Methodological Considerations for the Determination of the Critical Load for the Deadlift

Abstract

Moss, AC, Dinyer, TK, Abel, MG, and Bergstrom, HC. Methodological considerations for the determination of the critical load for the deadlift. J Strength Cond Res 35(2S): S31–S37, 2021—This study determined whether performance method during conventional deadlifting affects critical load (CL) estimates derived from the linear work limit (Wlim) vs. repetitions relationship. Eleven subjects completed 1-repetition maximum (1RM) deadlift testing followed by separate visits, to determine the number of repetitions to failure at 50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM for both reset (RS) and touch-and-go (TG) methods. The CL was the slope of the line of total work completed (load [kg] × repetitions) vs. total repetitions for 4 intensities (50–80% 1RM). The number of repetitions to failure were determined at CLRS and CLTG. The kg values and repetitions to failure at CLRS and CLTG, and total repetitions at each intensity (50–80%) for each method (RS and TG) were compared. There were no significant mean differences (±SD) in kg values (−0.4 ± 7.9 kg, range = −8.8 to 17 kg, p = 0.856), %1RM (−1.2 ± 5.6%, p = 0.510), or total repetitions completed (2.8 ± 15.7 reps, range = −15 to 37 reps, p = 0.565) for CLRS and CLTG. These findings indicated that performance method did not affect mean estimation of CL or number of repetitions completed at submaximal loads. Thus, the estimates of CL from the modeling of total work vs. repetitions were relatively robust to variations in deadlifting methodologies. However, individual variability (range of scores) in kg values and repetition to failure at CLRS and CLTG indicated that deadlifting methods may differ in anatomical region of fatigue. The CL is an individually derived threshold that may be used to examine and describe performance capabilities.

Reproducibility of strength performance and strength-endurance profiles: A test-retest study

“…A similar trend for heteroscedasticity in the relationship between relative load and RTF across individuals (i.e. a mean-variance “tradeoff”) has been reported on numerous occasions [ 3 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 18 , 19 , 37 , 38 ]. This phenomenon could be the result of normalizing the load to the 1-RM, which homogenizes the upper end of the load spectrum.…”

Applications of the Critical Power Model to Dynamic Constant External Resistance Exercise: A Brief Review of the Critical Load Test

“…The mean CL estimates were not different between the two methods (TG = 38% 1RM and RS = 37% 1RM), however, there was a wide range in CL estimates for individual subjects. That is, most subjects performed decidedly better in one method compared to other, and the individual differences between the CL from the RS method versus the CL from the TG method ranged from −8.8 kg to 17.0 kg [40]. It was hypothesized [40] that these individual differences may reflect muscle group-specific fatigue responses, where the TG method was reported to affect the muscles of the forearm and grip on the bar, while the RS method resulted in more pronounced low-back fatigue.…”

“…That is, most subjects performed decidedly better in one method compared to other, and the individual differences between the CL from the RS method versus the CL from the TG method ranged from −8.8 kg to 17.0 kg [40]. It was hypothesized [40] that these individual differences may reflect muscle group-specific fatigue responses, where the TG method was reported to affect the muscles of the forearm and grip on the bar, while the RS method resulted in more pronounced low-back fatigue. These muscle specific fatigue responses were anecdotal reports but suggested an important area for future The estimation of the CL is derived from the performance of repetitions to failure for three to four separate loads that are greater than the asymptote of the load versus repetition relationship.…”

“…The effects of lifting method, and indirectly the cadence, on the CL estimates were demonstrated in a recent methodological study of the CL test for the deadlift [40]. Specifically, the touch-and-go (TG) versus reset (RS) method were compared in the estimations of the CL for four separate loads (50-80% 1RM).…”