Pre-fatigue Direct 1RM Testing vs. Post-fatigue Load-Velocity Profiling: Which Better Predicts Maximal Strength in the Deadlift After Resistance Training?
Sports medicine - open · 2026
Your pre-tested deadlift 1RM overestimates true strength once fatigue sets in, velocity-based checks stay accurate, but this is a measurement study, not an outcomes trial.
The paper
Randomised crossover study, n=27 resistance-trained males, hexagonal barbell deadlift 1RM testing under three fatigue conditions.
What they found
Pre-session 1RM overestimated true post-fatigue 1RM by 9.5 ± 9.4 kg and worsened as fatigue increased, while velocity-based estimates using MV90% were most accurate (error -0.9 ± 5.9 kg, absolute error 4.7 ± 3.7 kg) and stayed stable across fatigue levels; the post-session load-velocity profile (1.9 ± 7.7 kg) and MV90% outperformed relying on a pre-training 1RM.
Study design
This is a single-session, within-subject comparative accuracy study in resistance-trained males performing the hexagonal barbell deadlift, not a randomised trial or a review. It sits at the level of a measurement-accuracy (criterion-validity) study rather than an intervention trial testing training outcomes.
Methodology
Each lifter's actual post-fatigue 1RM served as the criterion and was compared against three prediction methods, pre-fatigue 1RM, post-session load-velocity profile, and MV90% estimate, all taken within the same session, so this is a method-agreement design where randomisation and blinding don't really apply. The main threats are the small, single-sex, single-exercise sample, which limits how far the findings generalise, the fixed testing order (pre-fatigue then fatiguing protocol then post-fatigue measures) which could let residual fatigue or learning effects bias the later readings, and a lab fatigue protocol that may not mirror how fatigue accumulates across a real training session. There's no control arm and no confounder adjustment needed since it's a within-subject comparison, but the reported error figures are means with fairly wide standard deviations, so a clinician should treat the 9.5 kg and 4.7 kg accuracy numbers as session-level averages with real individual variability, not fixed corrections to apply to every lifter.
The appraisal
The effect sizes look practically meaningful for load prescription even though the abstract doesn't report formal significance testing between methods: a 9.5 kg average overestimation on a roughly 177 kg deadlift is about a 5 percent load-prescription error, and it grows as fatigue accumulates, large enough to push a set from the intended intensity into overreaching territory. The design supports a within-session comparison of estimation accuracy for the hexagonal barbell deadlift in resistance-trained males, but it is a lab measurement-accuracy study, not a trial showing velocity-based prescription improves training outcomes, adaptations, or injury rates, and it says nothing about conventional barbell deadlifts, other lifts, or female or novice lifters.
The gap
There is no outcome data linking the more accurate velocity-based estimate to actual improved training outcomes such as strength gains, fatigue management, or injury reduction over a training block, this is purely a measurement-accuracy comparison in a single session.
Landmark context
This builds on the established velocity-based training (VBT) literature pioneered by work from González-Badillo, Jidovtseff and colleagues on load-velocity relationships and their use to estimate 1RM without maximal testing, extending it specifically to the hexagonal deadlift and to the previously unaddressed question of accuracy under within-session fatigue.
What to do Monday
For coaches or clinicians who already run velocity-based training on the deadlift, this supports checking in-session bar velocity against the athlete's own pre-established load-velocity profile at around 90% of tested 1RM once fatigue sets in, rather than trusting a pre-tested 1RM later in the session. Two things to be clear on before applying it: the accurate method still needs a full pre-session load-velocity profile across several loads, not just a single 1RM test, and it needs a velocity-tracking device, so it only helps where that infrastructure already exists. The data are from trained males doing hexagonal barbell deadlifts in one session, not conventional bar deadlifts, other lifts, females, novices, or fatigue accumulated across a training block.
In practice
This applies to trained lifters doing heavy deadlift work where load is prescribed off a percentage of an older 1RM, whether that's a rehab patient loading back up toward a strength target or an athlete under a fatiguing in-season block. On the S&C floor, if you already run VBT, the actionable bit is to trust in-session velocity checks against the athlete's own load-velocity profile once several sets in, especially on hex bar deadlift, rather than assume the tested 1RM still holds; if you're tracking deadlift strength with Benchmark's Hip Deadlift test as a baseline, treat that number the same way, don't prescribe fatigued-session loads purely off it without a re-check. In the clinic, most of us aren't running load-velocity profiling on patients, so the simpler read-across is: don't assume a 1RM from weeks ago still describes today's ceiling once someone is fatigued, and use an RPE or velocity-loss cutoff rather than a fixed percentage for late-session work. Caveat either way, this is one lab session on trained young men doing one lift, so it's supporting evidence for a sensible habit (checking effort under fatigue, not just the number on the card), not a mandate to buy new kit.
The five papers that matter — every week, free.
We read the whole sports-medicine, rehab & performance literature and appraise the papers worth your time.
Get the free weekly issueRead in your language: English · Français · Deutsch · Español · Italiano · Nederlands · Dansk · Svenska