Aim: to investigate which indirect methods (IDM) are the most accurate in estimating one repetition maximum (1RM), measured by the level of agreement between IDM and the direct method (DM). The two IDM used to estimate 1RM in two free weight strength exercises, which were bench press (BP) and back squat (SQ), are XRM (XRM) and the load-velocity-based method (LVM). The LVM is based on the same methods used in previous research. The main difference between this project and previous research, was that the two strength exercises BP and SQ were performed with free weights. Also, in previous research was both the force-velocity-based method (FVM) and the LVM investigated, whereas there in this study only was investigated the LVM. Furthermore, were there in previous research only recorded the concentric muscle part of the exercise, where there in this study would be recorded on both the eccentric and concentric part of the exercise. This study included analysis by level of agreement between 1RM found using DM and 15 estimation formulas. The method used to determine the level of agreement between DM and IDM were Bland-Altman analysis (B&A). Methods: 26 healthy subjects (24,2±5,3 year;BMI 24,9±3,7 kg/m^2 ) with a minimum of one year experience in free weight resistance-training were volunteered to participate in this project. They had to perform a 1RM test in both BP & SQ and an XRM-protocol, which consisted of a lift preformed until failure with a weight corresponding to 80% of 1RM in both exercises. Both protocols and both exercises were performed with free weights. During the 1RM test the load-velocity data were recorded with a linear encoder kit (Chronojump, Boscosystem ®). Results: The indirect methods used in this project were respectively 15 different XRM formulas, referred to as XRM, and the LVM in both BP and SQ respectively. The XRM and LVM results were compared with the results obtained in the DM protocol, to determine the level of agreement between the two methods. The mean 1RM in SQ was 106,7 kg (±37,7) for DM and 114,8 kg (±40,3) for LVM (SEE=14,3 kg), whereas the mean 1RM in BP was 68,4 kg (±30,9) for DM and 78,7 kg(±37,4) for LVM (SEE=10,3 kg). Good agreement between the DM and the XRM in the BP exercise emerged from the B&A analysis in formulas 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 15. Good agreement between the DM and the XRM in the SQ exercise emerged from the B&A analysis in the formulas 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13. Whereas poor agreement between DM and LVM emerged from the B&A analysis in both BP and SQ and poor agreement was found between the remaining XRM formulas. Especially in formula 12 in both exercises. This was also the case even after log transformation of the dataset was performed. Conclusion: The LVM alone may be insufficient to estimate 1RM in the two free weight exercises back squat and bench press. If possible, it is recommended to use both the LVM and the FVM like it is done in previous research to estimate 1RM, before the LVM is dispatched. The XRM indirect test gave 8 good agreement in BP and 7 good agreement in SQ, according to B&A analysis. The most accurate formula which can be used as a predictor in BP performed with free weights, where repetition weight in kg (RepWt) and repetitions to failure (RTF), was Formula 9 made by Lombardi. Formula 9 gave μ=0,7kg and bias=4,9kg, these values were found by the B&A analysis, which indicate that there is a good agreement between DM and XRM. The most accurate formula which can be used as a predictor in SQ performed with free weights, was Formula 10 made by Mayhew. Formula 10 gave μ=1,5kg and bias=7,9kg, these values were found by the B&A analysis, which indicate that there is a good agreement between DM and XRM.