Accuracy of Predicting One-Repetition Maximum from Submaximal Velocity in The Barbell Back Squat and Bench Press

Christian T Macarilla; Nicholas M Sautter; Zac P Robinson; Matthew C Juber; Landyn M Hickmott; Rebecca M Cerminaro; Brian Benitez; Joseph P Carzoli; Caleb D Bazyler; Robert F Zoeller; Michael Whitehurst; Michael C Zourdos

doi:10.2478/hukin-2022-0046

Accuracy of Predicting One-Repetition Maximum from Submaximal Velocity in The Barbell Back Squat and Bench Press

J Hum Kinet. 2022 Apr 26:82:201-212. doi: 10.2478/hukin-2022-0046. eCollection 2022 Apr.

Affiliations

¹ Florida Atlantic University, Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, Muscle Physiology Laboratory, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
² Department of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.
³ Department of Sport, Exercise, Recreation, and Kinesiology, Center for Excellence and Sport Science and Coach Education, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, USA.

Abstract

This study examined the accuracy of predicting a free-weight back squat and a bench press one-repetition maximum (1RM) using both 2- and 4-point submaximal average concentric velocity (ACV) methods. Seventeen resistance trained men performed a warm-up and a 1RM test on the squat and bench press with ACV assessed on all repetitions. The ACVs during the warm-up closest to 1.0 and 0.5m^.s^-1 were used in the 2-point linear regression forecast of the 1RM and the ACVs established at loads closest to 20, 50, 70, and 80% of the 1RM were used in the 4-point 1RM prediction. Repeated measures ANOVA and Bland-Altman and Mountain plots were used to analyze agreement between predicted and actual 1RMs. ANOVA indicated significant differences between the predicted and the actual 1RM for both the 2- and 4-point equations in both exercises (p<0.001). The 2-point squat prediction overestimated the 1RM by 29.12±0.07kg and the 4-point squat prediction overestimated the 1RM by 38.53±5.01kg. The bench press 1RM was overestimated by 9.32±4.68kg with the 2-point method and by 7.15±6.66kg using the 4-point method. Bland-Altman and Mountain plots confirmed the ANOVA findings as data were not tightly conformed to the respective zero difference lines and Bland-Altman plots showed wide limits of agreement. These data demonstrate that both 2- and 4-point velocity methods predicted the bench press 1RM more accurately than the squat 1RM. However, a lack of agreement between the predicted and the actual 1RM was observed for both exercises when volitional velocity was used.

Keywords: biomechanics; movement; performance; resistance training; strength testing.

© 2022 Christian T. Macarilla, Nicholas M. Sautter, Zac P. Robinson, Matthew C. Juber, Landyn M. Hickmott, Rebecca M. Cerminaro, Brian Benitez, Joseph P. Carzoli, Caleb D. Bazyler, Robert F. Zoeller, Michael Whitehurst, Michael C. Zourdos, published by Sciendo.