Bishop, A, DeBeliso, M, Sevene, TG, and Adams, KJ. Comparing one repetition maximum and three repetition maximum between conventional and eccentrically loaded deadlifts. J Strength Cond Res 28(7): 1820–1825, 2014—This study determined if an eccentrically loaded deadlift yields a higher 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and 3RM than a conventional deadlift and if the 1RM conventional and eccentrically loaded deadlift can be accurately estimated from the 3RM (3RM = 93% of 1RM). Division 1 football players (n = 15; 20.3 ± 1.9 years; 95.8 ± 18.2 kg; 184.4 ± 6.6 cm) participated. Deadlift 1RM and 3RM were measured in the conventional and eccentrically loaded deadlift. Dependent t-tests showed no significant difference between the 3RM and 1RM conventional deadlift and the 3RM and 1RM eccentrically loaded deadlift (p = 0.30 and p = 0.20, respectively). Pearson correlation between the 1RM conventional deadlift estimate and 1RM conventional deadlift actual was r = 0.91 (p ≤ 0.01); a dependent t-test indicated the 1RM conventional deadlift estimate was significantly less than the 1RM conventional deadlift actual (p = 0.007). Pearson correlation between the 1RM eccentrically loaded deadlift estimate and 1RM eccentrically loaded deadlift actual was r = 0.84 (p ≤ 0.01); a dependent t-test indicated the 1RM eccentrically loaded deadlift estimate was nearly significantly less than the 1RM eccentrically loaded deadlift actual (p = 0.061). Results suggest that conventional and eccentrically loaded deadlifts may be interchangeable within a training program; this may elicit the benefits of using a broader variety of ground-based multijoint compound movements in an athlete's strength and power training. Additionally, because of differences between predicted and actual 1RM scores in the deadlift, strength coaches should prioritize actual 1RM testing of their athletes to optimize deadlift training loads across the RM continuum.