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

Amador García-Ramos, Paola Barboza-González, David Ulloa-Díaz, Angela Rodriguez-Perea, Darío Martinez-Garcia, Francisco Guede-Rojas, Hans Hinojosa-Riveros, Luis Javier Chirosa-Ríos, Jesualdo Cuevas-Aburto, Danica Janicijevic, Jonathon Weakley

Resultado de la investigación: Article

Resumen

This study examined the reliability and validity of three methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. Twenty-six men (22 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental loading test until reaching their 1RM, followed by a set of repetitions-to-failure. Eighteen participants were re-tested to conduct the reliability analysis. The 1RM was estimated through the lifts-to-failure equations proposed by Lombardi and O’Connor, general load-velocity (L-V) relationships proposed by Sánchez-Medina and Loturco and the individual L-V relationships modelled using four (multiple-point method) or only two loads (two-point method). The direct method provided the highest reliability (coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.45% and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97), followed by the Lombardi’s equation (CV = 3.44% and ICC = 0.94), and no meaningful differences were observed between the remaining methods (CV range = 4.95–6.89% and ICC range = 0.81–0.91). The lifts-to-failure equations overestimated the 1RM (3.43–4.08%), the general L-V relationship proposed by Sánchez-Medina underestimated the 1RM (−3.77%), and no significant differences were observed for the remaining prediction methods (−0.40–0.86%). The individual L-V relationship could be recommended as the most accurate method for predicting the 1RM during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.

Idioma originalEnglish
PublicaciónJournal of Sports Sciences
DOI
EstadoPublished - 1 ene 2019

Huella dactilar

Reproducibility of Results
Exercise
Weights and Measures

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Citar esto

García-Ramos, Amador ; Barboza-González, Paola ; Ulloa-Díaz, David ; Rodriguez-Perea, Angela ; Martinez-Garcia, Darío ; Guede-Rojas, Francisco ; Hinojosa-Riveros, Hans ; Chirosa-Ríos, Luis Javier ; Cuevas-Aburto, Jesualdo ; Janicijevic, Danica ; Weakley, Jonathon. / Reliability and validity of different methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. En: Journal of Sports Sciences. 2019.
@article{dbfe249ef84a4cb2bff009a98bfdfa97,
title = "Reliability and validity of different methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise",
abstract = "This study examined the reliability and validity of three methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. Twenty-six men (22 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental loading test until reaching their 1RM, followed by a set of repetitions-to-failure. Eighteen participants were re-tested to conduct the reliability analysis. The 1RM was estimated through the lifts-to-failure equations proposed by Lombardi and O’Connor, general load-velocity (L-V) relationships proposed by S{\'a}nchez-Medina and Loturco and the individual L-V relationships modelled using four (multiple-point method) or only two loads (two-point method). The direct method provided the highest reliability (coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.45{\%} and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97), followed by the Lombardi’s equation (CV = 3.44{\%} and ICC = 0.94), and no meaningful differences were observed between the remaining methods (CV range = 4.95–6.89{\%} and ICC range = 0.81–0.91). The lifts-to-failure equations overestimated the 1RM (3.43–4.08{\%}), the general L-V relationship proposed by S{\'a}nchez-Medina underestimated the 1RM (−3.77{\%}), and no significant differences were observed for the remaining prediction methods (−0.40–0.86{\%}). The individual L-V relationship could be recommended as the most accurate method for predicting the 1RM during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.",
keywords = "Lift-to-failure equations, linear position transducer, load-velocity relationship, resistance training, velocity-based training",
author = "Amador Garc{\'i}a-Ramos and Paola Barboza-Gonz{\'a}lez and David Ulloa-D{\'i}az and Angela Rodriguez-Perea and Dar{\'i}o Martinez-Garcia and Francisco Guede-Rojas and Hans Hinojosa-Riveros and Chirosa-R{\'i}os, {Luis Javier} and Jesualdo Cuevas-Aburto and Danica Janicijevic and Jonathon Weakley",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/02640414.2019.1626071",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Sports Sciences",
issn = "0264-0414",
publisher = "Routledge",

}

García-Ramos, A, Barboza-González, P, Ulloa-Díaz, D, Rodriguez-Perea, A, Martinez-Garcia, D, Guede-Rojas, F, Hinojosa-Riveros, H, Chirosa-Ríos, LJ, Cuevas-Aburto, J, Janicijevic, D & Weakley, J 2019, 'Reliability and validity of different methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise', Journal of Sports Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1626071

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; Rodriguez-Perea, Angela; Martinez-Garcia, Darío; Guede-Rojas, Francisco; Hinojosa-Riveros, Hans; Chirosa-Ríos, Luis Javier; Cuevas-Aburto, Jesualdo; Janicijevic, Danica; Weakley, Jonathon.

En: Journal of Sports Sciences, 01.01.2019.

Resultado de la investigación: Article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reliability and validity of different methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise

AU - García-Ramos, Amador

AU - Barboza-González, Paola

AU - Ulloa-Díaz, David

AU - Rodriguez-Perea, Angela

AU - Martinez-Garcia, Darío

AU - Guede-Rojas, Francisco

AU - Hinojosa-Riveros, Hans

AU - Chirosa-Ríos, Luis Javier

AU - Cuevas-Aburto, Jesualdo

AU - Janicijevic, Danica

AU - Weakley, Jonathon

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - This study examined the reliability and validity of three methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. Twenty-six men (22 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental loading test until reaching their 1RM, followed by a set of repetitions-to-failure. Eighteen participants were re-tested to conduct the reliability analysis. The 1RM was estimated through the lifts-to-failure equations proposed by Lombardi and O’Connor, general load-velocity (L-V) relationships proposed by Sánchez-Medina and Loturco and the individual L-V relationships modelled using four (multiple-point method) or only two loads (two-point method). The direct method provided the highest reliability (coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.45% and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97), followed by the Lombardi’s equation (CV = 3.44% and ICC = 0.94), and no meaningful differences were observed between the remaining methods (CV range = 4.95–6.89% and ICC range = 0.81–0.91). The lifts-to-failure equations overestimated the 1RM (3.43–4.08%), the general L-V relationship proposed by Sánchez-Medina underestimated the 1RM (−3.77%), and no significant differences were observed for the remaining prediction methods (−0.40–0.86%). The individual L-V relationship could be recommended as the most accurate method for predicting the 1RM during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.

AB - This study examined the reliability and validity of three methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. Twenty-six men (22 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental loading test until reaching their 1RM, followed by a set of repetitions-to-failure. Eighteen participants were re-tested to conduct the reliability analysis. The 1RM was estimated through the lifts-to-failure equations proposed by Lombardi and O’Connor, general load-velocity (L-V) relationships proposed by Sánchez-Medina and Loturco and the individual L-V relationships modelled using four (multiple-point method) or only two loads (two-point method). The direct method provided the highest reliability (coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.45% and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97), followed by the Lombardi’s equation (CV = 3.44% and ICC = 0.94), and no meaningful differences were observed between the remaining methods (CV range = 4.95–6.89% and ICC range = 0.81–0.91). The lifts-to-failure equations overestimated the 1RM (3.43–4.08%), the general L-V relationship proposed by Sánchez-Medina underestimated the 1RM (−3.77%), and no significant differences were observed for the remaining prediction methods (−0.40–0.86%). The individual L-V relationship could be recommended as the most accurate method for predicting the 1RM during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.

KW - Lift-to-failure equations

KW - linear position transducer

KW - load-velocity relationship

KW - resistance training

KW - velocity-based training

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067080582&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/02640414.2019.1626071

DO - 10.1080/02640414.2019.1626071

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of Sports Sciences

JF - Journal of Sports Sciences

SN - 0264-0414

ER -