File(s) not publicly available

Validity and reliability of using load-velocity relationship profiles to establish back squat 1 m·s-1 load

journal contribution
posted on 29.04.2021, 23:34 authored by Nathan ElsworthyNathan Elsworthy, Dean CallaghanDean Callaghan, Aaron ScanlanAaron Scanlan, Alex HM Kertesz, Crystal KeanCrystal Kean, Benjamin J Dascombe, Joshua GuyJoshua Guy
ABSTRACT: Elsworthy, N, Callaghan, DE, Scanlan, AT, Kertesz, AHM, Kean, CO, Dascombe, BJ, and Guy, JH. Validity and reliability of using load-velocity relationship profiles to establish back squat 1 m·s-1 load. J Strength Cond Res 35(2): 340-346, 2021-Although measuring movement velocity during resistance exercise is being increasingly used to monitor player readiness for competition in team sports, the validity and reliability of using set target velocities has not been examined. This study examined test-retest reliability of the load-velocity relationship during the back squat to predict loads corresponding to a mean velocity of 1 m·s-1 (V1Load), test-retest reliability of mean concentric velocity at V1Load, and criterion validity of mean concentric velocity at V1Load. Twenty-seven resistance-trained male rugby league players completed 2 testing sessions on separate days to establish individualized back squat load-velocity relationship profiles (30, 40, 60, and 80% estimated 1 repetition maximum). Velocity during the back squat was assessed at each load and V1Load derived using individualized linear regression equations. A subset of subjects (n = 18) also performed the back squat at predicted V1Load to examine the test-retest reliability and compare the mean concentric velocity with the predicted target of 1 m·s-1. The mean concentric velocity was consistent across all loads during load-velocity relationship testing (p > 0.05, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] ≥0.75, coefficient of variation [CV] ≤5.7%, effect size [ES] ≤0.27), and for predicting V1Load (p = 0.11, ICC = 0.95, CV = 3.9%, ES = 0.11). The mean concentric velocity at V1Load was reliable (ICC = 0.77; CV = 2.6%; ES = 0.39) and not significantly different (p = 0.21) to the target velocity, supporting criterion validity. Individualized load-velocity profiles for the back squat can accurately predict V1Load, and subsequent use of V1Load to assess back squat velocity is valid and reliable. Using V1Load to assess changes in back squat velocity may have application in measuring changes in strength and power or readiness to train.

History

Volume

35

Issue

2

Start Page

340

End Page

346

Number of Pages

7

eISSN

1533-4287

ISSN

1064-8011

Location

United States

Publisher

Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins

Language

eng

Peer Reviewed

Yes

Open Access

No

External Author Affiliations

University of Newcastle

Era Eligible

Yes

Medium

Print

Journal

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research