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

Ribeiro, Alex Silva; Amarante, Matheus; Mayhew, Jerry L.; Ritti‐Dias, Raphael Mendes; Okano, Alexandre Hideki

doi:10.3233/ies-130530

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in one study [ 48 ], ICC was 0.64, while in another [ 26 ], it was 0.99. Similarly, in the Seo et al [ 46 ] study, CV was 0.5%, while in the Ribeiro et al [ 40 ] study, it was 12.1%. Given the inconsistent findings, it is unclear what the true reliability of the 1RM test is and to what extent it is affected by measurement-related factors, such as exercise selection for the test, number of familiarization trials, and resistance training experience.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…Twelve included studies additionally used Bland–Altman plots [ 18 , 21 , 23 , 28 – 30 , 34 , 40 , 42 , 44 , 47 , 48 ] and found relatively narrow 95% limits of agreement (LoA). For example, 95% LoA for the bench press, power clean, leg press, and squat were ± 3–5 kg, ± 5–8 kg, ± 8–13 kg, and ± 10–15 kg, respectively [ 23 , 28 – 30 , 40 , 44 , 48 ], which further indicates a high reliability of the 1RM test. However, given the small number of studies that used Bland–Altman plots, future research may also consider using this statistic to provide further insights into LoA for other resistance exercises used for the 1RM test.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Test–Retest Reliability of the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Strength Assessment: a Systematic Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The test–retest reliability of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) test varies across different studies. Given the inconsistent findings, it is unclear what the true reliability of the 1RM test is, and to what extent it is affected by measurement-related factors, such as exercise selection for the test, the number of familiarization trials and resistance training experience. Objectives The aim of this paper was to review studies that investigated the reliability of the 1RM test of muscular strength and summarize their findings. Methods The PRISMA guidelines were followed for this systematic review. Searches for studies were conducted through eight databases. Studies that investigated test–retest reliability of the 1RM test and presented intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and/or coefficient of variation (CV) were included. The COSMIN checklist was used for the assessment of the methodological quality of the included studies. Results After reviewing 1024 search records, 32 studies (pooled n = 1595) on test–retest reliability of 1RM assessment were found. All the studies were of moderate or excellent methodological quality. Test–retest ICCs ranged from 0.64 to 0.99 (median ICC = 0.97), where 92% of ICCs were ≥ 0.90, and 97% of ICCs were ≥ 0.80. The CVs ranged from 0.5 to 12.1% (median CV = 4.2%). ICCs were generally high (≥ 0.90), and most CVs were low (< 10%) for 1RM tests: (1) among those without and for those with some resistance training experience, (2) conducted with or without familiarization sessions, (3) with single-joint or multi-joint exercises, (4) for upper- and lower-body strength assessment, (5) among females and males, and (6) among young to middle-aged adults and among older adults. Most studies did not find systematic changes in test results between the trials. Conclusions Based on the results of this review, it can be concluded that the 1RM test generally has good to excellent test–retest reliability, regardless of resistance training experience, number of familiarization sessions, exercise selection, part of the body assessed (upper vs. lower body), and sex or age of participants. Researchers and practitioners, therefore, can use the 1RM test as a reliable test of muscular strength.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Test–Retest Reliability of the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Strength Assessment: a Systematic Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A systematic increase in the 1-RM between test and retest has previously been described on numerous occasions for various exercises [ 41 ]. Interestingly, Ribeiro and colleagues reported that this time effect did not interact significantly with participants’ experience in resistance training [ 42 ]. While the magnitude of the systematic change (Δt [90% HDI] = 1.9 kg [1.0, 2.7]) could be considered trivial in the present study, given the smallest load increment was 2.5 kg, previous research suggested that the effect may occur over the course of multiple consecutive retest trials as a result of practicing the test [ 42 – 44 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interestingly, Ribeiro and colleagues reported that this time effect did not interact significantly with participants’ experience in resistance training [ 42 ]. While the magnitude of the systematic change (Δt [90% HDI] = 1.9 kg [1.0, 2.7]) could be considered trivial in the present study, given the smallest load increment was 2.5 kg, previous research suggested that the effect may occur over the course of multiple consecutive retest trials as a result of practicing the test [ 42 – 44 ]. Similarly, the time effect of RTF performed at 90%, 80% and 70%-1RM showed a high probability for being less than 1 repetition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducibility of strength performance and strength-endurance profiles: A test-retest study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study was designed to evaluate the test-retest consistency of repetition maximum tests at standardized relative loads and determine the robustness of strength-endurance profiles across test-retest trials. Twenty-four resistance-trained males and females (age, 27.4 ± 4.0 y; body mass, 77.2 ± 12.6 kg; relative bench press one-repetition maximum [1-RM], 1.19 ± 0.23 kg•kg-1) were assessed for their 1-RM in the free-weight bench press. After 48 to 72 hours, they were tested for the maximum number of achievable repetitions at 90%, 80% and 70% of their 1-RM. A retest was completed for all assessments one week later. Gathered data were used to model the relationship between relative load and repetitions to failure with respect to individual trends using Bayesian multilevel modeling and applying four recently proposed model types. The maximum number of repetitions showed slightly better reliability at lower relative loads (ICC at 70% 1-RM = 0.86, 90% highest density interval: [0.71, 0.93]) compared to higher relative loads (ICC at 90% 1-RM = 0.65 [0.39, 0.83]), whereas the absolute agreement was slightly better at higher loads (SEM at 90% 1-RM = 0.7 repetitions [0.5, 0.9]; SEM at 70% 1-RM = 1.1 repetitions [0.8, 1.4]). The linear regression model and the 2-parameters exponential regression model revealed the most robust parameter estimates across test-retest trials. Results testify to good reproducibility of repetition maximum tests at standardized relative loads obtained over short periods of time. A complementary free-to-use web application was developed to help practitioners calculate strength-endurance profiles and build individual repetition maximum tables based on robust statistical models.

show abstract

“…Gender (Donnelly and Smith, 2005 ; Ribeiro et al, 2014a , b ) and the overall general physical condition of the subjects play a (significant) role (Ritti-Dias et al, 2011 ; Hrysomallis and Buttifant, 2012 ; Benton et al, 2013 ; Ribeiro et al, 2014b ; do Nascimento et al, 2017 ; Weakley et al, 2017 ). The overall number of subjects (see section 3.1) are such that one would not expect much impact.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Longitudinal Effects of Unilateral Knee Extension Exercise on Muscle Strength

Altan¹,

Seide²,

Bayram³

et al. 2020

Front. Sports Act. Living

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to investigate the time-dependent increase in the knee extensors' isometric strength as a response to voluntary, unilateral, isometric knee extension exercise (UIKEE). To do so, a systematic review was carried out to obtain data for a Bayesian longitudinal model-based meta-analysis (BLMBMA). For the systematic review, PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Chochrane Library were used as databases. The systematic review included only studies that reported on healthy, young individuals performing UIKEE. Studies utilizing a bilateral training protocol were excluded as the focus of this review lied on unilateral training. Out of the 3,870 studies, which were reviewed, 20 studies fulfilled the selected inclusion criteria. These 20 studies were included in the BLMBMA to investigate the time-dependent effects of UIKEE. If compared to the baseline strength of the trained limb, these data reveal that UKIEE can increase the isometric strength by up to 46%. A meta-analysis based on the last time-point of each available study was employed to support further investigations into UIKEE-induced strength increase. A sensitivity analysis showed that intensity of training (%MVC), fraction of male subjects and the average age of the subject had no significant influence on the strength gain. Convergence of BLMBMA revealed that the peak strength increase is reached after ~4 weeks of UIKEE training.

show abstract

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

Cited by 8 publications

References 26 publications

Test–Retest Reliability of the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Strength Assessment: a Systematic Review

Test–Retest Reliability of the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Strength Assessment: a Systematic Review

Reproducibility of strength performance and strength-endurance profiles: A test-retest study

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Longitudinal Effects of Unilateral Knee Extension Exercise on Muscle Strength

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About