Reliability and validity of different methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise

García-Ramos, Amador; Barboza-González, Paola; Ulloa-Díaz, David; Rodríguez-Perea, Ángela; Martínez-García, Darío; Guede-Rojas, Francisco; Hinojosa-Riveros, Hans; Chirosa, Luís Javier; Cuevas-Aburto, Jesualdo; Janićijević, Danica; Weakley, Jonathon

doi:10.1080/02640414.2019.1626071

Cited by 79 publications

(148 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results were similar to Richens et al [21]. Repetition maximum targets and repetitions to failure have also been previously provided to predict 1RM [20,23,24]. Mayhew et al [23] investigated 14 different predictive equations and observed differences of − 24.0% to 27.1% in some equations when compared to the direct assessment in bench press.…”

Section: Key Pointssupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Mayhew et al [23] investigated 14 different predictive equations and observed differences of − 24.0% to 27.1% in some equations when compared to the direct assessment in bench press. Similarly, Garcia-Ramos et al [24] compared two predictive equations when lifting to failure in the prone bench-pull, with the largest differences being − 3.6 ± 5.38 kg. The various RM targets associated with different % 1RM values demonstrates that pre-defined rep-load continuums may not be appropriate and the two methods of prescribing training load are not interchangeable with one another, and therefore, their individual effectiveness needs to be assessed.…”

Section: Key Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effectiveness of Two Methods of Prescribing Load on Maximal Strength Development: A Systematic Review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Optimal prescription of resistance exercise load (kg) is essential for the development of maximal strength. Two methods are commonly used in practice with no clear consensus on the most effective approach for the improvement of maximal strength. Objective The primary aim of this review was to compare the effectiveness of percentage 1RM (% 1RM) and repetition maximum targets (RM) as load prescription methods for the development of maximal strength. Methods Electronic database searches of MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and CINAHL Complete were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies were eligible for inclusion if a direct measure of maximal strength was used, a non-training control group was a comparator, the training intervention was > 4 weeks in duration and was replicable, and participants were defined as healthy and between the ages of 18-40. Methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using a modified Downs and Black checklist. Percentage change (%) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all strength-based training groups were calculated. Statistical significance (p < 0.05) was reported from each study. Results Twenty-two studies comprising a total of 761 participants (585 males and 176 females) were found to meet the inclusion criteria. 12 studies were returned for % 1RM, with 10 for RM. All studies showed statistically significant improvements in maximal strength in the training groups (31.3 ± 21.9%; 95% CI 33.1-29.5%). The mean quality rating for all studies was 17.7 ± 2.3. Four studies achieved a good methodological rating, with the remainder classified as moderate. Conclusions Both % 1RM and RM are effective tools for improving maximal strength. % 1RM appears to be a better prescriptive method than RM potentially due to a more sophisticated management of residual fatigue. However, large heterogeneity was present within this data. Lower body and multi-joint exercises appear to be more appropriate for developing maximal strength. Greater consensus is required in defining optimal training prescriptions, physiological adaptations, and training status.

show abstract

Section: Key Pointssupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Key Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effectiveness of Two Methods of Prescribing Load on Maximal Strength Development: A Systematic Review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, one of the challenges associated with the use of individualized L-V relationships for predicting the 1RM is how to select the minimal velocity threshold. Previous studies have selected the minimal velocity threshold as either the individualized V 1RM (Banyard, Nosaka & Haff, 2017;Ruf, Chery & Taylor, 2018) or a general V 1RM for all subjects (García-Ramos et al, 2018a, 2019a. The assessment of the individualized V 1RM is associated with at least two problems: (I) the individual is required to perform a lift against the 1RM load and (II) the individual V 1RM has been demonstrated to be an unreliable metric for a number of exercises such as the back squat (coefficient of variation (CV) = 22.5%, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.42) (Banyard, Nosaka & Haff, 2017), deadlift (CV = 15.7%, ICC = 0.63) (Ruf, Chery & Taylor, 2018), Smith machine bench press (BP) (CV = 13.9-15.7%, ICC = 0.54-0.64) (Pestaña-Melero et al, 2018), or bench pull (CV = 6.36%, ICC = 0.18) (García-Ramos et al, 2019b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of the velocity achieved during the last repetition of sets to failure and its association with the velocity of the 1-repetition maximum

García-Ramos

Janićijević

González-Hernández

et al. 2020

PeerJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study aimed to determine the reliability of the velocity achieved during the last repetition of sets to failure (V last ) and the association of V last with the velocity of the 1-repetition maximum (V 1RM ) during the paused and touch-and-go bench press (BP) exercises performed in a Smith machine. Methods: A total of 96 healthy men participated in this study that consisted of two testing sessions. A single BP variant (paused BP or touch-and-go BP) was evaluated on each session in a randomized order. Each session consisted of an incremental loading test until reaching the 1RM, followed by two sets of repetitions to failure against a load ranging from 75% to 90% of 1RM. Results: The reliability of V last was unacceptable for both BP variants (CV > 18.3%, ICC < 0.60). The correlations between V 1RM and V last were small for the paused BP (r = 0.18) and moderate for the touch-and-go BP (r = 0.37). Conclusions: Although these results suggest that V last could be a better indicator of the minimal velocity threshold than V 1RM , the low reliability of V last and the similar values of V last for both BP variants suggest that a standard V 1RM should be used to estimate the 1RM from the individualized load-velocity relationship.

show abstract

“…Prescribed programmes using estimated 1RM values allow calculating the appropriate training load intensity [45]. Recent studies have shown their reliability and validity to estimate 1RM [46]. The equations developed by [47] were applied in the present study.…”

Section: Procedures and Temporalisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Progressive Resistance Training on Cognition and IGF-1 Levels in Elder Women Who Live in Areas with High Air Pollution

Sotomayor

Castillo-Quezada

Martínez‐Salazar

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of a muscular strength programme on the levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) and cognitive status in elder women with mild cognitive impairment who lived in areas of high air pollution. A total of 157 women participated in the study, distributed in four groups: Active/Clean (AC n = 38) and Active/Pollution (AP n = 37), who carried out a progressive resistance training programme for 24 months, and Sedentary/Clean (SC n = 40) and Sedentary/Pollution (SP n = 42). Maximum strength in the upper and lower limbs (1RM), cognition (Mini-Mental Scale Examination (MMSE)) and blood IGF-1 were evaluated. At the beginning of the intervention, there were no differences between the groups in the assessed variables. The active groups which carried out the resistance training programme (AC and AP), registered better results in IGF-1 than the sedentary groups. These differences were statistically significant in AC vs. SC (p < 0.01) and AP vs. SC (p < 0.05). Regarding MMSE, group AC registered the highest score increases (+8.2%) (significantly better than the other groups), while group SP worsened (−7%) significantly compared to the other three groups. In conclusion, resistance training had a positive effect on IGF-1, while sedentary behaviour and air pollution had a negative effect on cognitive status.

show abstract

Reliability and validity of different methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise

Cited by 79 publications

References 24 publications

The Effectiveness of Two Methods of Prescribing Load on Maximal Strength Development: A Systematic Review

The Effectiveness of Two Methods of Prescribing Load on Maximal Strength Development: A Systematic Review

Reliability of the velocity achieved during the last repetition of sets to failure and its association with the velocity of the 1-repetition maximum

Effects of Progressive Resistance Training on Cognition and IGF-1 Levels in Elder Women Who Live in Areas with High Air Pollution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About