This study examined the accuracy of different velocity-based methods in the prediction of bench press and squat one-repetition maximum (1RM) in female athletes. Seventeen trained females (age 17.8 ± 1.3 years) performed an incremental loading test to 1RM on bench press and squat with the mean velocity being recorded. The 1RM was estimated from the load–velocity relationship using the multiple- (8 loads) and two-point (2 loads) methods and group and individual minimum velocity thresholds (MVT). No significant effect of method, MVT or interaction was observed for the two exercises (p > 0.05). For bench press and squat, all prediction methods demonstrated very large to nearly perfect correlations with respect to the actual 1RM (r range = 0.76 to 0.97). The absolute error (range = 2.1 to 3.8 kg) for bench press demonstrated low errors that were independent of the method and MVT used. For squat, the favorable group MVT errors for the multiple- and two-point methods (absolute error = 7.8 and 9.7 kg, respectively) were greater than the individual MVT errors (absolute error = 4.9 and 6.3 kg, respectively). The 1RM can be accurately predicted from the load–velocity relationship in trained females, with the two-point method offering a quick and less fatiguing alternative to the multiple-point method.

中文翻译：

---

训练中的女运动员最大力量预测中的组vs个人最小速度阈值

这项研究检查了基于速度的不同方法在预测女性运动员卧推和深蹲一次重复最大值（1RM）方面的准确性。十七名受过训练的女性（年龄17.8±1.3岁）在卧推和深蹲时进行了1RM的增量负荷测试，并记录了平均速度。使用多重（8个载荷）和两点（2个载荷）方法以及组和单个最小速度阈值（MVT）从载荷-速度关系估算1RM。两种方法均未观察到方法，MVT或交互作用的显着影响（p > 0.05）。对于卧推和深蹲，所有的预测方法表现出非常大的，以近乎完美相对于实际1RM的相关性（r范围= 0.76至0.97）。台式压力机的绝对误差（范围为2.1至3.8 kg）显示出低误差，其与所使用的方法和MVT无关。对于下蹲，多点法和两点法的有利组MVT误差（绝对误差分别为7.8和9.7 kg）大于各个MVT误差（绝对误差分别为4.9和6.3 kg）。可以从受过训练的女性的负荷-速度关系中准确预测1RM，而两点法可提供比多点法更快速，更轻松的替代方法。