Purpose: To determine if the mathematical model used to derive critical power could be used to identify the critical resistance (CR) for the deadlift; compare predicted and actual repetitions to failure at 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80% 1-repetition maximum (1RM); and compare the CR with the estimated sustainable resistance for 30 repetitions (ESR30).
Methods: Twelve subjects completed 1RM testing for the deadlift followed by 4 visits to determine the number of repetitions to failure at 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80% 1RM. The CR was calculated as the slope of the line of the total work completed (repetitions × weight [in kilograms] × distance [in meters]) vs the total distance (in meters) the barbell traveled. The actual and predicted repetitions to failure were determined from the CR model and compared using paired-samples t tests and simple linear regression. The ESR30 was determined from the power-curve analysis and compared with the CR using paired-samples t tests and simple linear regression.
Results: The weight and repetitions completed at CR were 56 (11) kg and 49 (14) repetitions. The actual repetitions to failure were less than predicted at 50% 1RM (P < .001) and 80% 1RM (P < .001) and greater at 60% 1RM (P = .004), but there was no difference at 70% 1RM (P = .084). The ESR30 (75 [14] kg) was greater (P < .001) than the CR.
Conclusions: The total work-vs-distance relationship can be used to identify the CR for the deadlift, which reflected a sustainable resistance that may be useful in the design of resistance-based exercise programs.
Keywords: critical resistance; deadlift; muscle endurance; repetitions to failure; resistance training to failure.