Wagner Carl-Maximilian, Keiner Michael, Puschkasch-Möck Sebastian, Wirth Klaus, Schiemann Stephan, Warneke Konstantin
Institute of Exercise, Sport and Health, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany.
Department for Training Science, German University of Health and Sport, Ismaning, Germany.
BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2025 Apr 28;17(1):102. doi: 10.1186/s13102-025-01137-y.
In recent years, load-velocity profiles (LVP) have been frequently proposed as a highly reliable and valid alternative to the one-repetition maximum (1RM) for estimating maximal strength and prescribing training loads. However, previous authors commonly report intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) while neglecting to calculate the measurement error associated with these values. This is important for practitioners, especially in an elite sports setting, to be able to differentiate between small but significant changes in performance and the error rate.
49 youth elite athletes (17.71±2.07 years) were recruited and performed a 1RM test followed by a load-velocity profiling test using 30%, 50% and 70% of the 1RM in the bench press and bench pull, respectively. Reliability analysis, ICCs and the coefficient of variability, were calculated and supplemented by an agreement analysis including the mean absolute error (MAE) and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) to provide the resulting measurement error. Furthermore, validity analyses between the measured 1RM and different calculation models to estimate 1RM were performed.
Reliability values were in accordance with current literature (ICC = 0.79-0.99, coefficient of variance [CV] = 1.86-9.32%), however, were accompanied by a random error (mean absolute error [MAE]: 0.05-0.64 m/s, mean absolute percentage error [MAPE]: 2.7-9.5%) arising from test-retest measurement. Strength estimation via the velocity-profile overestimated the bench pull 1RM (limits of agreement [LOA]: -9.73 - -16.72 kg, MAE: 9.80-17.03 kg, MAPE 16.9-29.7%), while the bench press 1RM was underestimated (LOA: 3.34-6.37 kg, MAE: 3.74-7.84 kg, MAPE: 7.5-13.4%); dependent on used calculation model.
Considering the observed measurement error associated with LVP-based methods, it can be posited that their utility as a programming strategy is limited. The lack of accuracy required to discriminate between small but significant changes in performance and error, coupled with the potential risks of under- and overestimating 1RM, can result in insufficient stimulus or increased injury risk, respectively. This further diminishes the practicality of these methods, particularly in elite sports settings.
近年来，负荷 - 速度曲线（LVP）常被视为一种高度可靠且有效的方法，可替代一次重复最大重量（1RM）来估计最大力量并规定训练负荷。然而，以往的作者通常报告组内相关系数（ICC），却忽略计算与这些值相关的测量误差。对于从业者而言，尤其是在精英运动环境中，能够区分成绩中微小但显著的变化与误差率非常重要。
招募了49名青年精英运动员（17.71±2.07岁），他们先进行了1RM测试，随后分别在卧推和坐姿划船中使用1RM的30%、50%和70%进行负荷 - 速度曲线测试。计算了可靠性分析、ICC和变异系数，并辅以一致性分析，包括平均绝对误差（MAE）和平均绝对百分比误差（MAPE），以得出测量误差。此外，还对测量的1RM与不同的用于估计1RM的计算模型之间进行了效度分析。
可靠性值与当前文献一致（ICC = 0.79 - 0.99，方差系数[CV] = 1.86 - 9.32%），然而，重测测量产生了随机误差（平均绝对误差[MAE]：0.05 - 0.64 m/s，平均绝对百分比误差[MAPE]：2.7 - 9.5%）。通过速度曲线估计力量时，坐姿划船1RM被高估（一致性界限[LOA]：-9.73 - -16.72 kg，MAE：9.80 - 17.03 kg，MAPE 16.9 - 29.7%），而卧推1RM被低估（LOA：3.34 - 6.37 kg，MAE：3.74 - 7.84 kg，MAPE：7.5 - 13.4%）；这取决于所使用的计算模型。
考虑到观察到的与基于LVP的方法相关的测量误差，可以认为它们作为一种训练计划策略的效用是有限的。缺乏区分成绩中微小但显著的变化与误差所需的准确性，再加上低估和高估1RM的潜在风险，可能分别导致刺激不足或受伤风险增加。这进一步降低了这些方法的实用性，尤其是在精英运动环境中。
