Menu

HomeHow it worksContact UsContact Us

Validity and Reliability of a 3-Point Load-Velocity Profile for Predicting Hex Bar Deadlift 1 Repetition Maximum.

Stevens LJ, Carey DL, Gastin PB, James LP. · Journal of strength and conditioning research · 2026

Researchers had 19 trained lifters do both a traditional hex bar deadlift 1RM test and a quick submaximal test using three loads, measuring bar speed to estimate maximal strength. The estimate matched actual 1RM closely on average (explaining ~97.5% of variance) and the theoretical max load measure was very repeatable between sessions, but individual predictions could be off by up to about 15.7 kg, so the two methods aren't interchangeable.
Takeaway: Use a 3-load bar-speed test to track hex bar deadlift strength between sessions with less fatigue, but keep occasional true 1RM tests for accurate maxes.
Abstract (source)

Abstract Stevens, LJ, Carey, DL, Gastin, PB, and James, LP. Validity and reliability of a 3-point load-velocity profile for predicting hex bar deadlift 1 repetition maximum. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2026-This study assessed the between-session reliability of load-velocity-derived parameters in the hex bar deadlift using a 3-point

Method: and velocity-based load prescription and determined the validity of a predictive 1RM model based on these parameters relative to actual 1RM testing. Nineteen resistance-trained subjects completed 2 testing sessions consisting of a traditional 1RM test and a submaximal 3-load load-velocity assessment using the hex bar deadlift. Between-session reliability of measures derived from the load-velocity profile and 1RM testing were evaluated using coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). A linear mixed-effects model was used to predict 1RM from theoretical maximal load (L0) and theoretical maximum velocity (V0) derived from individual load-velocity profiles. Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement were used to assess the level of agreement between

Methods: . Between sessions, L0 showed excellent reliability (CV = 5.2%, ICC = 0.97), while V0 was generally less reliable (CV = 6.0%, ICC = 0.70). The predictive model explained nearly all variance in actual 1RM (marginal R2 = 0.975), with both L0 and V0 contributing significantly (p < 0.05). Predicted 1RM values were highly similar to actual 1RM values on average; however, the limits of agreement (±15.7 kg) suggest that the 2

methods are not directly interchangeable. Overall, the methodology used in this study provides a feasible alternative for assessing maximal strength, offering a less fatiguing and efficient option for athlete monitoring. However, due to individual variability, predicted 1RM values should not be used interchangeably with direct 1RM testing.

Primary studyVelocity-Based & Technology
Read the original →

Related in Velocity-Based & Technology

The effects of velocity-based vs. percentage-based resistance training on sports performance in trained individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysisIndividualized responses to velocity-based versus percentage-based resistance training in combat sports athletes: the influence of baseline characteristicsImpact of Combined Core Strength, Balance and Visual Skill Training on Selected Skill-Related Physical Fitness and Performance Variables of School-Level Badminton Players in Tirupathur District: A Quasi-Experimental StudyAgreement and reliability of force-plate, smartphone-based, and wearable-sensor countermovement jump assessments for neuromuscular monitoring in male professional volleyball playersVR/AR Immersive Training in Dragon and Lion Dance Teaching in Colleges and UniversitiesTrajectories of 10 m Sprint Time and Countermovement Jump Height Relative to Peak Height Velocity in Male Youth Soccer Players.