergio Civitella; Carlo Minganti; Maria Francesca Piacentini Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-11 Impact factor: 4.614