Optimization of applied loads for assessing load-velocity relationship during back squat.
basic_science · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 40680015.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0328772 and PMC identifier 12273929.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
This study aimed to identify the lightest load to validate the load-velocity (L-V) relationship in the back squat using the modified multiple-point (a lower highest load compared to the standard method) and in-field two-point methods. Following the measurement of back squat one-repetition maximum (1RM), twenty college amateur athletes performed a multi-point incremental loads test (20%, 40%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90% 1RM), and five two-point tests (20%&90%, 20%&80%, 20%&70%, 20%&60%, and 20%&40% 1RM). The mean velocity (MV) of each submaximal load was collected to model the individual L-V relationship. The concurrent validity of the modified multiple-point method worked in incremental loads test until 70% and 80%1RM and for the in-field two-point method it only worked in 20%&90% 1RM conditions (-0.45 ≤ effect size ≤ 0.59; r ≥ 0.810). MV of heavy load in the in-field two-point method was higher than the standard method. Modified multiple-point method assessing squat L-V relationship variables can choose the incremental load from 20% 1RM to 70%1RM (light load velocity at around 1.0 m/s and heavy load MV around 0.6 m/s) but in-filed two-point method should choose the lightest and heaviest load, around 20%1RM and 90%1RM (light load MV around 1.0 m/s and heavy load MV around 0.4 m/s).
Medical subject headings
- Weight-Bearing
- Resistance Training
- Weight Lifting