ArticleSports medicine - open2026
Pre-fatigue Direct 1RM Testing vs. Post-fatigue Load-Velocity Profiling: Which Better Predicts Maximal Strength in the Deadlift After Resistance Training?
Article in Sports medicine - open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResistance training loads are commonly prescribed based on a previously determined 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Whether velocity-based methods better reflect the actual 1RM as fatigue accumulates during the training session than relying on a pre-training 1RM remains unknown.
objectivesTo determine whether pre-training direct 1RM testing or post-training load-velocity (L-v) profiling more accurately estimates hexagonal barbell deadlift (HBD) 1RM following resistance training-induced fatigue.
methodsTwenty-seven resistance-trained males (HBD 1RM = 176.8 ± 20.9 kg) randomly completed three experimental sessions, each involving full incremental loading tests before and after a 30-min intervention: (i) control (rest), (ii) moderate fatigue (5 sets at 70% 1RM performing half the maximal possible repetitions), or (iii) high fatigue (5 sets at 70% 1RM to failure). Post-session 1RM was estimated using six methods: pre-session 1RM, post-session L-v profile, and four velocity-based methods that used the post-session mean velocity (MV) recorded at 50%, 70%, 80%, and 90% 1RM applied to the pre-session %1RM-MV relationship. Each estimate was then compared with the directly measured post-session 1RM. The study was conducted at Istanbul Gelişim University (Istanbul, Türkiye) between 29 March and 26 April 2024.
resultsThe pre-session 1RM (9.5 ± 9.4 kg) and MV50% (- 13.4 ± 13.0 kg) substantially over- and underestimated the actual 1RM, respectively, while smaller errors were observed for the post-session L-v profile (1.9 ± 7.7 kg), MV70% (- 2.8 ± 8.6 kg), MV80% (- 2.5 ± 7.8 kg), and MV90% (- 0.9 ± 5.9 kg). Based on absolute errors, methods were ranked from least to most accurate as: MV50% (15.4 ± 10.5 kg) < pre-session 1RM (9.5 ± 9.4 kg) < MV70% (7.1 ± 5.6 kg) = MV80% (6.5 ± 4.9 kg) = post-session L-v profile (5.9 ± 5.2 kg) < MV90% (4.7 ± 3.7 kg). Notably, pre-session 1RM errors increased with greater fatigue, while those from velocity-based methods remained more stable.
conclusionsReliance on a pre-session 1RM may result in systematic overestimation of relative training loads under resistance training-induced fatigue, whereas velocity-based methods appear to provide more accurate prescriptions of training intensity (%1RM).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.