A COMPARISION BETWEEN SQUAT AND DEADLIFT CONCENTRIC VELOCITY AND POWER
Abigail Boushard*1, Kathryn Blomenkamp*1, Christopher A. Fahs‡1, Lindy M. Rossow‡1, Chad M. Kerksick‡2 1Lindenwood University Belleville, Belleville IL; 2Lindenwood University, St. Charles, MO
The average concentric velocity (ACV) of barbell exercises can be used to adjust training loads (autoregulation). The velocity ranges used for autoregulation can vary and research is needed to clarify the load-velocity relationship for each exercise. Anthropometric factors and training history may also affect the load-velocity relationship. PURPOSE: To compare the ACV of the squat and deadlift over a spectrum of relative loads and to determine the influence of training age, training frequency, limb length, and relative strength on ACV for the squat and deadlift. METHODS: One-repetition maximum (1RM) for the squat and deadlift was assessed in fifty-one individuals (33 males, 18 females). Height, body mass, and femur length were measured while training age and frequency were obtained via questionnaire. ACV was measured during warm-up sets and 1RM attempts using a TENDO Power and Speed Analyzer. Relative 1RM was calculated as the 1RM divided by body mass. Average power (AP) was calculated as the load (kg) multiplied by 9.81 m/s2 multiplied by the ACV. Paired samples t-tests were used to determine differences in ACV and AP between the squat and deadlift. Pearson’s product moment correlations were used to determine relationships between variables. RESULTS: ACV values were significantly (p<0.05) greater for the squat compared to the deadlift at loads ≥55% 1RM including the 1RM (0.26±0.08 vs. 0.22±0.10 m/s; p=0.004). AP values were significantly greater (p<0.05) for the deadlift compared to the squat at loads ≤55% 1RM but similar at loads ≥65% 1RM including the 1RM (321±134 vs. 317±141 watts/kg; p=0.844). Squat 1RM ACV was significantly related to relative strength (r=-0.297; p=0.033). Deadlift 1RM ACV was significantly related to relative strength (r=-0.308; p=0.028) and training frequency (r=-0.489; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: These data suggest velocity ranges used for autoregulating training loads should not be used interchangeably for the squat and deadlift. Deadlift velocity ranges appear to lower than squat velocity ranges for the same relative loading. Velocity ranges for both exercises may need to be reduced as a trainee’s relative strength increases.
Boushard, Abigail; Blomenkamp, Kathryn; Fahs, Christopher A.; Rossow, Lindy M.; and Kerksick, Chad M.
"A COMPARISION BETWEEN SQUAT AND DEADLIFT CONCENTRIC VELOCITY AND POWER,"
International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings: Vol. 11
, Article 1.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijesab/vol11/iss5/1