Velocity

This study examined the longitudinal relationship between repetitions in reserve (RIR) and average concentric velocity (ACV) in the back squat and bench press exercises. Fourteen resistance-trained men were randomized into two groups (4-6RIR or 1-3RIR) and completed a six-week program. The RIR/ACV slope was significantly greater (p<0.001) in the bench press (0.027±}0.001m.s-1) than squat (0.020±}0.001m.s-1), and was steeper in 1-3RIR than 4-6RIR (p<0.001). The RIR/ACV relationship varied from set-to-set (p=0.001); however, the largest difference in ACV at the same RIR from set-to-set was only 0.044 m.s-1; likely not practically meaningful. The RIR/ACV relationship changed over time (p=0.004); however, since training was not to failure, it is unclear if this longitudinal change was due to improved RIR accuracy or a true change in the RIR/ACV relationship. Therefore, the RIR/ACV relationship is exercise-specific and practically stable from set-to-set; however, future research is needed to determine the long-term stability of this relationship.

This study examined the relationship between average concentric velocity (ACV) and repetitions in reserve (RIR) in the back squat, bench press, and deadlift. Fourteen resistance-trained men performed three experimental sessions (one for each exercise), which was comprised of 4 sets to failure at 80% of one-repetition maximum. The ACV was recorded on every repetition of every set and cross-referenced with RIR. The main findings of this study were that RIR was a significant predictor of ACV for all three exercises; the mean set ACV was significantly different between exercises (p<0.001); and the relationship between RIR and ACV was set-dependent (p<0.001). However, the within-exercise difference in ACV from set-to-set is unlikely to be practically significant as all of these ACV differences were below the threshold of 0.06 m.s-1, which is the smallest worthwhile change in ACV. Therefore, these results suggest that the RIR/ACV relationship is exercise-specific, and is stable from set-to-set.

This study examined the accuracy of predicting back squat and bench press one repetition maximum (1RM) from submaximal average concentric velocity (ACV).Seventeen resistance trained men performed a warm-up and 1RM test on the squat and bench press, in which ACV was assessed on all repetitions. The ACVs during the warmup closest to 1.0 and 0.5 m.s-1 were used in a 2-point linear regression forecast of 1RM and the ACVs established at the loads closest to 20, 50, 70, and 80% of 1RM were used in a 4-point 1RM prediction. An ANOVA indicated significant differences between predicted and actual 1RM for all predictions (p<0.001). Both Bland-Altman and Mountain plots confirmed the findings of the ANOVA as data were not tightly conformed to the respective zero difference lines. Therefore, these results suggest that a linear regression forecast using submaximal ACV does not accurately predict 1RM in the ¬back squat and bench press.