Abstract:Background: Load-velocity relationships are commonly used to estimate one-repetition maximums (1RMs). Proponents suggest these estimates can be obtained at high frequencies and assist with manipulating loads according to session-by-session fluctuations. Given their increasing popularity and development of associated technologies, a range of load-velocity approaches have been investigated. Objective: This systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis sought to quantify the predictive validity of individualised load-velocity relationships for the purposes of 1RM prediction. Methods: In September 2022, a search of MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science and Scopus was conducted for published research, with Google Scholar, CORE and British Ethos also searched for unpublished research. Studies were eligible if they were written in English, and directly compared a measured and predicted 1RM using load-velocity relationships in the squat, bench press, deadlift, clean or snatch. IPD were obtained through requests to primary authors and through digitisation of in-text plots (e.g. Bland-Altman plots). Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) and the review conducted in accordance with PRISMA-IPD guidelines and an a priori protocol. Absolute and scaled standard error of the estimates (SEE/SEE%) were calculated for two-stage aggregate analyses, with bootstrapping performed for sampling variances. Estimates were pooled using three-level hierarchical models with robust 95% confidence intervals (CIs). One-stage analyses were conducted with random intercepts to account for systematic differences across studies and prediction residuals calculated in the absolute scale (kg) and as a percentage of the measured 1RM. Moderator analyses were conducted by including a priori defined categorical variables as fixed effects. Results: One hundred and thirty-seven models from 26 studies were included with each identified as having low, unclear or high risk of bias. Twenty studies comprising 434 participants provided sufficient data for meta-analyses, with raw data obtained for 8 (32%) studies. Two-stage analyses identified moderate predictive validity [SEE% 9.8, 95% CI 7.4% to 12.2%, with moderator analyses demonstrating limited differences based on the number of loads (β2Loads:>2Loads = 0.006, 95% CI - 1.6 to 1.6%) or the use of individual or group data to determine 1RM velocity thresholds (βGroup:Individualised = - 0.4, 95% CI - 1.9 to 1.0%)]. One-stage analyses identified that predictions tended to be overestimations (4.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 7.4 kg), which expressed as a percentage of measured 1RM was equal to 3.7 (95% CI 0.5 to 6.9% 1RM). Moderator analyses were consistent with those conducted for two-stage analyses. Conclusions: Load-velocity relationships tend to overestimate 1RMs irrespective of the modelling approach selected. On the basis of the findings from this review, practitioners should incorporate direct assessment of 1RM wherever possible. However, load-velocity relationships may still prove useful for general monitoring purposes (e.g. assessing trends across a training cycle), by providing high-frequency estimates of 1RM when direct assessment may not be logistically feasible. Given limited differences in predictions across popular load-velocity approaches, it is recommended that practitioners opting to incorporate this practice select the modelling approach that best suits their practical requirements. Registration: https://osf.io/agpfm/ .

Predicting Barbell Release Speed from Peak Speed in the Bench Press Throw via a Linear Position Transducer

Predicting the Maximum Dynamic Strength in Bench Press: The High Precision of the Bar Velocity Approach

Reliability Analysis of Traditional and Ballistic Bench Press Exercises at Different Loads

Analysis of Wearable and Smartphone-Based Technologies for the Measurement of Barbell Velocity in Different Resistance Training Exercises

Assessment of Upper-Body Ballistic Performance Through the Bench Press Throw Exercise: Which Velocity Outcome Provides the Highest Reliability?

Validity and Effects of Placement of Velocity-Based Training Devices

The Reliability and Validity of Current Technologies for Measuring Barbell Velocity in the Free-Weight Back Squat and Power Clean

Velocity-Based Strength Training: The Validity and Personal Monitoring of Barbell Velocity with the Apple Watch

Concurrent validity of novel smartphone-based apps monitoring barbell velocity in powerlifting exercises

Validation of Velocity Measuring Devices in Velocity Based Strength Training

Reliability of technologies to measure the barbell velocity: Implications for monitoring resistance training

Predicting Loading Intensity Measuring Velocity in Barbell Hip Thrust Exercise

Perception of Barbell Velocity: Can Individuals Accurately Perceive Changes in Velocity?

Valid and Reliable Barbell Velocity Estimation Using an Inertial Measurement Unit

The Predictive Validity of Individualised Load-Velocity Relationships for Predicting 1RM: A Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis

Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Seven Commercially Available Devices for the Assessment of Movement Velocity at Different Intensities During the Bench Press

Are Load-Velocity Estimates of Bench Press Maximal Strength as Accurate as Actual 1-Repetition Maximum Testing?

Velocity and Power-Load Association of Bench Press Exercise in Wheelchair Basketball Players and Their Relationships With Field-Test Performance

Effects of Load and Focus of Attention on Mechanical Parameters During Bench-Press Throw in Resistance-Trained Men

A comprehensive analysis of the velocity-based method in the shoulder press exercise: stability of the load-velocity relationship and sticking region parameters

Validity and Reliability of a Wearable Inertial Sensor to Measure Velocity and Power in the Back Squat and Bench Press