ArticlePloS one2025
Optimization of applied loads for assessing load-velocity relationship during back squat.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Monitoring Resistance Training Intensity Using Load-Intercept from The Load-Velocity Relationship Variables: The Case of Deadlift.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2026Article
- Neuromuscular adaptations to auto-regulated velocity-based versus fixed percentage-based squat training in sprinters.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to identify the lightest load to validate the load-velocity (L-V) relationship in the back squat using the modified multiple-point (a lower highest load compared to the standard method) and in-field two-point methods.
methodsFollowing the measurement of back squat one-repetition maximum (1RM), twenty college amateur athletes performed a multi-point incremental loads test (20%, 40%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90% 1RM), and five two-point tests (20%&90%, 20%&80%, 20%&70%, 20%&60%, and 20%&40% 1RM). The mean velocity (MV) of each submaximal load was collected to model the individual L-V relationship.
resultsThe concurrent validity of the modified multiple-point method worked in incremental loads test until 70% and 80%1RM and for the in-field two-point method it only worked in 20%&90% 1RM conditions (-0.45 ≤ effect size ≤ 0.59; r ≥ 0.810). MV of heavy load in the in-field two-point method was higher than the standard method.
conclusionModified multiple-point method assessing squat L-V relationship variables can choose the incremental load from 20% 1RM to 70%1RM (light load velocity at around 1.0 m/s and heavy load MV around 0.6 m/s) but in-filed two-point method should choose the lightest and heaviest load, around 20%1RM and 90%1RM (light load MV around 1.0 m/s and heavy load MV around 0.4 m/s).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.