The reliability of the one maximum repetition in sedentary, active and strength-trained subjects

Abstract

The aim of the study was to verify the reliability of one maximum repetition (1-RM) in three different groups, according levels of physical fitness. The sample was composed for thirty subjects (aged 18 to 34 years old) divided in three groups with ten subjects each: sedentary (SG), physical active (PAG) and strength-trained (STG). The subjects were submitted to two familiarization sessions and two sessions of maximum strength test (1-RM1 and 1-RM2) at the following exercises: bench press and 45º leg press. The comparison between 1-RM values was made by two-way ANOVA (test and group) and association between both by intraclass coefficient correlation (p ≤ 0.05). Data presented high correlation values between both tests (from 0.922 to 0.997; p < 0.001), however, significant differences (p < 0.05) was observed between 1-RM1 and 1-RM2 at bench press exercise in SG (56.40 ± 8.00 kg e 57.60 ± 7.89 kg, respectively), PAG (68,80 ± 9,26 kg e 69,40 ± 8,78 kg, respectively) and STG (87.20 ± 19.94 kg e 88.60 ± 19.86 kg, respectively), as well in the leg press in SG (222,5 ± 38,24 kg e 229,50 ± 38,55 kg, respectively), PAG (238.50 ± 26.25 kg e 244.00 ± 24.70, respectively) and STG (321.50 ± 46.19 kg e 336.40 ± 40.44 kg, respectively). It can be concluded that the subject’s level of physical fitness does not appear to be a critical behavior at 1-RM reliability.

Reliability of 1RM test in detrained men with previous resistance training experience

“…The primary finding of this study was that detrained men with previous RT experience, need at least two familiarization sessions in order to stabilize the load in 1RM tests, which corroborate other studies [5,10,15,20,21]. However, to our knowledge, the present study was the first to investigate the effect of different length of experience in RT on the reliability of 1RM assessment in men.…”

“…1RM test has ad-vantages such as the possibility to assess the maximal strength of almost any muscle group, the use of inexpensive non-laboratory equipment, and the safety of assessing muscular strength in many populations [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9].…”

“…Recent studies have shown that familiarization sessions are needed in order to obtain a consistent maximal strength measurement [2,4,5,7,[10][11][12], and the number of sessions might be related to the previous experience with RT exercises [11]. In this sense, Ritti-Dias et al [11] showed that subjects with previous ex-perience in RT did not need familiarization sessions to obtain accurate assessment of maximal strength, while untrained subjects without previous experience in RT had to perform 2 to 3 test sessions to reach a stable measure, which highlights the influence of previous RT experience on 1RM load stabilization.…”

Reliability and smallest worthwhile difference in 1RM tests according to previous resistance training experience in young women

“…Its popularity is related to factors such as the possibility of evaluating various muscle groups, ease of administration, low cost, and lack of need for sophisticated equipment. It is considered to be a safe and valid indicator for the estimation of muscle strength in different populations [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11].…”

“…Its popularity is related to factors such as the possibility of evaluating various muscle groups, ease of administration, low cost, and lack of need for sophisticated equipment. It is considered to be a safe and valid indicator for the estimation of muscle strength in different populations [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11].The most widely used exercises utilized for measuring strength are the bench press (BP) and squat (SQ) [12][13][14][15]. In addition, the arm curl (AC) is a common component of training programs [16,17] and provides measurement of a smaller muscle group frequently utilized for upper-body manual tasks.…”