Chen Zongwei, Zhang Xiuli, García-Ramos Amador
School of Physical Education and Sports Science, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.
Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
J Hum Kinet. 2024 Dec 19;97:183-195. doi: 10.5114/jhk/193975. eCollection 2025 Apr.
This study investigated the between-session variability and concurrent validity of the relative load-velocity relationship obtained from different methods during the free-weight back squat. In counterbalanced order, 39 resistance-trained male participants performed two sessions with six different loads (i.e., a multiple-point test) and two sessions with two different loads (i.e., a 2-point test) followed by the actual one-repetition maximum (1RM) attempts. The mean velocity (MV) corresponding to various %1RMs (at every 5% interval from 40 to 90%1RM) was determined through individualized linear regression models using three methods: (i) multiple-point: data of ~40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90%1RM from the multiple-point test, (ii) non-field 2-point: data of the lightest and heaviest loads from the multiple-point test, and (iii) field 2-point: data of ~40 and 90%1RM from the 2-point test. The main findings revealed that the between-session variability of the MVs derived from the %1RM-MV relationships was low (absolute differences = 0.02‒0.03 m•s) and similar (p = 0.074‒0.866) across the three methods. Additionally, when compared to the multiple-point method, both the non-field and field 2-point methods showed high correlations (pooled r across all %1RMs = 0.95 ± 0.01 and 0.72 ± 0.09, respectively) and small systematic biases (ranging from -0.01 to 0.01 m•s). Therefore, we recommend that strength and conditioning practitioners use the %1RM-MV relationship, modeled by the field 2-point method, as a quicker and fatigue-free procedure for prescribing the relative load during the free-weight back squat. Specifically, a light load near 40%1RM and a heavy load near 90%1RM are suggested for this method.
本研究调查了在自由重量深蹲过程中，通过不同方法获得的相对负荷-速度关系的组间变异性和同时效度。39名经过阻力训练的男性参与者按平衡顺序进行了两个阶段的测试，一个阶段是使用六种不同负荷进行测试（即多点测试），另一个阶段是使用两种不同负荷进行测试（即两点测试），随后进行实际的一次重复最大重量（1RM）尝试。通过个性化线性回归模型，使用三种方法确定对应于各种%1RM（从40%到90%1RM，每隔5%间隔）的平均速度（MV）：（i）多点法：来自多点测试中40%、50%、60%、70%、80%和90%1RM的数据；（ii）非现场两点法：来自多点测试中最轻和最重负荷的数据；（iii）现场两点法：来自两点测试中40%和90%1RM的数据。主要研究结果表明，从%1RM-MV关系得出的MV的组间变异性较低（绝对差异=0.02-0.03m•s），并且在三种方法之间相似（p=0.074-0.866）。此外，与多点法相比，非现场和现场两点法均显示出高度相关性（所有%1RM的合并r分别为0.95±0.01和0.72±0.09）以及较小的系统偏差（范围为-0.01至0.01m•s）。因此，我们建议力量和体能训练从业者使用现场两点法建模的%1RM-MV关系，作为在自由重量深蹲过程中规定相对负荷的更快且无疲劳的程序。具体而言，对于该方法，建议使用接近40%1RM的轻负荷和接近90%1RM的重负荷。
