Training & Testing

Estimation of Relative Load From Bar Velocity in the Full Back

Squat Exercise

Correspondence
Dr. Luis Sánchez-Medina, PhD
Instituto Navarro de Deporte y Juventud (INDJ)
Authors Studies, Research and Sports Medicine Centre
Luis Sánchez-Medina1, Jesús G. Pallarés2, Carlos E. Pérez3, Ricardo C/Sangüesa 34
Morán-Navarro2, Juan José González-Badillo4 31005, Pamplona
Spain
Affiliations
Tel.:  + 34/948/292 623, Fax:  + 34/948/292 636
1 Instituto Navarro de Deporte y Juventud (INDJ), Studies, Research
[email protected]
and Sports Medicine Centre, Pamplona, Spain
2 University of Murcia, Human Performance and Sports Science
Abs tr ac t
Laboratory, Murcia, Spain
3 University of Murcia, Sports Medicine Centre, Murcia, Spain The use of bar velocity to estimate relative load in the back squat exer-
4 Pablo de Olavide University, Faculty of Sport, Seville, Spain cise was examined. 80 strength-trained men performed a progressive
loading test to determine their one-repetition maximum (1RM) and
Key words load-velocity relationship. Mean (MV), mean propulsive (MPV) and peak
resistance training, muscle strength, 1RM prediction, athletic (PV) velocity measures of the concentric phase were analyzed. Both MV
performance, isoinertial assessment, biomechanics and MPV showed a very close relationship to  %1RM (R2 = 0.96), where-
as a weaker association (R2 = 0.79) and larger SEE (0.14 vs. 0.06 m · s − 1)
received 01.12.2016 were found for PV. Prediction equations to estimate load from velocity
revised 19.01.2017 were obtained. When dividing the sample into 3 groups of different
accepted 25.01.2017 relative strength (1RM/body mass), no differences were found between
groups for the MPV attained against each  %1RM. MV attained with the
Bibliography
1RM was 0.32 ± 0.03 m · s − 1. The propulsive phase accounted for ~82 %
DOI  http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-102933
of concentric duration at 40 % 1RM, and progressively increased until
Sports Medicine International Open 2017; 1: E80–E88
reaching 100 % at 1RM. Provided that repetitions are performed at max-
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York
imal intended velocity, a good estimation of load ( %1RM) can be ob-
ISSN 2367-1890
tained from mean velocity as soon as the first repetition is completed.
This finding provides an alternative to the often demanding, time-con-
suming and interfering 1RM or nRM tests and allows implementing a
velocity-based resistance training approach.

Introduction strength following squat training transfer positively to athletic per-

The squat is one of the most widely used and effective resistance formance in short-duration actions that demand maximal neuro-
training exercises for strengthening the lower-limb, protecting muscular activation such as sprinting and vertical jumping, espe-
against injuries and improving athletic performance [17]. The dy- cially when parallel or deep squats are used [11, 18, 21, 23, 28–
namic squat is a closed kinetic chain exercise [7] that involves the 30, 33].
largest and strongest muscles of the body (quadriceps, hamstrings, The kinematics and kinetics associated to resistance training are
gluteus maximus, triceps surae, erector spinae, etc.) and demands believed to be critical stimuli for neuromuscular adaptations to
a coordinated multi-joint (spine, hip, knee and ankle) movement occur [5, 37]. Research attention has recently been placed on mon-
[15, 31, 37]. The squat is beneficial to many functional activities itoring movement velocity during resistance training [4, 10–
and sporting movements and it is considered a key training exer- 12, 14, 19, 20, 26, 28–30, 34, 35]. Movement velocity is important
cise in many strength and conditioning programs, as well as being because both the neuromuscular demands and the training effect
commonly used in physical therapy and rehabilitation settings itself largely depend on the velocity at which loads are lifted
[6, 37]. When performed with correct technique, proper loads and [12, 28]. A very close relationship between relative load (percent-
following an adequate learning progression, the squat has proved age of one-repetition maximum,  %1RM) and mean vertical bar ve-
to be a safe exercise for the musculoskeletal system [3, 17, 27]. locity was found for exercises such as the bench press [14, 35],
Several technique variations of the squat exist [8, 15, 17, 37, 38], prone bench pull [35], half-squat [20], leg press [4] and squat
the main one consisting in modifying the squatting depth [4, 26]. This is a novel finding which has important practical appli-
[1, 2, 17, 39]. Research has shown that increases in lower-body cations for the prescription and monitoring of training load in re-

E80 Sánchez-Medina Luis et al. Estimation of Relative Load …  Sports Medicine International Open 2017; 1: E80–E88
sistance exercise [10, 34]. Thus, a velocity-based resistance train- guidelines of the local institutional review board. Subjects were not
ing (VBRT) approach has been successfully implemented in several taking any drugs, medications or dietary supplements known to
studies to monitor training loads [9, 11, 12, 28–30, 32] or to provide influence physical performance.
a non-invasive and objective measure to quantify the neuromuscu-
lar fatigue induced by resistance exercise [13, 24, 25, 29, 30, 34]. Testing procedures
The load-velocity relationship of the deep or full squat has been re- Subjects underwent 2 preliminary sessions during which they were
ported in 2 studies [4, 26]. The first was a reliability study [26] that familiarised with the testing equipment and exercise protocol.
analyzed the effect of imposing a 2 s pause in the transition from Squat depth was determined for each subject and several practice
eccentric to concentric action. In the second study [4], a 3–4 s sets with light and medium loads (20–60 % 1RM) were performed.
pause separated the eccentric and concentric phases of the squat. A 14-inch 360 ° Nexgen Baseline goniometer (Nexgen Ergonomics,
It is known that the introduction of a long pause between phases Point Claire, Quebec, Canada) was used to ensure that the knee
eliminates the contribution of the stretch-shortening cycle, there- angle ( < 45 °) was consistent with that of a deep squat [17]. For each
by considerably reducing the obtained concentric velocities [26]. subject, testing was conducted over 2 sessions. The first session
However, to our knowledge, the load-velocity profile of the tradi- was used for body composition assessment, medical examination
tional full back squat (i. e., no pause between phases) exercise, as and personal data and health history questionnaire administration.
used in the above-mentioned studies [9, 11, 13, 28–30, 32, 34] has On the second session, the individual load-velocity relationship and
not yet been analyzed. 1RM strength were determined by means of a progressive loading
It therefore seemed pertinent to provide a detailed analysis of test as explained later. This session was conducted at the same time
the load-velocity relationship of the traditional full squat in a large of day (17:00 h) for all subjects to control for circadian rhythm ef-
sample of experienced strength-trained athletes from different fects on neuromuscular performance [22, 25]. Warm-up consisted
sports in order to confirm the possibility of using bar velocity to es- of 5 min of stationary cycling at a self-selected easy pace, 5 min of
timate loading magnitude ( %1RM), as well as to provide normative lower-body joint mobilization exercises, three 30 m running accel-
data for this population. An additional purpose of the present study erations, followed by 3 sets of 5 squat repetitions with fixed loads
was to identify the relative contribution of the propulsive and brak- of 20, 30 and 40 kg.
ing phases [36] to total concentric duration among different per- A high-bar deep back squat [17] was used. It was performed
centages of 1RM in this fundamental resistance training exercise. starting from the upright position with the knees and hips fully ex-
Based on previous results from our research group [14, 35], the fol- tended, stance approximately shoulder-width apart with both feet
lowing hypotheses were formulated: 1) there exists an absolute positioned flat on the floor in parallel or externally rotated to a max-
mean bar velocity associated with each relative load ( %1RM) in the imum of 15 °. Each subject descended in a continuous motion until
full squat exercise; 2) the mean velocities corresponding to the top of the thighs reached below the horizontal plane, with
each  %1RM would have an intermediate value between those re- knees flexed to a tibiofemoral angle of 35–45° in the sagittal plane,
ported for the bench press [14] and the prone bench pull [35], since then immediately reversed motion and ascended back to the up-
the velocity attained with the 1RM load in the squat falls between right position. The bar was grasped with a closed pronated grip and
that of these 2 exercises; and 3) no significant differences in the placed on the upper part of the trapezius, while keeping a straight-
mean velocities associated with each  %1RM would exist between ahead gaze and stable upright trunk posture (▶ Fig. 1). The eccen-
subgroups of different levels of maximum relative strength (1RM/ tric phase was performed at a controlled mean bar velocity (~0.50–
body mass) performance. 0.70 m · s − 1) for standardization and security reasons. This had been
practiced in the familiarization, and was accomplished with feed-
back from the linear velocity transducer (described later) so that
Materials & Methods participants could adjust their eccentric velocity to the required
range. In addition, eccentric displacement was monitored to avoid
Subjects an excessive reduction in the range of motion (ROM) as the lifted
80 men (age 23.6 ± 4.7 years, body mass 74.6 ± 10.2 kg, height loads got heavier; thus, a limit of 10 % loss in eccentric distance was
177.1 ± 7.5 cm, body fat 11.3 ± 4.2 %) volunteered to take part in established. If a repetition failed to meet these requirements, it
this study. Inclusion criteria were: i) being a competitive athlete ca- was discarded and repeated after a 3 min rest. The concentric phase
pable of performing a technically correct squat exercise; and ii) hav- was performed at maximal intended velocity. Strong verbal encour-
ing a 1RM strength/body mass ratio (relative strength ratio, RSR) agement and velocity feedback were provided to motivate subjects
higher than 1.00 in the deep squat. Subjects were senior nation- to give maximal effort. Jumping off the ground was not allowed, al-
al-level athletes in their sport: field hockey (n = 18), track and field though subjects were permitted to raise their heels at the end of
(n = 20), volleyball (n = 16) and Olympic wrestling (n = 26) with a the concentric phase, which typically occurred when lifting the
strength training background of 4–12 years. In the 12 months lighter loads. Initial load was set at 20 kg and was progressively in-
preceding this study, subjects had been performing 2–4 resistance creased until the attained mean propulsive velocity was lower than
training sessions per week and all incorporated the squat as part of 0.70 m · s − 1. Thereafter, load was individually adjusted using small-
their physical conditioning. After being informed of the purpose er increments (5 down to 2.5 kg). The heaviest load that each sub-
and testing procedures, subjects signed a written informed con- ject could properly lift while completing full ROM and without
sent form prior to participation. The study met the ethical stand- any external help was considered to be his 1RM. 3 attempts were
ards of this journal [16] and was conducted in agreement with the executed for light (mean propulsive velocity > 1.15 m · s − 1), 2 for

Sánchez-Medina L et al. Estimation of Relative Load …  Sports Medicine International Open 2017; 1: E80–E88 E81
 Training & Testing

▶Fig. 1 Starting a and transition from eccentric to concentric phase b positions of the full back squat performed in a Smith-type machine.

medium (0.70–1.15 m · s  − 1 ), and only one for the heaviest Mean velocity attained with the 1RM load (V1RM) was also analyzed
( < 0.70 m · s − 1) loads. Inter-set rests were 3 min for the light and because it has been acknowledged as a characteristic variable of
medium loads and 5 min for the heaviest loads. Only the best rep- each resistance training exercise [14, 35].
etition at each load, according to the criterion of fastest mean pro-
pulsive velocity [36], was considered.
Statistical analyses
Standard statistical methods were used for the calculation of
Measurement equipment and data acquisition means, standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), coef-
Height was measured to the nearest 0.5 cm during a maximal in- ficient of determination (R2), standard error of the estimate (SEE),
halation using a wall-mounted stadiometer (Seca 202, Seca Ltd., 95 % confidence intervals (CI) and Pearson correlation coefficients
Hamburg, Germany). Body weight was determined and fat percent- (r). Relationships between load ( %1RM) and velocity were studied
age estimated using an 8-contact electrode segmental body com- by fitting second-order polynomials to data because they provid-
position analyzer (Tanita BC-418, Tanita Corp., Tokyo, Japan) with ed slightly better fits than linear functions. Normality of the data
the subjects in a morning fasting state. The squat was performed was verified using the Shapiro-Wilk test. One-way ANOVA was used
using a Smith machine without any counterweight mechanism to detect differences between subgroups of subjects in the follow-
(Multipower Fitness Line, Peroga, Murcia, Spain). A linear velocity ing variables: age, body fat percentage, RSR, mean test velocity,
transducer (T-Force System Version 3.60, Ergotech, Murcia, Spain) MPV attained against different percentages of 1RM and V 1RM.
automatically calculated the kinematics of every repetition and Scheffé post-hoc tests were used to identify the source of any sig-
provided auditory and visual velocity feedback. Vertical bar veloc- nificant differences. Eta-squared (η 2 ) was calculated as be-
ity was sampled at 1 000 Hz and smoothed with a fourth-order low- tween-groups sum of squares/total sum of squares and it was pro-
pass Butterworth filter with no phase shift and 10 Hz cut-off fre- vided as a measure of the effect size (ES) in ANOVA. Analyses were
quency. Reliability of this system has been reported elsewhere [34]. performed using Prism 6.07 (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, CA,
USA). Significance was accepted at the P ≤ 0.05 level.
Velocity variables analyzed
3 velocity outcome measures were used as performance variables
in this study: 1) mean velocity (MV): average of the bar velocity val- Results
ues for the whole concentric phase of each repetition; 2) mean pro-
pulsive velocity (MPV): average of the bar velocity values of the pro- Squat performance
pulsive phase, defined as that portion of the concentric action dur- 1RM strength for the squat was 107.0 ± 21.5 kg (i. e., 1.44 ± 0.22 nor-
ing which the measured acceleration (a) is greater than acceleration malized per kg of body mass). Subjects performed a total of 8.7 ± 1.8
due to gravity, i. e., a ≥ –9.81 m · s − 2 [36]; and 3) peak velocity (PP): increasing loads up to the 1RM in the progressive loading test.
the highest instantaneous bar velocity value registered at a par-
ticular instant (1 ms) during the concentric phase. Mean test veloc- Relationship between relative load and velocity
ity was defined as the mean of the MPV values, calculated each 5 % The 3 velocity variables analyzed were plotted against  %1RM, ob-
from 40–95 % 1RM, and derived from second-order polynomial fits taining a total of 644 raw load-velocity data pairs. Loads  < 40 % 1RM
to load-velocity data for each subject’s progressive loading test. were then eliminated from further analyses. This was done because

E82 Sánchez-Medina L et al. Estimation of Relative Load …  Sports Medicine International Open 2017; 1: E80–E88
there exists an intrinsic limitation in the squat exercise to maximal-
ly apply force to the ground when using light loads (i. e., in order to a
2.2
MV = –0.00009201. Load2 – 0.001224 . Load + 1.367
obtain the maximum possible velocity, the subject has to jump off 2.0
R2 = 0.955; SEE = 0.059 m . s–1; N = 489
1.8

Mean Velocity (m.s–1)

the ground, which was not permitted because the squat is not a
jump). This results in considerable inter-subject variability in the 1.6
1.4
velocities developed against loads  < 40 % 1RM, together with the
1.2
fact that such loads are seldom used in the actual practice of squat 1.0
training. Second-order polynomials were fitted to the remaining 0.8
489 load-velocity data pairs (▶ Fig. 2). 0.6
A very close relationship was found for MV (R2 = 0.955) and MPV 0.4
0.2
(R  = 0.958), whereas a lower association was observed for PV
2
0.0
(R2 = 0.794) (▶ Fig. 2). Individual curve fits for each test gave an R2
of 0.995 ± 0.004 (range: 0.983–1.000; CV = 0.35 %) for MV, R2 of 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
0.995 ± 0.003 (range: 0.986–1.000; CV = 0.33 %) for MPV and R2 of Load (% 1RM)
0.981 ± 0.016 (range: 0.917–0.999; CV = 1.68 %) for PV. The MV, b
MPV and PV values attained with each percentage of 1RM were 2.2
MPV = –0.00006977 . Load2 – 0.005861 . Load + 1.608

Mean Propulsive Velocity (m.s–1)

2.0
obtained from these polynomial fits, from 40 % 1RM onwards, in R2 = 0.958; SEE = 0.062 m . s–1; N = 489
1.8
5 % increments (▶ Table 1). V1RM was 0.32 ± 0.03 m · s − 1 (range: 1.6
0.24–0.37 m · s − 1). 1.4
1.2
Stability in the load-velocity relationship regardless 1.0
of individual relative strength 0.8
0.6
In order to study whether the velocity attained with each  %1RM
0.4
was dependent upon individual strength levels, subjects were 0.2
ranked according to their RSR and the total sample was divided into 0.0
3 subgroups: group 1 (G1), n = 24, RSR ≤ 1.30; group 2 (G2), n = 29,
1.30 < RSR ≤ 1.50; and group 3 (G3), n = 27, RSR > 1.50. When sep- 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
arately analyzing the load-velocity relationship for each of these Load (% 1RM)
c
subgroups (▶Fig. 3), no significant differences were found for the 2.2
MPV attained against each  % 1RM, mean test velocity or V1RM be- 2.0
1.8
Peak Velocity (m.s–1)

tween groups, with very small effect sizes ( < 0.02) observed for
1.6
these variables (▶Table 2). No correlation was found between V1RM 1.4
and RSR. 1.2
1.0
Predicting relative load from velocity data 0.8
Because in practice we are interested in estimating load ( %1RM) 0.6
0.4 PV = –0.00008091 . Load2 – 0.002693 . Load + 2.054
from velocity measurements, if we take the velocity values as the R2 = 0.794; SEE = 0.137 m . s–1; N = 489
0.2
independent variable, a prediction equation to estimate relative 0.0
load (Load,  %1RM) from velocity (MPV, in m · s − 1) could be ob-
tained: 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Load (% 1RM)
Load (% 1RM) = –5.961 MPV2 – 50.71 MPV + 117.0
(R2 = 0.954; SEE = 4.02%) (1) ▶Fig. 2 Relationships between relative load ( %1RM) and bar veloci-
ty: a mean velocity (MV); b mean propulsive velocity (MPV); and c
In cases where mean concentric velocity (MV) or peak velocity peak velocity (PV) for the full back squat exercise. Data obtained
from raw load-velocity values derived from the progressive isoiner-
(PV) are used, the resulting equations were:
tial squat loading tests performed on the sample of 80 athletes. Solid
lines show the fitted curve to the data. Dotted lines indicate limits
Load (% 1RM) = –12.87 MV2 – 46.31 MV + 116.3 within which 95 % of predictions will fall.
(R2 = 0.948; SEE = 4.31%) (2)

Load (% 1RM) = –10.85 PV2 – 25.10 PV + 130.3

(R2 = 0.792; SEE = 8.57%) (3) according to calculations made using the significant linear relation-
ship that existed between  %1RM (x) and relative contribution of
Contribution of the propulsive and braking phases to the propulsive phase to concentric duration of the lift (y):
different loading conditions y = 0.30315 x + 70.323 (r = 0.95, P < 0.001) from 579 individual data
▶ Table 1 shows the contribution of the propulsive and braking pairs obtained in the 80 progressive loading tests. As can be ob-
phases [36] to the total concentric duration from 40 to 100 % 1RM, served (▶Table 1), propulsive phase accounted for ~82 % of con-

Sánchez-Medina L et al. Estimation of Relative Load …  Sports Medicine International Open 2017; 1: E80–E88 E83
 Training & Testing

▶Table 1   Mean velocity (MV), mean propulsive velocity (MPV) and peak velocity (PV) attained with each  %1RM, and relative contribution of the
propulsive and braking phases to the total concentric duration in the full back squat exercise (n = 80).

Load MV (m · s − 1) MV 95 % MPV MPV 95 % PV (m · s − 1) 95 % Propulsive Braking
( %1RM) Confidence (m · s − 1) Confidence Confidence Phase ( %) Phase
Interval Interval Interval ( %)

40 1.19 ± 0.08 1.18–1.21 1.28 ± 0.08 1.26–1.30 1.87 ± 0.15 1.84–1.91 82 18

45 1.14 ± 0.08 1.12–1.16 1.21 ± 0.08 1.20–1.23 1.81 ± 0.15 1.77–1.84 84 16

50 1.08 ± 0.07 1.06–1.10 1.14 ± 0.07 1.13–1.16 1.74 ± 0.15 1.70–1.77 85 15
55 1.02 ± 0.07 1.00–1.03 1.07 ± 0.07 1.05–1.09 1.67 ± 0.15 1.63–1.70 87 13
60 0.95 ± 0.07 0.94–0.97 1.00 ± 0.07 0.98–1.01 1.60 ± 0.15 1.57–1.63 89 11
65 0.89 ± 0.06 0.87–0.90 0.92 ± 0.06 0.91–0.93 1.53 ± 0.15 1.49–1.56 90 10
70 0.82 ± 0.06 0.80–0.83 0.84 ± 0.06 0.83–0.85 1.46 ± 0.16 1.42–1.49 92 8
75 0.74 ± 0.05 0.73–0.75 0.76 ± 0.05 0.75–0.77 1.39 ± 0.17 1.35–1.43 93 7
80 0.67 ± 0.04 0.66–0.68 0.68 ± 0.04 0.67–0.69 1.32 ± 0.18 1.28–1.36 95 5
85 0.59 ± 0.04 0.58–0.59 0.59 ± 0.04 0.59–0.60 1.25 ± 0.19 1.21–1.29 96 4
90 0.50 ± 0.03 0.50–0.51 0.51 ± 0.03 0.50–0.51 1.18 ± 0.20 1.13–1.22 98 2
95 0.42 ± 0.02 0.41–0.42 0.42 ± 0.02 0.41–0.42 1.11 ± 0.22 1.06–1.16 99 1
100 0.32 ± 0.03 0.32–0.33 0.32 ± 0.03 0.32–0.33 1.04 ± 0.24 0.98–1.09 100 0

Values are mean ± SD

centric duration at 40 % 1RM, progressively increasing until reach- As can be observed in ▶ Table 1, differences in MPV between
ing 100 % at the 1RM load. each 5 % increment in relative load (from 40–100 % 1RM) vary be-
tween 0.07 and 0.09 m · s − 1. From this it can be derived that when,
following a training period, a subject increases the MPV attained
Discussion against a given absolute load by ~7–9 hundredths of a meter per
The results of the present study confirm our first hypothesis that second, that weight would then represent a ~5 % 1RM lower load.
mean bar velocity attained against a given absolute load in the full The same reasoning would be applicable had the subject decreased
squat can be used as a very good estimate of the load ( %1RM) being the velocity against the same load. It is important to note that loads
lifted, provided that repetitions are performed at maximal intend- lighter than 40 % 1RM are not shown in ▶Table 1 because such low
ed velocity. A direct practical application of this finding is the pos- loads are unsuitable for assessing the training effect in this particu-
sibility of monitoring, in real-time, the actual load being used by lar exercise. As already mentioned, there exists an intrinsic limita-
measuring velocity during training. This allows the prescription and tion to maximally apply force to the ground when using light loads
monitoring of resistance training in terms of repetition velocities in the full squat. Thus, when trying to lift these loads at maximal
(instead of using percentages of 1RM), providing a more accurate intended velocity, athletes tend to jump off the ground. This was
adjustment and better individualization of the training load. also the reason why variability in movement velocity decreased
Of the 3 velocity variables analyzed in this study, both mean ve- (lower SD and 95 % CI values) as load ( %1RM) increased (▶Table 1;
locity measures (MV and MPV) provided a very close relationship ▶ Fig. 2). Therefore, it is recommended that MPV values ≤
to  %1RM (R2 = 0.96; ▶ Fig. 2a, b), whereas peak velocity showed a ~1.25 m · s − 1 be used in the squat exercise in order to obtain rea-
weaker association (R 2 = 0.79; ▶ Fig. 2c) and much larger SEE. sonably accurate predictions of relative load from velocity
Therefore, more accurate predictions of relative load can be ob- (Equation 1). It is also interesting to note that the load that elicits a
tained when using mean compared to peak velocity values. Predic- 1 m · s − 1 velocity has been used in several studies to quantify the ex-
tion equations to estimate relative load from velocity data have tent of neuromuscular fatigue following different resistance exer-
been provided for this purpose (Equations 1– 3). Previous research cise protocols [11–13, 28, 29, 34]. As can be observed in ▶Table 1,
has shown that mean propulsive outcome measures should be pre- the load corresponding to a 1.00 m · s − 1 MPV in the squat is 60 %
ferred over mean concentric ones since they avoid underestimat- 1RM. This load is used because it allows a good expression of the
ing an individual’s true neuromuscular potential when lifting light effect of fatigue on velocity in addition to being relatively easy to
and medium loads [14, 26, 35, 36]. Thus, if the measuring device move and quick to determine as part of the warm-up [34].
allows the calculation of mean propulsive values, MPV should be An issue worth mentioning is the importance of monitoring the
the variable of choice to monitor during resistance training. How- eccentric displacement in the full squat in order to avoid an exces-
ever, if this is not feasible, MV can also be used to predict relative sive reduction in ROM as the lifted loads get heavier (with the con-
load from velocity (Equation 2). sequent change in the biomechanics of the exercise). Thus, based

E84 Sánchez-Medina L et al. Estimation of Relative Load …  Sports Medicine International Open 2017; 1: E80–E88
 The present results lend support to previous studies [14, 35, 36]
a G1 (RSR ≤ 1.30) which highlighted the importance of considering the contribution
1.80 of the propulsive and braking phases as sub-phases of the concen-
y = –7.210531.10 x – 0.005441497 x + 1.589199
–5 2
1.60 tric portion of a lift, when assessing strength in isoinertial condi-
R = 0.955; SEE = 0.067 m. s ; N = 133
2 –1

1.40 tions. The load-velocity relationship and the contribution of the

1.20 propulsive and braking phases to concentric duration in the full
MPV (m.s-1)

1.00 squat (▶Table 1) were different than those reported for the bench
0.80 press or prone bench pull [14, 35]. Thus, velocity for a given load
( %1RM) in the squat was higher than that observed for the bench
0.60
press [14, 35]. Compared to the bench press, the longer ROM and
0.40
stronger and larger muscle groups involved in the squat can explain
0.20 the faster velocities of the latter exercise. Velocities reported for the
0.00 prone bench pull [35], an upper-body exercise, were higher than
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Load (% 1RM) those observed for the squat in the present study. The distinct skel-
etal muscle architecture and ROM, as well as the opposing muscle
b G2 (1.30 < RSR ≤ 1.50) actions involved (pushing for the squat vs. pulling for the prone
1.80
bench pull) are thought to be responsible for these differences in
y = –7.069288.10 x – 0.005627903 x + 1.599207
–5 2
1.60 velocity between exercises. Hence, it is important to understand
R = 0.958; SEE = 0.063 m. s ; N = 173
2 –1
1.40 that the relationship between load ( %1RM) and velocity is specific
1.20 of each resistance training exercise and the exact outcome velocity
MPV (m.s-1)

1.00 measure used (mean, peak or mean propulsive values) (▶Table 1;

0.80 ▶Fig. 2).
0.60 Interestingly, the velocity at which the 1RM is attained seems
distinctive for each exercise and therefore can be used as a practi-
0.40
cal and objective criterion for a repetition to be considered a true
0.20
maximum measure [14, 35]. In the present study, V1RM for the squat
0.00
was 0.32 ± 0.03 m · s − 1; adding a standard deviation to the mean,
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Load (% 1RM) the resulting velocity is 0.35 m · s − 1. Thus, a recommendation can
be made to only consider as true 1RMs those repetitions with a
c
G3 (RSR > 1.50) mean concentric velocity not greater than 0.35 m · s − 1 in the full
1.80
back squat. The V1RM value showed little variability between ath-
1.60 y = –6.83804.10–5 x2 – 0.006226124 x + 1.625863
R = 0.961; SEE = 0.060 m. s ; N = 186
2 –1 letes, being independent of each subject’s relative strength
1.40 (▶Table 2). It is worth noting that as the V1RM value of a given ex-
1.20 ercise increases (e. g., ~0.20 m · s  − 1 for the bench press [14],
MPV (m.s-1)

1.00 ~0.35 m · s − 1 for the back squat and ~0.50 m · s − 1 for the prone
0.80 bench pull [35]), the velocity attained with a given  %1RM also in-
0.60 creases, which supports the second hypothesis of this study.
0.40 In the present investigation we divided the total sample into 3
subgroups of different RSR in order to study whether the level of
0.20
strength performance influenced the load- velocity relationship. It
0.00
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 is remarkable that neither differences in MPV values for any  %1RM
Load (% 1RM) nor in mean test velocity were observed between the G1, G2 and G3
subgroups (▶Table 2). Indeed the effect sizes found for these varia-
▶Fig. 3 Relationships between relative load ( %1RM) and mean bles were almost negligible ( < 0.02), whereas the ES for the group-
propulsive velocity (MPV) in the squat exercise for the 3 subgroups ing variable (RSR) was very large (0.76). In addition, when calculat-
of different relative strength ratio (RSR) that made up the sample: ing the load-MPV relationship independently for these 3 groups
a G1 (n = 24, RSR ≤ 1.30); b G2 (n = 29, 1.30 < RSR ≤ 1.50); and
(▶Fig. 3) the obtained equations gave the same or almost identical
c G3 (n = 27, RSR > 1.50). Dotted lines indicate limits within which
95 % of predictions will fall.
(maximum difference of 0.01 m · s − 1) velocity values for each  %1RM
than those obtained when using the general equation for the total
sample (▶Fig. 2b). This indicates that the MPV values correspond-
on our experience, and when direct measurement of the knee flex- ing to each  %1RM (in a range of 40–100 % 1RM) in the full squat are
ion angle is not available or is unpractical, a simple rule of thumb very stable irrespective of the level of strength performance. This
would be to aim for an eccentric squatting displacement of ~38– finding confirms our third hypothesis and allows us to generalize the
40 % of each subject’s height and limit the loss of eccentric distance obtained results to populations similar to that studied here (i. e.,
to a maximum of 10 %. young strength-trained males with a 1.00 ≤ RSR ≤ 2.00 in the full

Sánchez-Medina L et al. Estimation of Relative Load …  Sports Medicine International Open 2017; 1: E80–E88 E85
 Training & Testing

▶Table 2   Comparison of mean test velocity and mean propulsive velocity attained with different percentages of the 1RM between subgroups of
different relative strength performance.

G1 (n = 24) G2 (n = 29) G3 (n = 27) Effect Size (η2)

Age (years) 22.2 ± 4.3 23.0 ± 4.6 25.6 ± 4.5 Ψ 0.093

Body fat ( %) 12.8 ± 4.0 11.0 ± 4.2 10.2 ± 4.1 0.067

1RM (kg) 93.4 ± 10.9 100.1 ± 12.1  *  *  *  126.4 ± 22.9 ΨΨΨ 0.438
RSR 1.20 ± 0.09 † [1.02–1.30] 1.40 ± 0.05 † [1.33–1.47] 1.68 ± 0.16 † [1.51–2.17] 0.755
Mean test velocity 0.873 ± 0.061 0.867 ± 0.052 0.865 ± 0.050 0.005
(m · s − 1)
MPV with 40 % 1RM 1.28 ± 0.07 1.29 ± 0.07 1.28 ± 0.08 0.002
(m · s − 1)
MPV with 50 % 1RM 1.15 ± 0.07 1.14 ± 0.07 1.14 ± 0.07 0.000
(m · s − 1)
MPV with 60 % 1RM 1.00 ± 0.08 0.99 ± 0.06 0.99 ± 0.06 0.008
(m · s − 1)
MPV with 70 % 1RM 0.85 ± 0.07 0.84 ± 0.05 0.83 ± 0.05 0.016
(m · s − 1)
MPV with 80 % 1RM 0.69 ± 0.05 0.67 ± 0.04 0.67 ± 0.04 0.018
(m · s − 1)
MPV with 90 % 1RM 0.51 ± 0.03 0.50 ± 0.03 0.50 ± 0.03 0.023
(m · s − 1)
MPV with 1RM 0.31 ± 0.04 0.32 ± 0.03 0.32 ± 0.03 0.003
(m · s − 1)

RSR, relative strength ratio (1RM strength divided by body mass), with range indicated in brackets [minimum–maximum]; MPV, mean propulsive
velocity; G1, G2 and G3 are 3 subgroups of the total (n = 80) study sample. Eta-squared (η2) is reported as a measure of the effect size in the one-way
ANOVA comparison between the subgroups
† All groups significantly different from each other (P < 0.05)
Ψ Significantly different from G1 (P < 0.05); ΨΨΨ Significantly different from G1 (P < 0.001)
 *  *  *  Significantly different from G3 (P < 0.001)
Values are mean ± SD

squat). As a limitation of this study, we must however note that offers several advantages worth noting over the traditional ap-
caution should be taken when using the equations provided here for proach, based on 1RM or repetitions to failure (nRM) assessments:
calculating load ( %1RM) from velocity, or vice versa, with other pop- 1 A reasonably good estimate of loading magnitude (40–100 %
ulations such as female athletes or athletes with significantly differ- 1RM) can be obtained from mean velocity measurements (MPV
ent RSR values, untrained persons, elderly people and persons suf- or MV; Equations 1, 2), eliminating the need to perform the
fering from some illness or disability. often demanding, time-consuming and interfering 1RM or nRM
tests.
2 It is possible to determine the load ( %1RM) being used “on the
Conclusions and practical applications go”, as soon as the first repetition with any given absolute load
The findings of the present study complement and extend previ- is performed with maximal voluntary effort. This allows making
ous research by confirming an inextricable relationship between adjustments to the training load at any time, resulting in better
load and movement velocity in the full squat, which allows an ad- individualised training. In this regard, the warm-up period of the
equate estimation of loading magnitude ( %1RM) from velocity training session can serve to check whether or not the athlete
measurements, similar to that recently observed for other mul- is lifting the loads at the expected velocities, making the appro-
ti-joint resistance training exercises [4, 14, 20, 35]. Hence, the priate changes accordingly (increasing or decreasing the abso-
load-velocity relationship appears specific to each exercise and can lute loads to be used in that session).
be used as a reference to implement a VBRT approach. By monitor- 3 Changes in the load-velocity relationship allow comparing differ-
ing repetition velocity during the squat, it is possible to determine ent athletes’ profiles and/or track the neuromuscular profile of
whether the proposed load (kg) for a given training session actual- each athlete over time. In particular, monitoring the velocity at-
ly represents the effort ( %1RM) that was intended. Using repetition tained against a given absolute load (or set of loads) allows con-
velocity to prescribe and monitor the resistance training load trolling for the degree of fatigue and exertion during training.

E86 Sánchez-Medina L et al. Estimation of Relative Load …  Sports Medicine International Open 2017; 1: E80–E88
Conflict of interest [18] Hartmann H, Wirth K, Klusemann M, Dalic J, Matuschek C, Schmidt-
bleicher D. Influence of squatting depth on jumping performance.
J Strength Cond Res 2012; 26: 3243–3261
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
[19] Jidovtseff B, Harris NK, Crielaard JM, Cronin JB. Using the load-velocity
relationship for 1RM prediction. J Strength Cond Res 2011; 25:
267–270
References
[20] Loturco I, Pereira LA, Cal Abad CC, Gil S, Kitamura K, Kobal R,
Nakamura FY. Using the bar-velocity to predict the maximum dynamic
[1] Bryanton MA, Kennedy MD, Carey JP, Chiu LZ. Effect of squat depth strength in the half-squat exercise. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2016;
and barbell load on relative muscular effort in squatting. J Strength 11: 697–700
Cond Res 2012; 26: 2820–2828
[21] Loturco I, Tricoli V, Roschel H, Nakamura FY, Cal Abad CC, Kobal R, Gil
[2] Caterisano A, Moss RF, Pellinger TK, Woodruff K, Lewis VC, Booth W, S, González-Badillo JJ. Transference of traditional versus complex
Khadra T. The effect of back squat depth on the EMG activity of 4 strength and power training to sprint performance. J Hum Kinet 2014;
superficial hip and thigh muscles. J Strength Cond Res 2002; 16: 41: 265–273
428–432
[22] Mora-Rodríguez R, Pallarés JG, López-Gullón JM, López-Samanes A,
[3] Chandler TJ, Wilson GD, Stone MH. The effect of the squat exercise on Fernández-Elías VE, Ortega JF. Improvements on neuromuscular
knee stability. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1989; 21: 299–303 performance with caffeine ingestion depend on the time-of-day. J Sci
[4] Conceição F, Fernandes J, Lewis M, Gonzaléz-Badillo JJ, Jimenéz-Reyes Med Sport 2015; 18: 338–342
P. Movement velocity as a measure of exercise intensity in three lower [23] Murphy AJ, Wilson GJ. The ability of tests of muscular function to
limb exercises. J Sports Sci 2016; 34: 1099–1106 reflect training-induced changes in performance. J Sports Sci 1997; 15:
[5] Crewther B, Cronin J, Keogh J. Possible stimuli for strength and power 191–200
adaptation. Acute mechanical responses. Sports Med 2005; 35: [24] Pallarés JG, Fernández-Elías VE, Ortega JF, Muñoz G, Muñoz-Guerra J,
967–989 Mora-Rodríguez R. Neuromuscular responses to incremental caffeine
[6] Escamilla RF. Knee biomechanics of the dynamic squat exercise. Med doses: performance and side effects. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2013; 45:
Sci Sports Exerc 2001; 33: 127–141 2184–2192
[7] Escamilla RF, Fleisig GS, Zheng N, Barrentine SW, Wilk KE, Andrews JR. [25] Pallarés JG, López-Samanes A, Fernández-Elías VE, Aguado-Jiménez R,
Biomechanics of the knee during closed kinetic chain and open kinetic Ortega JF, Gómez C, Ventura R, Segura J, Mora-Rodríguez R.
chain exercises. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998; 30: 556–569 Pseudoephedrine and circadian rhythm interaction on neuromuscular
performance. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2015; 25: e603–e612
[8] Escamilla RF, Fleisig GS, Zheng N, Lander JE, Barrentine SW, Andrews
JR, Bergemann BW, Moorman CT. Effect of technique variations on [26] Pallarés JG, Sánchez-Medina L, Pérez CE, De La Cruz-Sánchez E,
knee biomechanics during the squat and leg press. Med Sci Sports Mora-Rodríguez R. Imposing a pause between the eccentric and
Exerc 2001; 33: 1552–1566 concentric phases increases the reliability of isoinertial strength
assessments. J Sports Sci 2014; 32: 1165–1175
[9] Franco-Márquez F, Rodríguez-Rosell D, González-Suárez JM,
Pareja-Blanco F, Mora-Custodio R, Yañez-García JM, González-Badillo JJ. [27] Panariello RA, Backus SI, Parker JW. The effect of the squat exercise on
Effects of combined resistance training and plyometrics on physical anterior-posterior knee translation in professional football players. Am
performance in young soccer players. Int J Sports Med 2015; 36: J Sports Med 1994; 22: 768–773
906–914 [28] Pareja-Blanco F, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Sánchez-Medina L, Gorostiaga EM,
[10] González-Badillo JJ, Marques MC, Sánchez-Medina L. The importance González-Badillo JJ. Effect of movement velocity during resistance
of movement velocity as a measure to control resistance training training on neuromuscular performance. Int J Sports Med 2014; 35:
intensity. J Hum Kinet 2011; 29A: 15–19 916–924
[11] González-Badillo JJ, Pareja-Blanco F, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Abad-Herencia [29] Pareja-Blanco F, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Sánchez-Medina L, Sanchís-Moysi
JL, del Ojo-López JJ, Sánchez-Medina L. Effects of velocity-based J, Dorado C, Mora-Custodio R, Yáñez-García JM, Morales-Álamo D,
resistance training on young soccer players of different ages. Pérez-Suárez I, Calbet JA, González-Badillo JJ. Effects of velocity loss
J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29: 1329–1338 during resistance training on athletic performance, strength gains and
muscle adaptations. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2016, doi:10.1111/
[12] González-Badillo JJ, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Sánchez-Medina L, Gorostiaga
sms.12678
EM, Pareja-Blanco F. Maximal intended velocity training induces
greater gains in bench press performance than deliberately slower [30] Pareja-Blanco F, Sánchez-Medina L, Suárez-Arrones L, González-Badillo
half-velocity training. Eur J Sport Sci 2014; 14: 772–781 JJ. Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on performance in
professional soccer players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2016,
[13] González-Badillo JJ, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Sánchez-Medina L, Ribas
doi:10.1123/ijspp.2016–0170
J, López-López C, Mora-Custodio R, Yañez-García JM, Pareja-Blanco F.
Short-term recovery following resistance exercise leading or not to [31] Robertson GDE, Wilson JJ, St Pierre TA. Lower extremity muscle
failure. Int J Sports Med 2016; 37: 295–304 functions during full squats. J App Biomech 2008; 24: 333–339
[14] González-Badillo JJ, Sánchez-Medina L. Movement velocity as a [32] Rodríguez-Rosell D, Franco-Márquez F, Pareja-Blanco F, Mora-Custodio
measure of loading intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports Med R, Yáñez-García JM, González-Suárez JM, González-Badillo JJ. Effects of
2010; 31: 347–352 6-weeks resistance training combined with plyometric and speed
exercises on physical performance of pre-peak height velocity soccer
[15] Gullett JC, Tillman MD, Gutiérrez GM, Chow JW. A biomechanical
players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2016; 11: 240–246
comparison of back and front squats in healthy trained individuals.
J Strength Cond Res 2008; 23: 284–292 [33] Ronnestad BR, Kojedal O, Losnegard T, Kvamme B, Raastad T. Effect of
heavy strength training on muscle thickness, strength, jump
[16] Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Ethical standards in sport and exercise science
performance, and endurance performance in well-trained nordic
research: 2016 update. Int J Sports Med 2015; 36: 1121–1124
combined athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol 2012; 112: 2341–2352
[17] Hartmann H, Wirth K, Klusemann M. Analysis of the load on the knee
[34] Sánchez-Medina L, González-Badillo JJ. Velocity loss as an indicator of
joint and vertebral column with changes in squatting depth and
neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc
weight load. Sports Med 2013; 43: 993–1008
2011; 43: 1725–1734

Sánchez-Medina L et al. Estimation of Relative Load …  Sports Medicine International Open 2017; 1: E80–E88 E87
 Training & Testing

[35] Sánchez-Medina L, González-Badillo JJ, Pérez CE, Pallarés JG. [38] Wretenberg P, Feng Y, Arborelius UP. High- and low-bar squatting
Velocity- and power-load relationships of the bench pull vs. bench techniques during weight-training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996; 28:
press exercises. Int J Sports Med 2014; 35: 209–216 218–224
[36] Sánchez-Medina L, Pérez CE, González-Badillo JJ. Importance of the [39] Wretenberg P, Feng Y, Lindberg F, Arborelius UP. Joint moments of
propulsive phase in strength assessment. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: force and quadriceps muscle activity during squatting exercise. Scand
123–129 J Med Sci Sports 1993; 3: 244–250
[37] Schoenfeld BJ. Squatting kinematics and kinetics and their application
to exercise performance. J Strength Cond Res 2010; 24: 3497–3506

E88 Sánchez-Medina L et al. Estimation of Relative Load …  Sports Medicine International Open 2017; 1: E80–E88