Banyard Harry G, Nosaka Kazunori, Haff G Gregory
Center for Exercise and Sports Science Research (CESSR), School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia.
J Strength Cond Res. 2017 Jul;31(7):1897-1904. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001657.
Banyard, HG, Nosaka, K, and Haff, GG. Reliability and validity of the load-velocity relationship to predict the 1RM back squat. J Strength Cond Res 31(7): 1897-1904, 2017-This study investigated the reliability and validity of the load-velocity relationship to predict the free-weight back squat one repetition maximum (1RM). Seventeen strength-trained males performed three 1RM assessments on 3 separate days. All repetitions were performed to full depth with maximal concentric effort. Predicted 1RMs were calculated by entering the mean concentric velocity of the 1RM (V1RM) into an individualized linear regression equation, which was derived from the load-velocity relationship of 3 (20, 40, 60% of 1RM), 4 (20, 40, 60, 80% of 1RM), or 5 (20, 40, 60, 80, 90% of 1RM) incremental warm-up sets. The actual 1RM (140.3 ± 27.2 kg) was very stable between 3 trials (ICC = 0.99; SEM = 2.9 kg; CV = 2.1%; ES = 0.11). Predicted 1RM from 5 warm-up sets up to and including 90% of 1RM was the most reliable (ICC = 0.92; SEM = 8.6 kg; CV = 5.7%; ES = -0.02) and valid (r = 0.93; SEE = 10.6 kg; CV = 7.4%; ES = 0.71) of the predicted 1RM methods. However, all predicted 1RMs were significantly different (p ≤ 0.05; ES = 0.71-1.04) from the actual 1RM. Individual variation for the actual 1RM was small between trials ranging from -5.6 to 4.8% compared with the most accurate predictive method up to 90% of 1RM, which was more variable (-5.5 to 27.8%). Importantly, the V1RM (0.24 ± 0.06 m·s) was unreliable between trials (ICC = 0.42; SEM = 0.05 m·s; CV = 22.5%; ES = 0.14). The load-velocity relationship for the full depth free-weight back squat showed moderate reliability and validity but could not accurately predict 1RM, which was stable between trials. Thus, the load-velocity relationship 1RM prediction method used in this study cannot accurately modify sessional training loads because of large V1RM variability.
班亚德、HG、野坂、K和哈夫、GG。负荷-速度关系预测1次重复最大重量后深蹲的可靠性和有效性。《力量与体能研究杂志》31(7):1897 - 1904，2017年——本研究调查了负荷-速度关系预测自由重量后深蹲1次重复最大重量（1RM）的可靠性和有效性。17名力量训练男性在3个不同日期进行了3次1RM评估。所有重复动作均以最大向心力量进行至完全深蹲深度。通过将1RM的平均向心速度（V1RM）输入个性化线性回归方程来计算预测的1RM，该方程源自3组（1RM的20%、40%、60%）、4组（1RM的20%、40%、60%、80%）或5组（1RM的20%、40%、60%、80%、90%）递增热身组的负荷-速度关系。实际1RM（140.3±27.2千克）在3次测试之间非常稳定（组内相关系数=0.99；标准误=2.9千克；变异系数=2.1%；效应量=0.11）。从包含1RM的90%及以下的5组热身组预测的1RM是所有预测1RM方法中最可靠的（组内相关系数=0.92；标准误=8.6千克；变异系数=5.7%；效应量=-0.02）且最有效的（r = 0.93；标准误估计值=10.6千克；变异系数=7.4%；效应量=0.71）。然而，所有预测的1RM与实际1RM均存在显著差异（p≤0.05；效应量=0.71 - 1.04）。与最准确的预测方法（高达1RM的90%）相比，实际1RM的个体差异在各测试之间较小，范围为-5.6%至4.8%，而该预测方法的个体差异更大（-5.5%至27.8%）。重要的是，V1RM（0.24±0.06米·秒）在各测试之间不可靠（组内相关系数=0.42；标准误=0.05米·秒；变异系数=22.5%；效应量=0.14）。完全深蹲深度自由重量后深蹲的负荷-速度关系显示出中等的可靠性和有效性，但无法准确预测1RM，1RM在各测试之间是稳定的。因此，由于V1RM的较大变异性，本研究中使用的负荷-速度关系1RM预测方法无法准确调整训练课的负荷。
