ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2026
Evaluating Velocity-Based Approaches for Predicting One-Repetition Maximum in The Snatch.
Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined the reliability and accuracy of various velocity-based methods for predicting the snatch one-repetition maximum (1RM), with the purpose of evaluating the potential of movement velocity as an objective indicator for attempt selection in competitive weightlifting. Fourteen competitive adolescent male weightlifters (age: 15.9 ± 0.9 years; training experience: 5.1 ± 0.9 years) completed two testing sessions, each involving an incremental loading test with attempts at 50%, 70%, 80%, and 90% of their best snatch record from the past 30 days, followed by load increases until reaching their actual 1RM. Peak velocity (PV) was recorded for all lifts with a linear position transducer. The 1RM in the second session was predicted using the load-PV relationship derived from four loads, combined with either the actual or optimal minimal velocity threshold (MVT) obtained in the first session. Additionally, 1RM was estimated from PV recorded at single loads (50%, 70%, 80%, and 90% 1RM), using the individual %1RM-PV relationship established during the first session. Acceptable between-sessions reliability was observed for the actual 1RM, PV tested at single loads (50-90% 1RM), actual MVT, and optimal MVT (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.76-0.90, coefficient of variation = 1.82-3.31%). The actual MVT, optimal MVT and individual %1RM-PV relationship using 80% and 90% 1RM yielded acceptable and lower absolute errors (2.6-4.1 kg) compared to individual %1RM-PV relationship using 50% and 70% 1RM (6.2-9.9 kg). However, these methods exhibited proportional bias (
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.