Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,948 studies31 sourcesUpdated 43 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDEuropean journal of sport science

Predicting the Free-Weight Back Squat 1-Repetition Maximum: Comparing Regression Models and Minimum Velocity Thresholds Across Sexes.

  • Yuxiong Huang1
  • Zongwei Chen2
  • Jonathon Weakley3,4,5,6
  • Afonso Fitas7,8
  • Zhaoqian Li2
  • Danyang Li1
  • Binbin Jia1
  • Amador García-Ramos2,9
9 affiliations
  1. 1School of Sports Training, Wuhan Sports University, Wuhan, China.
  2. 2Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
  3. 3School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
  4. 4Sports Performance, Recovery, Injury and New Technologies (SPRINT) Research Centre, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
  5. 5Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Centre, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
  6. 6Rugby Australia, National Rugby Training Centre, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
  7. 7Neuromuscular Research Lab, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa, Dafundo, Portugal.
  8. 8CIPER, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa, Dafundo, Portugal.
  9. 9Department of Sports Sciences and Physical Conditioning, Faculty of Education, Universidad Catolica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción, Chile.
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

This study compared the accuracy of eight velocity-based one-repetition maximum (1RM) estimation methods during the free-weight back squat across sexes. Thirty resistance-trained individuals (fifteen males and fifteen females) completed two sessions involving four submaximal loads followed by actual 1RM attempts. The load-velocity relationship (LVR) was modeled using both multiple-point (40%, 55%, 70%, and 85% 1RM) and two-point (40% and 85% 1RM) methods. Four minimum velocity threshold (MVT) approaches were applied: (a) general MVT (0.30 m·s-1), (b) actual MVT (the velocity at the actual 1RM in session one), (c) individual optimal MVT (the velocity that eliminated the difference between actual and predicted 1RM in session one), and (d) average optimal MVT (average of individual optimal MVTs across both sessions for each sex). Across sexes, only the individual and average optimal MVTs consistently avoided systematic overestimation of 1RM (raw errors ≤ 2.20 kg, p = 0.179-0.938) and produced relatively small absolute errors (4.5%-8.3%) compared with the other MVTs (8.0%-12.4%). Sex did not influence 1RM prediction accuracy (p = 0.636), whereas the LVR model demonstrated a borderline significant effect (p = 0.050). The optimal MVT did not differ between males (0.38 m·s-1) and females (0.36 m·s-1) but demonstrated poor reliability. Therefore, when direct 1RM testing is impractical, we recommend employing the unified value (0.37 m·s-1) as an efficient alternative for approximate 1RM estimation across sexes. However, caution should be exercised when using velocity-based methods to estimate 1RM in the free-weight back squat, as all methods exhibited relatively wide limits of agreement.

Related

  1. Comparing Repetition-Velocity Output from a Motor-Integrated Magnetic Sensing System with That of a Linear Position Transducer Across Resistance Exercises and Loads: A Human Trial Experiment.
    Alchan Kim
    Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textSurgery & anaesthesiaEurope PMC
  2. Prediction of Spinal Pain Intensity from Perception-Dependent Stimulation Thresholds and Patient Characteristics: A Regression and Machine Learning Approach
    Kübra Okuyucu, Aybike Şenel, Ahmet Gülünay +1
    Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  3. Comparing the Phenotypic and Genetic Differences Between Autistic Regression and Autism Without Regression Using the SPARK Cohort
    A. Yahia, Y. Zhang, A. Gkerdi +2
    medRxivPreprintCC BY-NDFull textHuman geneticsmedRxiv
  4. Smooth Curves, Similar Conclusions? Comparing Linear Regression and GAMLSS Neuropsychological Norms
    B.-E. Kirsebom, I. Myrvoll Lorentzen, J. Espenes +8
    medRxivPreprintCC BY-NC-NDFull textPsychiatry & mental healthmedRxiv
  5. Effects of different velocity loss thresholds during resistance training on jump and sprint performance in trained populations: a systematic review and three-level meta-analysis.
    Jie Zhang, Shan Zhang, Yan Cui +7
    Frontiers in physiologyPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textSurgery & anaesthesiaEurope PMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{huang2026predicting,
  title = {{Predicting the Free-Weight Back Squat 1-Repetition Maximum: Comparing Regression Models and Minimum Velocity Thresholds Across Sexes.}},
  author = {Yuxiong Huang and Zongwei Chen and Jonathon Weakley and Afonso Fitas and Zhaoqian Li and Danyang Li and Binbin Jia and Amador García-Ramos},
  journal = {European journal of sport science},
  year = {2026},
  month = nov,
  doi = {10.1002/ejsc.70254},
  url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42998302},
  note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Predicting the Free-Weight Back Squat 1-Repetition Maximum: Comparing Regression Models and Minimum Velocity Thresholds Across Sexes.
AU  - Yuxiong Huang
AU  - Zongwei Chen
AU  - Jonathon Weakley
AU  - Afonso Fitas
AU  - Zhaoqian Li
AU  - Danyang Li
AU  - Binbin Jia
AU  - Amador García-Ramos
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/11/09
JO  - European journal of sport science
DO  - 10.1002/ejsc.70254
UR  - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42998302
AB  - This study compared the accuracy of eight velocity-based one-repetition maximum (1RM) estimation methods during the free-weight back squat across sexes. Thirty resistance-trained individuals (fifteen males and fifteen females) completed two sessions involving four submaximal loads followed by actual 1RM attempts. The load-velocity relationship (LVR) was modeled using both multiple-point (40%, 55%, 70%, and 85% 1RM) and two-point (40% and 85% 1RM) methods. Four minimum velocity threshold (MVT) approaches were applied: (a) general MVT (0.30 m·s-1), (b) actual MVT (the velocity at the actual 1RM in session one), (c) individual optimal MVT (the velocity that eliminated the difference between actual and predicted 1RM in session one), and (d) average optimal MVT (average of individual optimal MVTs across both sessions for each sex). Across sexes, only the individual and average optimal MVTs consistently avoided systematic overestimation of 1RM (raw errors ≤ 2.20 kg, p = 0.179-0.938) and produced relatively small absolute errors (4.5%-8.3%) compared with the other MVTs (8.0%-12.4%). Sex did not influence 1RM prediction accuracy (p = 0.636), whereas the LVR model demonstrated a borderline significant effect (p = 0.050). The optimal MVT did not differ between males (0.38 m·s-1) and females (0.36 m·s-1) but demonstrated poor reliability. Therefore, when direct 1RM testing is impractical, we recommend employing the unified value (0.37 m·s-1) as an efficient alternative for approximate 1RM estimation across sexes. However, caution should be exercised when using velocity-based methods to estimate 1RM in the free-weight back squat, as all methods exhibited relatively wide limits of agreement.
SN  - 1746-1391
SN  - 1536-7290
ER  -