Random measurement and prediction errors limit the practical relevance of two velocity sensors to estimate the 1RM back squat

IntroductionWhile maximum strength diagnostics are applied in several sports and rehabilitative settings, dynamic strength capacity has been determined via the one-repetition maximum (1RM) testing for decades. Because the literature concerned several limitations, such as injury risk and limited practical applicability in large populations (e.g., athletic training groups), the strength prediction via the velocity profile has received increasing attention recently. Referring to relative reliability coefficients and inappropriate interpretation of agreement statistics, several previous recommendations neglected systematic and random measurement bias.MethodsThis article explored the random measurement error arising from repeated testing (repeatability) and the agreement between two common sensors (vMaxPro and TENDO) within one repetition, using minimal velocity thresholds as well as the velocity = 0 m/s method. Furthermore, agreement analyses were applied to the estimated and measured 1RM in 25 young elite male soccer athletes.ResultsThe results reported repeatability values with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.66–0.80, which was accompanied by mean absolute (percentage) errors (MAE and MAPE) of up to 0.04–0.22 m/s and ≤7.5%. Agreement between the two sensors within one repetition showed a systematic lower velocity for the vMaxPro device than the Tendo, with ICCs ranging from 0.28 to 0.88, which were accompanied by an MAE/MAPE of ≤0.13 m/s (11%). Almost all estimations systematically over/ underestimated the measured 1RM, with a random scattering between 4.12% and 71.6%, depending on the velocity threshold used.DiscussionIn agreement with most actual reviews, the presented results call for caution when using velocity profiles to estimate strength. Further approaches must be explored to minimize especially the random scattering.