What does this research mean for the field?

Velocity-based methods provide more accurate estimates of actual 1-repetition maximum (1RM) under resistance training-induced fatigue compared to traditional pre-session 1RM testing, which systematically overestimates training capacity. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.NOVEL_FINDING. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To determine whether pre-training direct one-repetition maximum (1RM) testing or post-training load–velocity profiling more accurately estimates hexagonal barbell deadlift 1RM following resistance exercise-induced fatigue.

August 29, 2026Sports Medicine - OpenOpen Access

Pre-fatigue Direct 1RM Testing vs. Post-fatigue Load–Velocity Profiling: Which Better Predicts Maximal Strength in the Deadlift After Resistance Training?

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

DJDanica Janicijevic DŞDeniz Şentürk YGYaodong Gu

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Randomized crossover trial reveals velocity-based profiling more accurately estimates deadlift strength than pre-fatigue 1RM in trained men, indicating superior training load prescription.

Key Points

To determine whether pre-training direct one-repetition maximum (1RM) testing or post-training load–velocity profiling more accurately estimates hexagonal barbell deadlift 1RM following resistance exercise-induced fatigue.
Randomized crossover trial involving 27 resistance-trained males (baseline hexagonal barbell deadlift 1RM = 176.8 ± 20.9 kg) conducted at Istanbul Gelişim University, Türkiye.
Participants performed full incremental loading tests before and after 30-minute interventions across three sessions: control (rest), moderate fatigue (5 sets at 70% 1RM for half maximal repetitions), and high fatigue (5 sets at 70% 1RM to failure).
Directly measured post-session 1RM was compared against pre-session 1RM, post-session load–velocity profiling, and post-session mean velocity at 50%, 70%, 80%, and 90% 1RM applied to pre-session profiles.
Pre-session 1RM significantly overestimated actual post-fatigue 1RM by 9.5 ± 9.4 kg, while mean velocity at 50% 1RM underestimated it by −13.4 ± 13.0 kg.
Post-session load–velocity profiling (1.9 ± 7.7 kg error) and mean velocity at 90% 1RM (−0.9 ± 5.9 kg error) yielded the lowest mean estimation errors.
Absolute error was lowest for mean velocity at 90% 1RM (4.7 ± 3.7 kg) and load–velocity profiling (5.9 ± 5.2 kg), with velocity-based methods remaining stable across fatigue levels while pre-session 1RM error expanded with higher fatigue.

Cite This Study

Janicijevic et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a9299bb8e5d7d1fc0c11e7b https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-026-01097-8

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Implication

Randomized crossover trial reveals velocity-based profiling more accurately estimates deadlift strength than pre-fatigue 1RM in trained men, indicating superior training load prescription.

Pre-fatigue Direct 1RM Testing vs. Post-fatigue Load–Velocity Profiling: Which Better Predicts Maximal Strength in the Deadlift After Resistance Training?

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Cite This Study

Pre-fatigue Direct 1RM Testing vs. Post-fatigue Load–Velocity Profiling: Which Better Predicts Maximal Strength in the Deadlift After Resistance Training?

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider