Why I Ditched the 1RM Back Squat for Good
Intro:
There was a time in my coaching career, not that long ago, when 1RM back squat testing day felt sacred. It was the ultimate checkpoint. The high holy day of strength. We hyped it up, put the squat racks front and center, and watched athletes throw chalk, blast music, and chase PRs like it was the Super Bowl.
I believed in it.
I built programs around it.
I preached about it.
I tracked progress through it.
But over time, I began to see the cracks: inconsistent intent, poor movement quality, technical breakdowns, mental hesitation, and most importantly risk without meaningful reward.
Then I found belt squat isometric testing.
Now I’ll never go back.
The Problem with 1RM Back Squat Testing:
Let me be clear. This is not an anti-squat rant.
Squatting is still a pillar in our program. But testing the 1RM has lost its place.
Here’s why:
1. It Eats Time
Even with organized groups, testing back squat 1RMs can take an entire session (or more). Warm-ups, ramp-up sets, staggered spotting and by the time you’ve moved everyone through, you’ve lost a full day of training. Multiply that across a team and a season, and the cost is massive.
2. Technical Proficiency Skews the Data
The stronger athletes usually have more refined technique, so their 1RM shows true strength. Others? They grind through compensations, lose spinal positioning, shoot their hips, or collapse at depth. At that point, are you testing strength... or movement pattern integrity?
3. Fatigue Muddies the Output
By the time most athletes get to their true 1RM attempt, they’re already gassed. What you're testing isn't maximal force but it's maximal fatigue tolerance. That might work for powerlifters. It’s not ideal for high school hockey players, or multi-sport athletes with a short offseason window.
4. It's Just One Number
You get a single load; such as "X pounds lifted" without context. Was the rep clean? Was it consistent with previous sets? Did they move it fast or grind it out over 6 seconds? There's no nuance. No profile. Just a raw number.
Enter the Belt Squat Isometric Test:
When I first experimented with isometric belt squat testing, it was out of curiosity more than strategy. I had access to a force measurement setup, a belt squat platform, and athletes recovering from lower body strain.
It didn’t take long to realize what I had stumbled into.
Here’s how it works:
Athlete gets in the belt squat setup
Straps into a rigid isometric pin setup (immovable bar below)
Pulls upward maximally for 3–5 seconds while force is measured via a load cell or force plate
Output is collected as Peak Force (N), Rate of Force Development (RFD), and Time to Peak Force
It takes less than 60 seconds per athlete, no warm-up sets required, and carries no injury risk if coached well.
Why I’ll Never Go Back:
1. It’s Fast and Repeatable
I can test an entire roster during warm-ups, if i wanted. No need to restructure my week if I don’t want to. Athletes give a max effort pull, log their result, and get back to training. This means we can test more often, not just every 6–12 weeks.
2. It’s Safe
There’s zero axial loading. No risk of collapse under a heavy bar. No need for spotters or extensive warm-up sets. For teams with athletes coming off injuries or in high-contact sports, this is gold.
3. It Gives Me Multiple Metrics
Instead of one number (total weight), I now get:
Peak Force Output (N) — raw strength
Time to Peak Force (ms) — neuromuscular explosiveness
Rate of Force Development — how quickly force is generated
This paints a more complete picture of an athlete's neuromuscular profile and it allows me to track improvements in both strength and speed of force application.
4. It Tracks Readiness Over Time
Because it’s so easy to administer, I can re-test regularly. I can monitor for fatigue, neuromuscular decline, or adaptation. If an athlete’s peak force dips from their baseline, I don’t need a lecture. I need to adjust their volume or recovery.
5. It Removes Technical Variability
No more judging reps. No more movement compensations clouding results. Everyone pulls from the same position, with the same constraints. Effort is standardized and therefore, so is the data.
How We Use the Data in Programming:
We still squat. We still train the posterior chain. But our testing no longer dictates the plan, it helps to inform it.
If RFD is low, we introduce more ballistic or velocity-based work.
If peak force is low, we emphasize heavy strength cycles or isometric training blocks.
If time to peak force increases, we assess fatigue, travel, or recovery patterns.
The beauty of the isometric belt squat is that it becomes a conversation starter, not just a grade.
And unlike the 1RM, it doesn’t feel like a test day. It feels like part of the process.
Final Thoughts:
The switch away from 1RM back squat testing wasn’t a flashy change but it was a foundational one. It’s helped me reclaim time, reduce injury risk, and improve the quality of information I use to coach.
And it’s made testing a tool, not an event.
If you’re a coach still clinging to the 1RM back squat, I get it. It’s tradition. It’s measurable. It’s familiar.
But I challenge you to ask yourself:
What’s the actual value of that number?
What are you giving up to get it?
Is there a better way to understand the athlete in front of you?
For me and my program, the answer was yes.
And I’m not looking back.
