The Utility of Angular Velocity During Back Squat to Predict 1RM and Load–Velocity Profiling

TL;DR

This study compares using linear and angular velocity to predict maximum squat weight, finding angular velocity more accurate but both needing improvement.

Contribution

The study introduces angular velocity as a novel method for predicting 1RM in back squats, showing it to be more accurate than linear velocity.

Findings

Angular velocity predictions of 1RM had lower error and higher correlation with actual 1RM compared to linear velocity.

Gender differences were observed in linear velocity at submaximal loads, suggesting the need for gender-specific training considerations.

Neither linear nor angular velocity fully met criteria for high validity in 1RM prediction.

Abstract

Linear velocity is commonly used to estimate 1-repetition maximum (1RM) from a load–velocity profile (LVP), as well as prescribe training intensity. However, no study has assessed angular velocity, which may be more representative of joint motion. The purpose of this study was to compare the prediction of 1RM from linear velocity (1RMlinear) and angular velocity (1RMangular) LVPs in men and women. Fourteen recreationally trained college-aged subjects (7 males, 7 females) completed 1RM testing on day 1, then a randomized submaximal (30–90% 1RM) squat protocol on day 2. Linear velocity was measured with a linear position transducer, while angular velocity was recorded using an accelerometer affixed to the thigh. 1RMangular was not significantly different from actual 1RM (p = 0.951), with a trivial effect size (d = 0.02), and nearly perfect correlation with actual 1RM (r = 0.984). 1RMlinear had a near perfect correlation with actual 1RM (r = 0.991) but was significantly different than actual 1RM (p < 0.001) with a large effect size (d = 1.56). Additionally, 1RMangular had a significantly (p = 0.020) lower absolute error (6.7 ± 5.3 kg) than 1RMlinear (12.9 ± 8.2 kg). Regardless of prediction method, males (12.9 ± 8.2 kg) had a greater absolute error in 1RM prediction than females (6.7 ± 5.2 kg). During submaximal loads, a significant load × gender interaction was observed for linear velocity (p < 0.001), with men showing faster velocities at 30% (p = 0.009) and 40% (p = 0.044) 1RM, with no significant interaction (p = 0.304) of main effect of gender (p = 0.116). Angular velocity may provide strength and conditioning coaches a more accurate 1RM prediction during submaximal sets of back squat than using linear velocity; however, neither meet all criteria to be considered highly valid. Lastly, the gender differences in linear velocity at submaximal exercises suggest gender-specific considerations in velocity-based training particularly at lighter loads.

Figures