Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002295 1

An Analysis of Factors Related to Back Squat Concentric Velocity

Brief running head: Squat velocity and performance

D
TE
Christopher A. Fahs1, Lindy M. Rossow1, Michael C. Zourdos2
1
Department of Exercise Science, Lindenwood University Belleville, Belleville IL
2
Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, Muscle Physiology Laboratory, Florida

Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL

EP
Christopher A. Fahs (corresponding author)

Lindenwood University Belleville

C

2600 W. Main Street

Belleville, IL 62226
C

Telephone: 618-671-6243

Fax: 618-277-6001
A

Email: cfahs@lindenwood.edu

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Squat velocity and performance 1

1 Abstract

2 Measuring bar velocity during barbell exercises can be a useful metric for prescribing resistance

3 training loads and for predicting the one-repetition maximum (1RM) However, it is not clear if

4 either anthropometric factors (e.g. limb length) or training experience influences bar velocity.

5 The purpose of this study was to determine the relationships between 1RM back squat bar

D
6 velocity and femur length, training experience, strength, and 36.6-meter sprint time in college

7 athletes. Thirteen college football (22 ± 1 yrs) and eight college softball players (20 ± 1 yrs)

TE
8 performed the 36.6-meter sprint followed by a 1RM back squat protocol while average

9 concentric velocity (ACV) and peak concentric velocity (PCV) were measured. Height (m), body

10 mass (kg), squat training experience (years), squat frequency (days·week-1), and femur length (m)
EP
11 were also measured. Pearson’s product moment correlations were used to determine the

12 relationship between variables. ACV was not related to training age (r=0.150, p=0.515), squat

13 frequency (r=0.254, p=0.266), femur length (r=0.002, p=0.992), or relative strength (r=-0.090,

14 p=0.699). PCV was related to 36.6-meter sprint time (r=-.612, p=0.003), relative squat average
C

15 (r=0.489, p=0.029) and relative peak (r=0.901, p<0.001) power. These results suggest that

16 college athletes using velocity to regulate squat training may not necessarily need to modify
C

17 velocity ranges based on limb length or training age. Additionally, peak velocity during a 1RM

18 back squat may be a useful indicator of an athlete’s relative power output ability and speed.
A

19 Coaches may consider measuring velocity during strength testing as a surrogate measure for

20 speed and power.

21 Keywords

22 Strength, velocity-based training, speed, athletes, power

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Squat velocity and performance 2

23 INTRODUCTION

24 Resistance training loads are often prescribed based on a percentage of the one-repetition

25 maximum (1RM). While percentage-based training is objective, fixed percentages do not take

26 into account daily fatigue and energy levels and the 1RM may change more rapidly (1) than it

27 can be tested in some instances. An alternative to percentage-based training is velocity-based

D
28 training (VBT) in which average concentric velocity (ACV), based on barbell velocity, is used

29 to prescribe load (9). It has been suggested that VBT could identify inappropriate training loads

TE
30 when other stressors on the body impede training performance (17) and, therefore, be useful for

31 assessment of daily training readiness. The ACV has been shown to change with fatigue during

32 acute performance (13); however, the utility of VBT has also been questioned in its use as a
EP
33 reliable method for monitoring training load (2). A daily 1RM can be predicted based on ACV

34 measures from submaximal loads (12, 14, 16, 21) although this method may overestimate the

35 actual 1RM (2). Technologies such as linear position transducers have become more accessible

36 to practitioners for barbell velocity measurement (11) and these devices typically can calculate
C

37 peak concentric velocity (PCV) in addition to ACV. PCV could be related to high velocity

38 activities such as the 36.6-meter sprint as it excludes the “sticking region” of the repetition
C

39 (during which velocity would be the lowest); PCV may be related to an athlete’s ability to exert

40 maximal force at higher velocities. Currently, there is no data investigating the relationship
A

41 between PCV and sprinting speed.

42

43

44

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Squat velocity and performance 3

45 Although VBT can be an attractive method for coaches and trainees, current recommendations

46 for optimizing training adaptations using VBT can be broad. For example, it has been

47 recommended that when training for absolute strength, ACV of a lift should be between 0.15 and

48 0.30 m·s-1 depending upon the range of motion (17). Recent studies have examined ACV in the

49 back squat (2-4, 12, 13, 16, 21, 22), bench press (6, 7, 12, 14, 21), and deadlift (12). Although

D
50 there is a clear inverse relationship between relative load and ACV, there is substantial between-

51 subject variation in ACV at a given load. Several potential sources of this between-subject

TE
52 variability have been suggested including anthropometric factors (i.e. limb length) (12), use of

53 the stretch-shortening cycle between the eccentric and concentric portion of lift (6), experience

54 or training age (4), as well as the relative load (%1RM) as higher relative loads may increase

55 between-subject variability (3). As training age increases, ACV may decrease at 1RM as the
EP
56 trainee becomes stronger. Supporting this notion, novice squatters had a higher ACV (0.34±0.07

57 m·s-1) compared to experienced squatters (0.24±0.04 m·s-1) during a 1RM back squat (22).

58 Additionally, longer femur length could be related to greater ACV in squatting exercises due to
C

59 increased range of motion throughout a repetition. Furthermore, much of the previous velocity

60 data has been collected on a resistance trained population, but not specific sport athletes. Thus,
C

61 data are needed to not only further elucidate which factors may influence ACV in order to

62 individualize VBT, but also to investigate these factors in team sport athletes. Secondarily, it
A

63 may be useful to coaches to identify the relationships between resistance exercise velocity

64 measures and other training outcomes such as sprinting speed.

65

66

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Squat velocity and performance 4

67 Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to examine relationships between training age,

68 femur length, and ACV during a 1RM back squat in collegiate athletes. We hypothesized that

69 ACV would be inversely related to training age, in that high training age would lead to lower

70 ACV at 1RM. We also hypothesized that there would be a positive relationship between femur

71 length and ACV, in that longer femurs would produce higher ACVs. A secondary purpose was to

D
72 examine the relationship between bar velocity during the 1RM back squat in relationship to

73 measures of strength and speed to determine if PCV may provide some useful information for

TE
74 coaches in stratifying athletes. We hypothesized that the PCV during the 1RM back squat would

75 be positively related to relative back squat strength and negatively related to 36.6-meter sprint

76 time (a common assessment of speed for college athletes).

EP
77 METHODS

78 Experimental Approach to the Problem

79 This investigation utilized a cross-sectional study design. Subjects were asked to avoid strenuous
C

80 exercise within 24 hours before their visit to the laboratory. In the laboratory, height, body mass,

81 age, femur length, back squat training age, and current back squat training frequency were
C

82 recorded. Subjects then performed two 36.6-meter sprints followed by assessment of their one-

83 repetition maximum (1RM) back squat. The ACV and PCV were recorded during the 1RM
A

84 assessment.

85 Subjects

86 Thirteen football and eight softball athletes from a National Association of Intercollegiate

87 Athletics (NAIA) affiliated University volunteered to participant in this study. Of the thirteen

88 football players, eight were considered linemen (offensive or defensive) and five were

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Squat velocity and performance 5

89 considered skill position players (e.g. running back, quarterback, wide-receiver, tight end,

90 linebacker, or defensive back). Of the eight softball players, five were outfielders (either left,

91 center, or right field) and three were infielders (either first base, second base, third base, pitcher

92 or catcher). All subjects were familiar with the 36.6-meter sprint test and back squat as part of

93 their team-related activities and all subjects gave written informed consent. This protocol was

D
94 approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board (approval #00012).

95 Insert Table 1 about here

TE
96 Procedures

97 Anthropometrics. Subjects standing height was recorded to the nearest 0.001 m with a standard

98 stadiometer (Tanita HR-200, Arlington Heights, Illinois). Body mass was recorded with an
EP
99 electronic scale (Tanita BWB-800S Doctors Scale, Arlington Heights, Illinois) to the nearest 0.1

100 kg. With the participant in a seated position and the knee and hip joints flexed at approximately

101 90°, the length of each femur was measured with a tape measure as the distance from the greater
C

102 trochanter to the lateral condyle of the femur and recorded to the nearest 0.001 m. The length of

103 the right and left femurs were then averaged and used to represent femur length. The intra-class
C

104 correlation coefficient (two-way, mixed effects) for the femur length measurement was 0.957.

105
A

106 Training History. Subjects were asked to verbally indicate how many years of experience they

107 have with the back squat to the nearest 0.5 years (training age) as well as how frequently they

108 currently (i.e. in the last month) performed the back squat to the nearest 0.5 days per week (squat

109 frequency).

110

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Squat velocity and performance 6

111 36.6-meter sprint. Subjects completed a ~5-minute self-selected dynamic warm-up including

112 running and stretching prior to the 36.6-meter sprint test as recommended (18). The sprint was

113 performed on an outdoor football field. Subjects began in a three- or four-point stance and the

114 time was started upon the participant’s first movement. All participants were familiar with the

115 36.6-meter sprint test and thus a familiarization session for this test was not incorporated. Two

D
116 independent testers timed each trial using a stop watch and their two times were averaged to the

117 nearest 0.01 second for each trial. At least two minutes of rest was given between attempts and

TE
118 the lower of the two trials was used for analysis.

119

120 One-Repetition Maximum. Subjects were asked to indicate their estimated 1RM (e1RM) back
EP
121 squat from which the loads for all warm-up sets were determined. All subjects first completed 5-

122 10 repetitions with an unloaded bar (20 kg) to ensure proper depth was achieved during the

123 movement. Proper back squat depth for the purposes of this study was a depth at which the
C

124 crease of the hip was at or below the level of the top of the patella when viewed from the lateral

125 aspect. Squat depth was judged by a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist (CSCS).
C

126 Taking a step with the bar during the ascent of descent of the squat resulted in the lift being

127 judged unsuccessful although elevation of the heel (without moving the entire foot) was allowed.
A

128 Similar to the protocol used by Zourdos et al. (22), warm-up sets consisted of eight repetitions

129 with approximately 25% of the e1RM, four repetitions with approximately 50% of the e1RM,

130 three repetitions with approximately 65% of the e1RM, and one repetition with 75% and 85% of

131 the e1RM. The squat 1RM was then determined within five attempts and recorded as the greatest

132 load lifted through a full range of motion. Only one subject was successful during all five

133 potential 1RM attempts. Subjects were instructed to complete the concentric portion of each

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Squat velocity and performance 7

134 repetition with maximal intended acceleration and verbal encouragement was provided during

135 the test to ensure the highest possible ACV and PCV were recorded for each repetition. Relative

136 squat 1RM was calculated as the squat 1RM divided by body mass.

137

138 Bar Velocity. A Tendo Power and Speed Analyzer – PSA 310 Unit (TENDO FitroDyne) was

D
139 placed next to the squat rack with the Velcro strap affixed to the bar touching the inside of the

140 bar sleeve so that the sensor unit cable was vertical in both the sagittal and frontal planes when

TE
141 the squatter was in the starting position (i.e. standing with full knee and hip extension). This

142 device has been shown to be a reliable and valid instrument for assess velocity and power of

143 barbell exercises (8). The ACV and PCV (m.s-1) was recorded for each repetition above 40% of
EP
144 the 1RM as previously recommended (16, 21); when multiple repetitions were performed during

145 warm-up sets, the repetition with the greatest ACV was recorded and used for analysis. This was

146 done in accordance with previous research in order to establish the highest ACV at each load
C

147 without inducing fatigue (15). Peak and average power (Watts) were calculated as the load lifted

148 plus 88% of the subject’s body mass (body mass excluding the estimated mass of the shank and
C

149 foot) multiplied by acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m.s-2) multiplied by the peak or average

150 velocity, respectively. This is the recommended method for calculating power from lower body
A

151 dynamic movements (5). Relative peak and average power (Watts.kg-1) was determined by

152 dividing peak and average power by body mass, respectively.

153

154

155

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Squat velocity and performance 8

156 Statistical Analyses

157 All data was checked for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test. All subject characteristic data

158 were normally distributed except for squat frequency. Subject characteristics were compared

159 between athletes (football vs. softball players) using independent samples t-tests for normally

160 distributed data and independent samples Mann-Whitney U Test for non-normally distributed

D
161 data. Pearson’s product moment correlations were used to analyze the relationships between

162 select variables. An alpha level of <0.05 was used to determine statistical significance for all

TE
163 statistical tests. All data are presented as mean ± standard deviation and analyzed using IBM

164 SPSS (version 23).

165 RESULTS
EP
166 All data were normally distributed except for squat frequency in which 11 of the 21 subjects

167 indicated a squat frequency of once per week. Figure 1 presents the relationship between ACV

168 values and load lifted for all warm-up sets and successful 1RM attempts at or above 40% 1RM
C

169 for all subjects combined. As expected, there was an inverse relationship between ACV and

170 relative load; about 75% of the variance in ACV was explained by the load (Figure 1). On
C

171 average, the football players were statistically older, taller, heavier, and had a greater squat 1RM

172 than the softball players (p<0.05); velocity measures, power measures, and 36.6-meter sprint
A

173 times were not statistically different between softball and football players (p>0.05; Table 1).

174 Table 2 presents the Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficients for selected variables.

175 Neither femur length, training age, nor squat frequency were significantly related to ACV

176 (p>0.05). However, 36.6-meter sprint time was inversely related to PCV (r=-0.612; p=0.003),

177 relative squat 1RM (r=-0.720; p<0.001), and both squat average (r=-0.560; p<0.001) and peak

178 (r=-0.779; p<0.001) relative power (Table 2).

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Squat velocity and performance 9

179 Insert Table 2 about here

180 Insert Figure 1 about here

181 DISCUSSION

182 The main finding of this study was that the ACV for the 1RM back squat was not related to

D
183 either squat training age or femur length as hypothesized. In fact, ACV at 1RM varied nearly

184 two-fold (0.22-0.43 m·s-1) among athletes who regularly engage in back squat training but was

TE
185 not different between the male and female athletes. A second novel finding are the moderate to

186 strong significant relationships observed between 36.6-meter sprint time and PCV as well as

187 relative back squat strength and power.

EP
188

189 The mean ACV across all subjects was 0.30±0.05 m·s-1 and there were no differences in ACV

190 values between softball and football players. Squat 1RM ACV measured during the squat

191 performed on a Smith machine are very similar (0.32±0.03 and 0.31±0.02 m·s-1) to the present
C

192 investigation (16, 21). These investigations (16, 21) observed an even stronger relationship

193 between load (%1RM) and back squat velocity (R2 = 0.96) when using the Smith machine which
C

194 suggests that variability in free weight squat technique may contributes to the variance in ACV.
A

195 Other studies which have measured the bar velocity during the free weight squat have shown

196 more variability. For example, the ACV during the free weight 1RM squat has been reported in

197 as low as 0.23±0.05 m·s-1 in competitive powerlifters (12), 0.24±0.04 m·s-1 in experienced lifters

198 (22), 0.27±0.02 m·s-1 in physically active subjects (13) and 0.34±0.07 m·s-1 in novice squatters

199 (22). Studies which have observed ACV variability in the free weight back squat have suggested

200 that muscle morphological aspects (4), high relative loads (3), and usage of the stretch shortening

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Squat velocity and performance 10

201 cycle (2) may all contribute to this between-subject variation in the load-velocity relationship.

202 With this between-subject variability in velocity also observed in the present study, our findings

203 support the suggestion for individual velocity ranges used for VBT. However, contrary to our

204 hypothesis, within this group of college athletes with various amounts of squat experience

205 (between 1 and 10 years of experience), training age was not related to ACV. Although our

D
206 sample of athletes had a range of training ages, the average training age was relatively high

207 (6.5±2.5 years) and it is possible that the relationship between training age and ACV is non-

TE
208 linear in which ACV rapidly adapts (decreases) within a few weeks or months of training and

209 then adapts more gradually thereafter. A second explanation for the lack of relationship between

210 ACV and training age presently is that prior investigations (20, 22) had all subjects as

211 “experienced” or “novice” whereas 19 of our 21 subjects had at least 4 years of training
EP
212 experience; thus, despite an overall wide range, our sample was more homogenous in terms of

213 training age. Future investigations including more athletes with lower training ages would further

214 clarify this relationship.

C

215
C

216 The lack of a relationship between femur length and ACV also failed to support our initial

217 hypothesis. In theory, taller lifters with longer limbs would achieve higher velocities during their
A

218 movements due to a greater range of motion (7). However, the relationship observed between

219 ACV and femur length (r = 0.002) was negligible. It is possible that other factors play a greater

220 role in ACV which obscures the relationship between femur length and ACV.

221

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Squat velocity and performance 11

222 Collectively, these results combined with the previous literature suggest that velocity ranges for

223 the squat may be unique between groups of individuals (e.g. non-athletes vs. athletes) and as well

224 as variable within a single group (2-4, 22). Although the relative load (%1RM) explains the

225 majority of the variance (~75%) in ACV (Figure 1), relative strength level (1RM / body mass)

226 was not related to ACV (r= -0.090). Similar to our findings, other studies have also concluded no

D
227 effect of relative strength on ACV (16, 21). In our investigation, there was still quite a bit of

228 unexplained variance (~25%) in ACV which may be due to factors such as muscle fiber type,

TE
229 pennation angle, and moment arm length of agonist muscles and potentially variation in

230 squatting technique (e.g. sagittal plane bar movement). Future studies may wish to investigate

231 how technique as well as other biomechanical and physiological factors may influence ACV and

232 ultimately recommendations for VBT.

EP
233

234 While most studies have used ACV as the primary velocity parameter for prescribing training (9,
C

235 10) or predicting the 1RM (14, 15), less research has investigated the peak velocity attained

236 during a movement. We observed relatively strong relationships between the athletes’ PCV
C

237 during the back squat and their 36.6-meter sprint time as well as their relative power outputs.

238 Since many team sports have a need for development (and assessment) of both speed and power,
A

239 the use of PCV measurements during back squat strength testing may be useful for estimating

240 these parameters in athletes without needing to perform multiple tests. We suggest that PCV,

241 rather than ACV, during the 1RM back squat showed a stronger relationship to 36.6-meter sprint

242 time because it may be more reflective of the athlete’s ability to achieve a high (peak) velocity

243 while exerting high forces which is similar to generating the rapid, high forces needed during a

244 36.6-meter sprint. Previous work has shown the relationships between isokinetic peak torque

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Squat velocity and performance 12

245 values and sprint performance to be greater at higher angular velocities compared to lower

246 angular velocities (19). Another factor which may influence the magnitude of the relationship

247 between PCV and 36.6-meter sprint time is the range of PCV values which was much greater

248 (0.44 – 1.06 m·s-1) compared to the range of ACV values observed (0.22 – 0.43 m·s-1). Sprint

249 time was inversely related to relative squat strength suggesting that relative strength in the lower

D
250 body has some influence on speed capabilities (19).

251

TE
252 Our study is limited by the sample size of twenty-one athletes. It is possible that our subjects

253 over-estimated their training age if they only trained for part of a year but considered that a full

254 year of training experience. Another limitation of our study was the lack of standardization in the
EP
255 warm-up for the sprint test. Similar studies have used larger samples but also excluded female

256 athletes (16, 21). In contrast, our sample included both male and female athletes who exhibited a

257 wide range of squat experience, limb lengths, squat strength, and speed. Additionally, our study
C

258 utilized the free weight back squat which may make the relationship between ACV and load

259 more variable, but also provide more practical applicability for coaches using velocity-based
C

260 training for free weight exercise. Future studies with larger groups of sport athletes (both male

261 and female) would be needed to develop athlete-specific velocity ranges for use in prescribing
A

262 training based on velocity for various free weight exercises. Another consideration when

263 interpreting ACV and PCV values during the back squat is the phase during which PCV is

264 attained. Specifically, ACV includes the entire concentric portion of the repetition as that is the

265 recommended velocity parameter used for prescribing training load and estimating a 1RM (15).

266 On the other hand, PCV is likely attained at some point following the “sticking region” of the

267 concentric portion of the squat and this point may vary between individuals.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Squat velocity and performance 13

268 PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

269 These results suggest that college athletes using velocity to regulate squat training may not

270 necessarily need to modify velocity ranges based on limb length or training age. However,

271 velocity ranges still should be individualized. Further, until the individual factors affecting ACV

272 can be fully elucidated, coaches and athletes can utilize rating of perceived exertion along with

D
273 velocity as a practical method to individualize training loads. Peak velocity during a 1RM back

274 squat may be a useful indicator of an athlete’s relative power output ability and speed. Coaches

TE
275 may consider measuring velocity during strength testing as a surrogate measure for speed and

276 power.

277
EP
278 In summary, we observed a nearly two-fold range in ACV during a 1RM back squat in collegiate

279 football and softball players. However, neither training experience nor femur length were related

280 to the ACV or PCV. Additionally, PCV during a 1RM back squat may be useful as an indicator
C

281 of speed and power in college athletes. Future research should aim to further elucidate the factors

282 which impact ACV.

C
A

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Squat velocity and performance 14

283 References
284 1. Abe T, DeHoyos DV, Pollock ML, and Garzarella L. Time course for strength and
285 muscle thickness changes following upper and lower body resistance training in men and
286 women. Eur J Appl Physiol 81: 174-180, 2000.
287 2. Banyard HG, Nosaka K, and Haff GG. Reliability and Validity of the Load-Velocity
288 Relationship to Predict the 1RM Back Squat. J Strength Cond Res 31: 1897-1904, 2017.
289 3. Carroll KM, Sato K, Bazyler CD, Triplett NT, and Stone MH. Increases in Variation of
290 Barbell Kinematics Are Observed with Increasing Intensity in a Graded Back Squat Test.
291 Sports 5: 1-7, 2017.

D
292 4. Carroll KM, Sato K, Beckham GK, Triplett NT, Griggs CV, and Stone MH. Relationship
293 between concentric velocities at varying intensity in the back squat using a wireless
294 inertial sensor. Journal of Trainology 6: 9-12, 2017.
295 5. Cormie P, McBride JM, and McCaulley GO. The influence of body mass on calculation

TE
296 of power during lower-body resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res 21: 1042-1049,
297 2007.
298 6. Garcia-Ramos A, Torrejon A, Feriche B, Morales-Artacho AJ, Perez-Castilla A, Padial P,
299 and Haff GG. Prediction of the Maximum Number of Repetitions and Repetitions in
300 Reserve From Barbell Velocity. Int J Sports Phyiol Perf 3: 1-23, 2017
301 7. Garhammer J. A Review of Power Output Studies of Olympic and Powerlifting:
302 Methodology, Performance Prediction, and Evaluation Tests. J Strength Cond Res 7: 76-
EP
303 89, 1993.
304 8. Garnacho-Castano MV, Lopez-Lastra S, and Mate-Munoz JL. Reliability and validity
305 assessment of a linear position transducer. J Sports Sci Med 14: 128-136, 2015.
306 9. Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Marques MC, and Sanchez-Medina L. The importance of
307 movement velocity as a measure to control resistance training intensity. J Human
308 Kinetics 29A: 15-19, 2011.
309 10. Gonzalez-Badillo JJ and Sanchez-Medina L. Movement velocity as a measure of loading
C

310 intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports Med 31: 347-352, 2010.
311 11. Harris NK, Cronin J, Taylor K, Boris J, and Sheppard J. Understanding Position
312 Transducer Technology for Strength and Conditioning Practitioners. Strength Cond J 32:
313 66-79, 2010.
C

314 12. Helms ER, Storey A, Cross MR, Brown SR, Lenetsky S, Ramsay H, Dillen C, and
315 Zourdos MC. RPE and Velocity Relationships for the Back Squat, Bench Press, and
316 Deadlift in Powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res 31: 292-297, 2017.
317 13. Izquierdo M, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Hakkinen K, Ibanez J, Kraemer WJ, Altadill A, Eslava
A

318 J, and Gorostiaga EM. Effect of loading on unintentional lifting velocity declines during
319 single sets of repetitions to failure during upper and lower extremity muscle actions. Int J
320 Sports Med 27: 718-724, 2006.
321 14. Jidovtseff B, Harris NK, Crielaard JM, and Cronin JB. Using the load-velocity
322 relationship for 1RM prediction. J Strength Cond Res 25: 267-270, 2011.
323 15. Jovanovic M and Flanagan EP. Researched Applications of Velocity Based Strength
324 Training. J Aus Strength Cond 21: 58-69, 2014.
325 16. Loturco I, Pereira LA, Cal Abad CC, Gil S, Kitamura K, Kobal R, and Nakamura FY.
326 Using Bar Velocity to Predict the Maximum Dynamic Strength in the Half-Squat
327 Exercise. Int J Sports Phyiol Perf 11: 697-700, 2016.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Squat velocity and performance 15

328 17. Mann JB, Ivey PA, and Sayers SP. Velocity-Based Training in Football. Strength Cond J
329 37: 52-57, 2015.
330 18. McGuigan M. Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation of Selected Tests, in:
331 Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. GG Haff, NT Triplett, eds.
332 Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2016, pp 259-316.
333 19. Nesser TW, Latin RW, Berg K, and Prentice E. Physiological Determinants of 40-Meter
334 Sprint Performance in Young Male Athletes. J Strength Cond Res 10: 263-267, 1996.
335 20. Ormsbee MJ, Carzoli JP, Klemp A, Allman BR, Zourdos MC, Kim JS, and Panton LB.
336 Efficacy Of The Repetitions In Reserve-Based Rating Of Perceived Exertion For The
337 Bench Press In Experienced And Novice Benchers. J Strength Cond Res, 2017.

D
338 21. Sanchez-Medina L, Pallares JG, Perez CE, Moran-Navarro R, and Gonzalez-Badillo JJ.
339 Estimation of Relative Load From Bar Velocity in the Full Back Squat Exercise. Sports
340 Med Int Open: E80-88, 2017.
341 22. Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Schau KA, Jo E, Helms E, Esgro B,

TE
342 Duncan S, Garcia Merino S, and Blanco R. Novel Resistance Training-Specific Rating of
343 Perceived Exertion Scale Measuring Repetitions in Reserve. J Strength Cond Res 30:
344 267-275, 2016.
345
346
EP
347 Acknowledgement
348 The authors would like to thank Michal Carter, Kendall Taylor, Ty Poore, Michael Williams, and

349 Joel Reyna for their work in data collection.

350
C

351 Figure 1 Relationship between average concentric velocity and percentage of 1RM back squat.
C
A

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 1. Subject characteristics.

Range Mean ± SD Football Players Softball Players

p-value
(min – max) (N=21) (n=13) (n=8)
Age (years) 18 – 23 21±1 22±1 20±1 0.006

D
Height (m) 1.580 –1.940 1.755±0.095 1.807±0.067 1.669±0.063 <0.001

Body Mass (kg) 53.7 – 160.3 95.4±32.2 110.2±30.6 71.3±17.0 0.004

TE
Training Age (years) 1.0 – 10.0 6.5±2.5 7.5±1.5 4.5±2.5 0.003
Squat Frequency (days.week-
1 0.0 – 4.0 1.5±1.0 1.5±1.0 1.5±1.0 0.268
)

EP
Femur Length (m) 0.405 – 0.530 0.462±0.033 0.470±0.036 0.449±0.025 0.166

Squat 1RM (kg) 65.8 – 215.7 128.2±41.6 153.7±29.8 86.8±18.8 <0.001

Relative Squat 1RM 0.96 – 2.17 1.37±0.31 1.45±0.34 1.24±0.22 0.126

ACV Squat 1RM (m.s-1) 0.22 – 0.43

C 0.30±0.05 0.30±0.05 0.29±0.06 0.793
C
PCV Squat 1RM (m.s-1) 0.44 – 1.06 0.73±0.19 0.71±0.20 0.76±0.19 0.567
Squat 1RM Relative Average
4.19 – 10.24 6.51±1.37 6.81±1.46 6.02±1.13 0.207
Power (Watts.kg-1)
A
Squat 1RM Relative Peak
8.58 – 25.85 16.37±5.50 16.67±6.63 15.87±4.15 0.754
Power (Watts.kg-1)
36.6-meter Sprint Time (s) 4.68 – 6.56 5.52±0.52 5.40±0.57 5.70±0.40 0.219
1RM, one-repetition maximum; ACV, average concentric velocity; PCV, peak concentric velocity.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Table 2. Pearson’s correlation coefficients.

Training Squat Femur 36.6-meter Relative Squat 1RM ACV PCV Squat Squat
Age Frequency Length Sprint Time Squat 1RM Relative Relative
Avg. Power Peak Power
Training Age 1 -.006 .446* .170 .118 .710** .150 .016 .181 .075

D
Squat Frequency 1 -.024 .095 -.053 -.113 .254 .032 .174 -.010
Femur Length 1 .234 -.279 .333 .002 -.029 -.185 -.109

TE
36.6-meter Sprint
1 -.720** -.022 -.107 -.612** -.560** -0.779**
Time
Relative Squat
1 .403* -.090 .348 .573** .714**

EP
1RM
Squat 1RM 1 -.123 -.265 .170 .004
ACV 1 .353 .758** .200
PCV 1 .489* .901**
Squat 1RM
Relative Avg. C 1 .608**
C
Power
Squat 1RM
A
Relative Peak 1
Power
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level; **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. 1RM, one-repetition maximum; ACV, average
concentric velocity; PCV, peak concentric velocity.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 1.00

0.90

0.80 R² = 0.7456

D
Average Concntric Velocity (m·s-1)

0.70

TE
0.60

0.50

EP
0.40

0.30

0.20
C
C
0.10
A
0.00
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of 1RM (%)
1
2 Figure 1

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association