Download PDF
Int J Sports Med 2024; 45(11): 844-850
DOI: 10.1055/a-2330-3001
Training & Testing

Hexagonal Barbell Deadlift One-repetition Maximum Estimation Using Velocity Recordings

Danica Janicijevic 
1   Faculty of Sports Science, Ningbo University, Ningbo, China
2   Department of Radiology, Ningbo No. 2 Hospital, Ningbo, China
,
Deniz Senturk
3   School of Physical Education of Sports Department, Physical Education and Sports, Istanbul Gelişim University, Istanbul 34000, Turkey
,
Zeki Akyildiz
4   Department of Coaching Education, Sports Science Faculty, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey
,
Yaodong Gu
1   Faculty of Sports Science, Ningbo University, Ningbo, China
2   Department of Radiology, Ningbo No. 2 Hospital, Ningbo, China
,
Amador García-Ramos
5   Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
6   Department of Sports Sciences and Physical Conditioning, Faculty of Education, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción, Chile
› Author Affiliations Funding Information National Natural Science Foundation of China — http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001809; 12250410237
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This study aimed to determine whether the optimal minimal velocity threshold (MVT) provides more precise estimates of one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the hexagonal barbell deadlift (HBD) than the general and individual MVTs. The 1RMs of 27 resistance-trained males were predicted using three types of MVT: (i) General MVT: averaged across subjects’ velocity of the 1RM trial (0.25 m·s-1), (ii) individual MVT: velocity attained during the 1RM trial, and (iii) Optimal MVT: MVT that eliminated the differences between the actual and predicted 1RM. Two individual load-velocity relationships were modelled considering five (30-50-70-80%1RM) or six (30-50-70-80-90%1RM) loading conditions. Negligible differences (Effect size<0.20), low absolute errors (<5% of the actual 1RM), and extremely high correlations (r>0.90) were observed between the actual and six predicted 1RMs. The only significant difference was the lower raw errors for the 90%1RM condition (0.60±7.34 kg) compared to the 80%1RM condition (2.27±7.54 kg; p=0.013). These results suggest that the individual load-velocity relationship offers an accurate estimation of the HBD 1RM in resistance-trained males, and these estimates could maintain similar levels of precision across different types of MVT (general, individual, and optimal) and final tested loads (80%1RM and 90%1RM).

Keywords

muscle strength - resistance training - velocity-based training - weight lifting


Publication History

Received: 23 April 2024

Accepted: 19 May 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
20 May 2024

Article published online:
15 July 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA, French DN. Resistance training for health and performance. Curr Sports Med Rep 2002; 1: 165-171
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Suarez DG, Wagle JP, Cunanan AJ. et al. Dynamic correspondence of resistance training to sport: A brief review. Strength Cond J 2019; 41: 80-88
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Ratamess NA, Alvar BA, Evetoch TK. et al. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41: 687-708
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Weakley J, Mann B, Banyard H. et al. Velocity-based training: From theory to application. Strength Cond J 2021; 43: 31-49
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Garcia-Ramos A. Resistance training intensity prescription methods based on lifting velocity monitoring. Int J Sports Med 2024; 45: 257-266
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Janicijevic D, Jukic I, Weakley J. et al. Bench press 1-repetition maximum estimation through the individualized load-velocity relationship: Comparison of different regression models and minimal velocity thresholds. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2021; 16: 1074-1081
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Garcia-Ramos A, Barboza-Gonzalez P, Ulloa-Diaz D. et al. Reliability and validity of different methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. J Sports Sci 2019; 37: 2205-2212
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Ruf L, Chery C, Taylor K-L. Validity and reliability of the load-velocity relationship to predict the one-repetition maximum in deadlift. J Strength Cond Res 2018; 32: 681-689
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Banyard HG, Nosaka K, Haff GG. Reliability and validity of the load-velocity relationship to predict the 1RM back squat. J Strength Cond Res 2017; 31: 1897-1904
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Lake J, Naworynsky D, Duncan F. et al. Comparison of different minimal velocity thresholds to establish deadlift one repetition maximum. Sports 2017; 5: 70
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 García-Ramos A. Optimal minimum velocity threshold to estimate the 1-repetition maximum: The case of the Smith machine bench press exercise. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2023; 18: 393-401
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Harriss DJ, Macsween A, Atkinson G. Ethical standards in sport and exercise science research: 2020 update. Int J Sports Med 2019; 40: 813-817
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Jukic I, García-Ramos A, Malecek J. et al. The use of lifting straps alters the entire load-velocity profile during the deadlift exercise. J strength Cond Res 2020; 34: 3331-3337
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Weakley J, Morrison M, García-Ramos A. et al. The validity and reliability of commercially available resistance training monitoring devices: A systematic review. Sport Med 2021; 51: 443-502
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 García-Ramos A. The 2-point method: Theoretical basis, methodological considerations, experimental support, and its application under field conditions. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2023; 18: 1092-1100
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Cormack SJ, Newton RU, McGuigan MR. et al. Reliability of measures obtained during single and repeated countermovement jumps. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2008; 3: 131-144
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM. et al. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41: 3-13
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Gantois P, Fonseca F, de S, Nakamura FY. et al. Analysis of velocity- and power-load relationships of the free-weight back-squat and hexagonal bar deadlift exercises. Biol Sport 2023; 40: 201-208
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Lopes Dos Santos M, Mann JB, Berton R. et al. Using the load-velocity profile for predicting the 1RM of the hexagonal barbell deadlift exercise. J Strength Cond Res 2023; 37: 220-223
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Helms ER, Storey A, Cross MR. et al. RPE and velocity relationships for the back squat, bench press, and deadlift in powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res 2017; 31: 292-297
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Morán-Navarro R, Martínez-Cava A, Escribano-Peñas P. et al. Load-velocity relationship of the deadlift exercise. Eur J Sport Sci 2021; 21: 678-684
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Benavides-Ubric A, Díez-Fernández DM, Rodríguez-Pérez MA. et al. Analysis of the load-velocity relationship in deadlift exercise. J Sport Sci Med 2020; 19: 452-459
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Jukic I, García-Ramos A, Malecek J. et al. Validity of load-velocity relationship to predict 1 repetition maximum during deadlifts performed with and without lifting straps. J Strength Cond Res 2022; 36: 902-910
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar