Monitoring Resistance Training Intensity Using Load-Intercept from The Load-Velocity Relationship Variables: The Case of Deadlift.

L0 demonstrated acceptable but lower between-session reliability compared to 1RM in the deadlift.

• L0 showed a coefficient of variation (CV) of 4.98% and an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.974.
• 1RM showed a CV of 3.48% and an ICC of 0.989.
• Both metrics were assessed across two incremental load test sessions.
• Fifteen well-trained male and fifteen well-trained female athletes (n=30 total) participated.

The 1RM/L0 ratio showed acceptable between-subjects variability, supporting L0 as an alternative reference for prescribing training intensity.

• The 1RM/L0 ratio had a CV of 6.39%.
• This level of variability was considered acceptable for use in prescribing training intensity.
• The finding suggests L0 could serve as a substitute reference point for 1RM in training prescription.

Both %1RM-MV and %L0-MV relationships were valid for monitoring training intensity in the high-intensity range but not in the low-intensity range.

• In the high-intensity range (around 80% and 90% 1RM), the absolute error was ≤ 4.05%.
• In the low-intensity range (40% to 70% 1RM), the absolute error was ≥ 6.31%.
• Mean velocity (MV) was recorded during incremental load tests up to 1RM.
• Both relationships performed similarly, indicating %L0-MV is comparable to %1RM-MV for high-intensity monitoring.

Thirty well-trained athletes completed two incremental load test sessions to establish the load-velocity relationship for the deadlift.

• The sample consisted of fifteen well-trained male and fifteen well-trained female athletes.
• Participants completed two sessions of incremental load tests.
• Movement mean velocity (MV) was recorded at each load increment until reaching 1RM.
• The study used a within-subject repeated-measures design to assess between-session reliability.

The %L0-MV relationship offers a practical method for monitoring deadlift training in high-intensity ranges, particularly where frequent assessments are required.

• L0 can be estimated from submaximal loads without requiring a maximal effort test.
• The method is described as 'practical and convenient' especially for settings requiring frequent monitoring.
• The approach is noted as 'not a complete replacement for the 1RM' but a viable alternative in high-intensity contexts (above 80% 1RM).
• The feasibility of using L-V relationship variables to monitor resistance training intensity was the primary aim of the study.