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

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11510%2F22%3A10418179" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11510/22:10418179 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=F4H1xdJa1s" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=F4H1xdJa1s</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003596" target="_blank" >10.1519/JSC.0000000000003596</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

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

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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 (&lt;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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

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

Popis výsledku anglicky

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 (&lt;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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30306 - Sport and fitness sciences

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach<br>I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2022

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

ISSN

1064-8011

e-ISSN

1533-4287

Svazek periodika

36

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

4

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

9

Strana od-do

902-910

Kód UT WoS článku

000772137800004

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85127914985