I have had many conversations about why I prefer to use the term performance coach, over the traditional title of strength and conditioning coach. Why there isn’t much in a name, it does carry a bit of expectation and explanation. What do you do? What are you coaching? Well, I think when it comes to S&C, we tend to remove the burden away from positively affecting sport performance to self-serving measures of weightlifting and bodybuilding. There becomes a fixation on “gym numbers’ instead of benchmarks to help indicate beneficial physical adaptations to lend to improved sports performance.
I think there is no better example of this than testing for 1 rep maxes (1RM). In a completely biased perspective, I think it is more of a feel good gym number than it is an indicator of field performance. The measure that represents the maximum amount of weight an athlete can lift for one repetition with proper form, and is often used synonymously with maximal strength . However, testing an athlete's 1RM can be inaccurate, time-consuming, and in some cases, dangerous. As I have mentioned in some of my previous posts. Velocity-based training (VBT) provides a way to estimate an athlete's 1RM without the need for a true 1RM test. In this article, we will explore how the load-velocity profile can be used to estimate an athlete's 1RM, and how coaches can use this information to design more effective training programs.
What is 1 Rep Max and why is it important?
A one repetition maximum (1RM) is the maximum amount of weight an athlete can lift for one repetition with proper form. It is often considered a gold standard measure of strength, and is used by strength coaches and athletes to track progress and set training goals. Knowing an athlete's 1RM allows coaches to design training programs that are tailored to the athlete's specific needs and abilities. It is important to note that while testing an athlete's 1RM is valuable, it can also be time-consuming and misleading in some cases. This is where velocity-based training (VBT) can come in handy.
While 1RM testing is a staple and a valid way to measure progress, it does have its shortcomings. For example, a 1RM lacks reliability and sensitivity as a test. Because of its maximum exertional effort, it is hard to get frequent test points. Meaning that there are a lot of outside variables that can affect the athletes output on the given test day. And with such few data points, it is hard to understand the true variability of an athlete’s max. Thus, making it really hard to understand meaningful change.
Did they do better today because they got stronger? Or because they performed poorly last time because they were tired?
Did they perform worse this test time because they detrained? Or have they not received from the last training session or cycle?
Did they perform better because they got stronger, or have they gained technical proficiency in the lift and are more efficient in their movement?
This is where velocity-based training (VBT) and an estimated 1 Rep Max (e1RM) can come in handy.
How does the load-velocity profile help us estimate 1 Rep Max?
The load-velocity profile is a graphical expression that shows the amount of weight lifted, the velocity of the bar during a lift, and the relationship between those points on a graph with a linear regression. By analyzing an athlete's load-velocity profile, coaches can estimate an athlete's 1RM with a high degree of accuracy.
The load-velocity profile is created by measuring bar velocity during lifts with a progressive range of loads. The athlete's maximum (or average) velocity and the load at which it occurs can be used to estimate their 1RM by using the resulting linear regression equation with their minimum velocity threshold (MVT) as the velocity input. The MVT is the estimated slowest velocity the athlete would move while completing a rep. Some research has shown that MVT is highly correlated to velocity at maximal fatigue. Meaning that an athlete's last repetition in a 5 rep max, for example, would be very close to (if not the same) as their velocity at a 1 rep max.
While we can try to measure and record each athlete’s MVT, other research has shown that it is not advantageous or necessary. Rather there are numerous published norms for a few staple exercises that can be used to plug in to equations for experienced and non-experienced lifters. While these published MVTs may not be the most accurate compared to the athlete’s actual 1RM load, they are reliable when comparing tests over time, as the velocity differences across the L-V profile will be the determining factor of the slope of the regression line.
Although this conversation is about comparing the value of traditional 1RM testing and e1RM from a L-V profile. I think it is important to take note of another metric from the L-V profile, Load at zero velocity (L0). L0 is the point on the regression line where velocity is zero. While the point of a 1RM is to measure the max weight used during a successful execution of a lift, it does not necessarily give value to an athlete's maximal strength. The basis of a 1RM will always be rooted in exercise proficiency and execution. While the L0 can give an estimate of changes in force production and power while using sub-maximal loads. This can be of high value for coaches that want to measure adaptations and monitor performance without the risk of maximal load testing.
The different approaches to estimating 1 Rep Max with VBT
There are different approaches to estimating 1RM with VBT. One common method is to use a linear regression equation to predict an athlete's 1RM based on their maximum velocity and the load at which it occurs. This approach can be done with absolute loads (pick a range of weights), or with relative loads (pick loads based on percentage of body weight). Either method can be effective but is more dependent on the exercise being measured, as the accuracy of the e1RM is highly dependent on the proximity to true 1RM. This might have an effect when measuring a bench press vs a barbell back squat. Where 2x bodyweight on bench press will be close to if not exceed the 1RM of some athletes. That same relative load may be a moderate training session at back squat for an elite lifter.
Another approach is to use a formula that takes into account an athlete's velocity at different percentages of their 1RM. This can be much more accurate as the coach can ensure proximity to true 1RM by using previous data as a bench marker. This gives the most accurate dispersion of load across the progression and ensures that the athlete is tested with appropriate loads. This method also allows for the adaptation of the 2-point method, which has shown validity with the bench press exercise specifically. Where traditionally we would want to gather 5 loads to create the L-V profile, the 2-point method takes only… well, 2 points. A lower and an upper limit (usually around 40% and 80% 1RM), that is then plotted with a linear regression to draw a line to the point of the MVT. This has not been seen to be as advantageous with other exercises, specifically the lower body exercises like back squat, cleans, snatches, and deadlifts. But it can be used effectively with upper body exercises like the bench press and the prone row.
While both methods can be effective, it is important to note that individual variability can affect the accuracy of these estimates.
Best Practices for Using the Load-Velocity Profile to Estimate 1 Rep Max
When using the L-V profile to estimate an athlete's 1RM, there are several best practices to keep in mind. First, it is important to ensure that the athlete's technique is consistent across all lifts. Any variation in technique can impact the accuracy of the 1RM estimate. I always say, if they can’t perform the lift correctly, don’t worry about how strong or how fast because it’s the least of your worries. These methods are meant for measuring the training effect of exercises/movements that the athlete is proficient in.
Another important consideration is the load increments used during testing. The load increments should be small enough to accurately capture changes in velocity, but not so small that testing takes an excessive amount of time. A commonly used load increment is 7.5-10% of an athlete's estimated 1RM. The load increments should lead to at least about 0.15 to 0.2 m/s decrement in velocity between loads.
It is also important to allow for adequate rest periods between lifts to ensure that the athlete is not fatigued during testing. A rest period of 2-5 minutes between lifts is commonly used.
Finally, it is important to take into account any individual factors that may impact the accuracy of the 1RM estimate. For example, athletes with greater levels of experience and strength may require larger load increments during testing, while athletes with less experience and strength may require smaller load increments.
By keeping these considerations in mind, you will be in a good position to collect some accurate and meaningful data. These estimates can then be used to inform training programs and make adjustments to an athlete's training as needed.
The Limitations of Using the Load-Velocity Profile to Estimate 1 Rep Max
While the L-V profile can provide a good estimate of an athlete's 1RM, there are limitations to this approach. One limitation is that the load-velocity relationship can vary between different lifts and lift variations, which can affect the accuracy of the estimate if not accounted for. This means that the L-V profile may not be accurate for estimating 1RM for all exercises. There are only about 9 exercises with research supporting the use of a L-V profile and e1RM. And even those come with variability of protocols and MVTs. It is recommended that you use caution when analyzing your data for load prescription.
Another limitation is that the load-velocity profile may not be accurate for estimating 1RM for athletes with different levels of experience and strength. Athletes with less experience and strength may not generate the same load-velocity relationship as more experienced and stronger athletes. As mentioned with the MVT, less experienced athletes often have a higher MVT as they are not accustomed to ‘grinding out’ high intensity reps. They are often inhibited at such high forces and unaccustomed to the strain incurred with that much time under tension. Where more experienced athletes can endure slower velocities. Thus, it is important to assess your velocity data to employ the most appropriate MVT to your equation.
It is also important to keep in mind that the L-V profile allows for an estimated 1RM, and there is always some degree of error involved. Coaches and sports scientists should use the L-V profile in conjunction with other methods for estimating athlete strength capacity and transference of training to performance. This method of assessing athlete performance is meant to allow for frequency and measurement of variation across sessions and training cycles. It is always encouraged that these measures are used jointly with other performance measures to draw a holistic view of athlete performance.
Conclusion
Overall, the L-V profile can be a valuable tool for estimating an athlete's 1RM and designing training programs that are tailored to their individual needs. By using the L-V profile, coaches and sports scientists can obtain accurate estimates of an athlete's 1RM frequently, track their progress with a perspective of variability, and make adjustments to their training as needed.
However, it’s important to keep in mind the limitations of using the L-V profile and to use it in conjunction with other methods of understanding your athlete’s performance status. By doing so, coaches and sports scientists can ensure that they are being as purposeful as possible and designing training programs that are optimized for the athlete's individual needs and goals.
Comments