This study examined the accuracy of different velocity-based methods in the prediction of bench press and squat one-repetition maximum (1RM) in female athletes. Seventeen trained females (age 17.8 ± 1.3 years) performed an incremental loading test to 1RM on bench press and squat with the mean velocity being recorded. The 1RM was estimated from the load–velocity relationship using the multiple- (8 loads) and two-point (2 loads) methods and group and individual minimum velocity thresholds (MVT). No significant effect of method, MVT or interaction was observed for the two exercises (p > 0.05). For bench press and squat, all prediction methods demonstrated very large to nearly perfect correlations with respect to the actual 1RM (r range = 0.76 to 0.97). The absolute error (range = 2.1 to 3.8 kg) for bench press demonstrated low errors that were independent of the method and MVT used. For squat, the favorable group MVT errors for the multiple- and two-point methods (absolute error = 7.8 and 9.7 kg, respectively) were greater than the individual MVT errors (absolute error = 4.9 and 6.3 kg, respectively). The 1RM can be accurately predicted from the load–velocity relationship in trained females, with the two-point method offering a quick and less fatiguing alternative to the multiple-point method.

Background: This study determined the accuracy of different velocity-based methods when predicting one-repetition maximum (1RM) in young and middle-aged resistance-trained males. Methods: Two days after maximal strength testing, 20 young (age 21.0 ± 1.6 years) and 20 middle-aged (age 42.6 ± 6.7 years) resistance-trained males completed three repetitions of bench press, back squat, and bent-over-row at loads corresponding to 20–80% 1RM. Using reference minimum velocity threshold (MVT) values, the 1RM was estimated from the load-velocity relationships through multiple (20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM), two-point (20 and 80% 1RM), high-load (60 and 80% 1RM) and low-load (20 and 40% 1RM) methods for each group. Results: Despite most prediction methods demonstrating acceptable correlations (r = 0.55 to 0.96), the absolute errors for young and middle-aged groups were generally moderate to high for bench press (absolute errors = 8.2 to 14.2% and 8.6 to 20.4%, respectively) and bent-over-row (absolute error = 14.9 to 19.9% and 8.6 to 18.2%, respectively). For squats, the absolute errors were lower in the young group (5.7 to 13.4%) than the middle-aged group (13.2 to 17.0%) but still unacceptable. Conclusion: These findings suggest that reference MVTs cannot accurately predict the 1RM in these populations. Therefore, practitioners need to directly assess 1RM.

This study investigated the effectiveness of a self-selected (SS) warm-up on 500 m sprint kayak performance (K500) compared to continuous (CON) and intermittent high intensity (INT)-type warm-ups. Twelve nationally ranked sprint kayakers (age 17.7 ± 2.3 years, mass 69.2 ± 10.8 kg) performed CON (15 min at the power at 2 m·mol⁻¹), INT (10 min at 2 m·mol⁻¹, followed by 5 × 10 s sprints at 200% power at VO_2max with 50 s recovery at 55% power at VO_2max), and SS (athlete’s normal competition warm-up) warm-ups in a randomised order. After a five-minute passive recovery, K500 performance was determined on a kayak ergometer. Heart rate and blood lactate (BLa) were recorded before and immediately after each warm-up and K500 performance. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded at the end of the warm-up and K500. BLa, heart rate, and RPE were generally higher after the INT than CON and SS warm-ups (p < 0.05). No differences in these parameters were found between the conditions for the time trial (p > 0.05). RPE and changes in BLa and heart rate after the K500 were comparable. There were no differences in K500 performance after the CON, SS, or INT warm-ups. Applied practitioners can, therefore, attain similar performance independent of warm-up type.