Applying the Critical Power Model to a Full-Body Resistance-Training Movement.

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.