ArticlePDF Available

Prediction of one repetition maximum (1-RM) strength from a 4-6 RM and a 7-10 RM submaximal strength test in healthy young adult males

Authors:

Abstract

2002;5(3):54-59. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if 1-RM strength could be predicted from a 4-6 RM submaximal strength test with a greater accuracy than the commonly used 7-10 submaximal strength test. Thirty-four healthy males between the ages of 19 and 32 participated in this study. Subjects completed 1-RM, 4-6 RM, and 7-10 RM strength assessments in random order with a minimum of 48 hours between each strength assessment. During each session, subjects performed strength assessments for the bench press, incline press, triceps extension, biceps curl, and leg extension. Multiple regression analysis was used to produce equations for predicting 1-RM strength from 4 to 6 or 7 to 10 repetition maximum tests. The 4-6 RM prediction equations improved the predictive accuracy of 1-RM strength compared to the 7-10 RM prediction equations based on the adjusted R 2 and standard error of estimate. Since no injuries or symptoms of delayed onset of muscle soreness were reported during either the 7-10 RM or the 4-6 RM submaximal strength assessments, the results of this study indicate that when attempting to predict 1-RM strength in healthy, young, males, a 4-6 RM submaximal strength assessment appears to be the more accurate test.
1 RM Strength Prediction
54
JEPonline
Journal of Exercise Physiologyonline
Official Journal of The American
Society of Exercise Physiologists (ASEP)
ISSN 1097-9751
An International Electronic Journal
Volume 5 Number 3 August 2002
Exercise Testing
PREDICTION OF ONE REPETITION MAXIMUM (1-RM) STRENGTH FROM A 4-6 RM
AND A 7-10 RM SUBMAXIMAL STRENGTH TEST IN HEALTHY YOUNG ADULT
MALES
PAULA DOHONEY, JOSEPH A. CHROMIAK, DEREK LEMIRE, BEN R. ABADIE AND CHRISTOPHER
KOVACS
Department of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Sport, Mississippi State University
ABSTRACT
PREDICTION OF ONE REPETITION MAXIMUM (1-RM) STRENGTH FROM A 4-6 RM AND A 7-10
RM SUBMAXIMAL STRENGTH TEST IN HEALTHY YOUNG ADULT MALES. Paula Dohoney, Joseph
A. Chromiak, Derek Lemire, Ben R. Abadie AND Christopher Kovacs. JEPonline. 2002;5(3):54-59. The
purpose of this investigation was to determine if 1-RM strength could be predicted from a 4-6 RM submaximal
strength test with a greater accuracy than the commonly used 7-10 submaximal strength test. Thirty-four healthy
males between the ages of 19 and 32 participated in this study. Subjects completed 1-RM, 4-6 RM, and 7-10 RM
strength assessments in random order with a minimum of 48 hours between each strength assessment. During
each session, subjects performed strength assessments for the bench press, incline press, triceps extension, biceps
curl, and leg extension. Multiple regression analysis was used to produce equations for predicting 1-RM strength
from 4 to 6 or 7 to 10 repetition maximum tests. The 4-6 RM prediction equations improved the predictive
accuracy of 1-RM strength compared to the 7-10 RM prediction equations based on the adjusted R
2
and
standard error of estimate. Since no injuries or symptoms of delayed onset of muscle soreness were reported
during either the 7-10 RM or the 4-6 RM submaximal strength assessments, the results of this study indicate that
when attempting to predict 1-RM strength in healthy, young, males, a 4-6 RM submaximal strength assessment
appears to be the more accurate test.
Key Words: One repetition maximum (1-RM), Strength prediction, Submaximal strength.
INTRODUCTION
Weight training is recommended by allied health professionals to enhance physical fitness and overall health (1).
However, the methods for testing strength have become increasingly more sophisticated (2). Many studies have
been conducted to produce regression equations for predicting 1-RM strength, while other studies have been
undertaken to determine the accuracy of such equations. Several studies have extended research in this area by
further investigating such aspects as: (a) the predictive accuracy of regression equations with untrained and
1 RM Strength Prediction
55
technique-trained subjects (3,4,5,6), (b) differences in various groups of male subjects (7), (c) differences in male
and female performance (8,9,10), (d) the relationship between performances using different types of resistance
training equipment and types of strength exercises (11,12), and (e) the validity of repetitions -to-fatigue
equations for older adults (13,14,15).
In order to prescribe weight-training programs for a novice weight lifters, an exercise specialist typically
determines an individual's maximum lifting capacity. This weight is the maximal amount of weight that can be
lifted only one time, and is referred to as the one-repetition maximum (1-RM). Since muscular strength varies
depending on the muscle groups involved and the type of lift employed (e.g., bench press, biceps curl), maximal
lifting capacity must be assessed for each prescribed exercise. It has been suggested that novice lifters not
perform a 1-RM strength assessment, because lifting maximal weight by individuals not accustomed to weight
training may induce muscle soreness and increase the risk of more serious muscular injury (6).
In order to minimize the risk of strength assessment, regression equations have been developed to predict 1-RM
strength for larger muscle mass exercises for male subjects (16). Prediction of 1-RM strength allows an exercise
specialist to assess an individual's maximal lifting capacity without subjecting the novice lifter to the increased
risk associated with a 1-RM lift. The majority of studies that have reported prediction equations for 1-RM
strength used a 7-10 RM submaximal strength test (4,6,13). The purpose of this investigation was to determine
whether 1-RM strength could be predicted from 4-6 RM submaximal strength tests for both large and small
muscle mass exercises with greater accuracy than the commonly used 7-10 RM submaximal strength test.
METHODS
Subjects
Thirty-four healthy males between the ages of 19 and 32 years, who had not participated in strength training
within the last year, volunteered to participate in this study. Methods and procedures for the study were
approved by the institution and informed consent was obtained from participants. Subjects were instructed to
refrain from participating in strenuous activity for 24 hours prior to each testing session and to avoid alcohol,
caffeine, smoking and the consumption of large meals for at least three hours prior to testing.
Study Design
Body composition analysis included calculating percentage of body fat from the sum of three skinfold measures
(16). The sum of three skinfold measures was used to calculate body density, which was used to calculate
percent body fat using the Siri equation (17).
Subjects completed 1-RM, 4-6 RM, and 7-10 RM strength assessments in random order with a minimum of 48
hours between strength assessments. During each session, subjects performed strength assessments for the bench
press, incline press (28° incline), leg extension, biceps curl, and triceps extension in random order. While being
assessed for bench press and incline press strength, subjects lifted a free weight Olympic bar with weighted
plates. During the bench press and incline press assessments, subjects laid with their back flat on the bench and
their feet in full contact with the floor throughout the lift. Subjects grasped the bar with a thumb-lock grip at a
position slightly greater than shoulder width. Trained spotters assisted the subjects in lifting the bar from the
support rack, and the subject lowered the bar to the chest and returned the bar to full arm extension.
Strength of the leg extensors was assessed using a Cybex
®
leg extension machine. Subjects were seated with the
resistance bar positioned on a plane with the superior surface of the medial malleolus. Subjects lifted the weight
to near full extension of the knee. Biceps curl strength was assessed on a Paramount
®
preacher biceps curl
machine. Subjects sat in the preacher curl machine with the seat adjusted in order to position the upper arm to a
28° angle of elbow flexion. The triceps were flat on the curling pad and subjects' feet maintained full contact with
the floor throughout the lifts. Subjects lifted a 22.5 kg free weight bar with additional weight plates using a
1 RM Strength Prediction
56
supine grip at shoulder width. Spotters assisted the subjects in lifting the bar to the proper starting position.
Subjects curled the bar to 90° of elbow flexion. Triceps extension strength was assessed on a Body Master
®
triceps extension press machine. Subjects stood against a backrest. A spotter moved the bar in order to position
the resistance bar at 90° of elbow flexion. Subjects used an overhand grip and attempted to extend their arms
until near full extension of the elbow was achieved. During all submaximal strength assessments, if subjects
could lift the weight greater than the desired number of repetitions indicated by the test protocol, subjects rested
for 5 to10 minutes and repeated the lift with additional weight.
Forty-eight hours following the completion of each strength test, subjects were asked the following questions:
(1) Did the strength assessment limit your ability to exercise within the last 48 hours?, and (2) Did you
experience noticeable muscle soreness within 48 hours of the strength assessment? These questions were asked in
order to determine the extent of any muscle injury and the onset of any delayed muscle soreness resulting from
the strength assessment.
Statistical Analyses
Stepwise multiple regression analysis was used to generate ten regression equations for predicting 1-RM strength
from the 4-6 RM and 7-10 RM submaximal strength tests. Four variables (weight lifted during the submaximal
strength test, the number of repetitions completed, the subject’s body weight, and the subject’s body
composition) were initially entered into the stepwise regression equation. The variables selected to predict 1-RM
for the exercises from both the 4-6 RM and 7-10 RM submaximal strength tests were the weight lifted during the
submaximal strength test and the number of repetitions completed. The degree of relationship between each
regression equation for predicting 1-RM strength from either 4-6 RM or 7-10 RM submaximal strength tests and
the actual 1-RM was determined using the correlation coefficient (r) and adjusted R
2
. The adjusted R
2
value
equals the explained variance between the correlated values. The standard error of estimate (SEE), between the
measured and predicted 1-RM for each exercise, was used as a measurement of accuracy of the prediction
equation. The SEE was calculated as Sy/1-R
2
, where Sy is the standard deviation of the measured value.
RESULTS
The anthropometric characteristics of the subject population are presented in
Table 1. The regression equations for predicting 1-RM from 4-6 and 7-10-
RM tests are presented in Table 2. The corresponding correlation
coefficients (r) between predicted and measured 1-RM strength, the
adjusted R
2
, standard error of estimate (SEE), and SEE as a percentage of
the actual 1-RM are also reported in Table 2.
For each exercise, the prediction equation based on a 4-6 RM set was a better predictor of 1-RM strength than
the prediction equation based on a 7-10 RM set. For each exercise, the correlation between the predicted and
actual 1-RM, the standard error of estimate, and the adjusted R
2
were improved when predicting 1-RM from a 4-
6 RM set compared with a 7-10 RM set.
No subjects reported that either the 4-6 RM submaximal strength assessment or the 7-10 RM submaximal
strength assessment limited their ability to exercise or caused noticeable muscle soreness. Six (17.5%) subjects
reported that the 1-RM strength assessment limited their ability to exercise. Twenty-one (61.2%) subjects
indicated that the 1-RM strength assessment created noticeable muscle soreness. If a subject reported that their
ability to exercise was limited, or they experienced noticeable muscle soreness, the next strength test was
postponed for an additional 48 hours. All of the subjects were able to participate in the strength assessment after
the 48 hour postponement.
Table 1. Anthropometric
measurements for the sample
population (n=34).
Variable
Mean±±SD
Age (yr)
23.2±3.2
Height (cm)
181.5±5.7
Weight (kg)
84.1±11.5
Body Fat (%)
15.2
±
1.7
1 RM Strength Prediction
57
Table 2. Regression equations for predicting 1-RM from 4-6 and 7-10-RM tests.
Resistance Exercise Prediction Equations for
4-6 RM tests
r Adjusted R
2
SEE SEE/1-RM (%)
Bench Press
-24.62 + (1.12 x Wt) + (5.09 x reps) 0.97 0.93 11.0 5.6
Inclined Press
-9.85 + (1.02 x Wt) + (5.70 x reps) 0.96 0.90 11.9 6.9
Triceps Extension
6.74 + (0.99 x Wt) + (1.61 x reps) 0.93 0.86 6.4 6.0
Biceps Curl
19.97 + (0.81 x Wt) + (2.31 x reps) 0.89 0.78 6.4 6.3
Leg Extension
82.07 + (0.76 x Wt) + (5.66 x reps) 0.82 0.66 26.3 8.4
Resistance Exercise Prediction Equations for
7-10 RM tests
r Adjusted R
2
SEE SEE/1-RM (%)
Bench Press
-1.89 + (1.16 x Wt) + (1.68 x reps) 0.95 0.91 13.5 6.9
Inclined Press
12.14 + (1.16 x Wt) + (0.10 x reps) 0.93 0.86 14.3 8.3
Triceps Extension
-9.76 + (1.02 x Wt) + (3.56 x reps) 0.91 0.82 7.2 6.9
Biceps Curl
23.90 + (0.77 x Wt) + (2.16 x reps) 0.84 0.68 7.7 7.6
Leg Extension
95.00 + (0.65 x Wt) + (8.52 x reps) 0.76 0.56 30.1 9.7
DISCUSSION
Many strength prediction equations have been published including generalized equations and exercise specific
equations (4,7,12). This paper presents strength prediction equations for five strength training exercises with two
different repetition ranges.
For each strength-training exercise, the prediction equation based on a 4-6 RM set was a better predictor of 1-
RM strength than the prediction equation based on a 7-10 RM set. The results of this study suggest that the
predictive accuracy of the prediction equations is greatest for the upper body exercises, such as the bench press
and incline press, compared to lower body exercises, such as the leg extension. Because this study utilized only
one lower body test, this outcome may not be true of all lower body exercises. The correlation coefficients were
lowest and standard error of estimate greatest for the leg extension strength prediction equations compared with
the other four prediction equations in both the 4-6 RM and 7-10 RM sets.
These prediction equations were developed for use on non-strength trained individuals. Studies have revealed
that prediction equations are not applicable to strength-trained individuals (6,18) and that proper lifting technique
does not necessarily alter maximal and submaximal lifting performance (4). Prediction equations are specific to
the training status of the individuals and resistance training has been found to alter the relationship between
maximal and submaximal strength (6). However, prediction equations will tend to be most accurate for those
individuals who are closest to the mean for the group. For individuals who are capable of lifting heavy weights,
the prediction equations will tend to under-predict their 1-RM strength. Typically, a strength-trained individual
can complete more repetitions with any given percentage of their 1-RM than an individual who is not strength-
trained (19).
Conclusion
This study sought to determine whether 1-RM strength could be predicted from 4-6 RM submaximal strength
tests for large and small muscle mass exercises with greater accuracy than the commonly used 7-10 RM
1 RM Strength Prediction
58
submaximal strength test. The 4-6 RM submaximal strength test improved the predictive accuracy of 1-RM
strength compared to the 7-10 RM submaximal strength assessment in each of the five assessments of 1-RM
strength. Since no injuries or symptoms of delayed onset of muscle soreness were reported during either the 7-
10 RM or the 4-6 RM submaximal strength assessment, the results of this study indicate that when attempting to
predict 1-RM strength in untrained male subjects with similar characteristics, a 4-6 RM submaximal strength
assessment appears to be a more valid and effective test.
Further research could determine the validity of such prediction equations for male subjects with different
characteristic means (age, height, weight, % body fat), female subjects, adolescents, the elderly, and other subject
groups. The use of such prediction equations to determine 1-RM has practical value for allied health
professionals in assessing and prescribing strength training programs.
Address for correspondence: Paula Dohoney, Department of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and
Sport, Mississippi State University, P.O. Box 6186, Mississippi State, MS 39762-6186; Phone: (662) 325-7234;
FAX: (662) 325-4525; Email: pdohoney@colled.msstate.edu
REFERENCES
1. American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). ACSM’s Guidelines for exercise testing and prescription,
Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000.
2. Brzycki, M. Strength testing-Predicting a one-rep max from reps-to-fatigue. JOPERD 1993; 68:88-90.
3. Brown, A., Abadie, B., O'Nan, D., & Lamberth, J. Prediction of maximal muscular strength of untrained
college males by utilizing submaximal strength tests. RQES 1994; A 32.
4. Abadie, B., Altorfer, G., & Schuler, P. Does a regression equation to predict maximal strength in untrained
lifters remain valid when the subjects are technique trained? J Strength Cond Res 1999; 13: 259-263.
5. Mayhew, J., Ball, T., & Bowen, J. Prediction of bench press lifting ability from submaximal repetitions before
and after training. Sports Med., Training and Rehab 1992; 3: 195-201.
6. Braith, R., Graves, J., Leggett, S., & Pollock, M. Effect of training on the relationship between maximal and
submaximal strength. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993; 25:132-138.
7. Mayhew, J., Prinster, J., Ware, J., Zimmer, D., Arabas, J., & Bemben, M. Muscular endurance repetitions to
predict bench press strength in men of different training levels. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1995; 35: 108-113.
8. Rose, K., & Ball, T. A field test for predicting maximum bench press lift of college women. J Appl Sport Sci
Res 1992; 6:103-106.
9. Kuramoto, A. K., & Payne, G. V. Predicting muscular strength in women: A preliminary study. RQES 1995;
6:168-172.
10. Mayhew, J., Ball, T., Arnold, M., & Bowen, J. Relative muscular endurance performance as a predictor of
bench press strength in college men and women. J Appl Sport Sci Res 1992; 6: 200-206.
11. Simpson, S., Rozenek, R., Garhammer, J., Lacourse, M., & Storer, T. Comparison of one repetition
maximums between free weight and universal machine exercises. J Strength Cond Res 1997; 11: 103-106
12. LeSuer, D., McCormick, J., Mayhew, J., Wasserstein, R., & Arnold, M. The accuracy of prediction
equations for estimating 1-RM performance in the bench press, squat, and deadlift. J Strength Cond Res 1997;
11: 211-213.
13. Knutzen, K., Brilla, L., & Caine, D. Validity of 1RM prediction equations for older adults. J Strength Cond
Res 1999; 13: 242-246.
14. Brown, C., Abadie, B., Boling, R., O'Nan, D. Cross validation of an existing regression equation to predict
one repetition maximum (1-RM) strength. RQES 1994; A-32.
15. Fish, E., Carroll, J. F., Brown, C. J., Boling, R., & Abadie, B. R. Prediction of 1-RM leg press strength from
1 RM Strength Prediction
59
a 7-10 RM strength test in elderly men. Med Sci SportsExerc 1993; 26: S5189.
16. Baumgartner, T. A., & Jackson, A. S. Measurement for evaluation in physical education. Dubuque, IA:
Wm. C. Brown, 1982.
17. Siri, W. Body composition from fluid space and density. In Techniques for Measuring Body Composition.
J. Brozek and A. Hanscle, eds. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science, 1961, pp. 23-224.
18. Becque, M. & Pick, J. Validity of predicting 1RM and % 1RM in weight-trained and untrained males. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 1995; 27:S210.
19. Heoger, W., Hopkins, D., Barette, S., & Hale, D. Relationship between repetitions and selected percentages
of one repetition maximum: A comparison between untrained and trained males and females. J Appl Sport Sci
Res 1990; 4:47-54.
... MetS z-score was based on WC, mean arterial blood pressure (MAB), serum concentrations of fasting serum glucose (GLU), triglycerides (TG), and HDL-C and calculated according to the following sex-specific (males = M, females = F) equations [44] 1RM of the major muscle groups (abdominals, lower back, upper back, chest, and legs) was estimated baseline, at week 5, week 9, and post-intervention through submaximal tests, based on the performance of multiple repetitions. Compared to the common 1RM test (i.e., the maximum weight an individual can lift for one repetition), which is considered the gold standard for assessing maximum strength in athletes and trained individuals [45], multiple repetition tests involve less risk to induce injuries of the musculoskeletal system and are therefore recommended for previously untrained individuals [46][47][48]. After a brief warm-up, initial instructions, and familiarization with the test procedures, participants performed 1RM tests on the following five devices in a standardized order: Chest press, lat pulldown machine, lower back machine, abdominal crunch, and leg press (TechnoGym, Neu-Isenburg, Germany). ...
... Subsequently, participants were instructed to perform as many repetitions as possible with the given load until concentric movement failure. The number of repetitions was not supposed to exceed six repetitions, which has been shown to be an appropriate number to accurately predict 1RM [46]. If the repetition number was more than six, the load was increased and a new attempt was performed after 3 min of rest. ...
Article
Full-text available
Caloric restriction (CR) and exercise are cornerstones in the treatment of obesity and cardiometabolic disorders. Recently, whole body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) has emerged as a more time-efficient alternative to traditional resistance training (RT). However, the effects of WB-EMS compared to RT on cardiometabolic health in obese metabolic syndrome (MetS) patients performed during CR are still unclear. In total, 118 obese MetS patients (52.7 ± 11.8 years, BMI: 38.1 ± 6.9 kg/m2) undergoing CR over 12 weeks (aim: −500 kcal deficit/day) were randomly allocated to either WB-EMS, single-set RT (1-RT), 3-set RT (3-RT) or an inactive control group (CON). Primary outcome was MetS severity (MetS z-score). Secondary outcomes were body composition, muscle strength and quality of life (QoL). All groups significantly reduced body weight (~3%) and fat mass (~2.6 kg) but only 1-RT and 3-RT preserved skeletal muscle mass (SMM). All exercise groups increased muscle strength in major muscle groups (20–103%). However, only the two RT-groups improved MetS z-score (1-RT: −1.34, p = 0.003; 3-RT: −2.06, p < 0.001) and QoL (1-RT: +6%, p = 0.027; 3-RT: +12%, p < 0.001), while WB-EMS and CON had no impact on these outcomes. We conclude that traditional RT has superior effects on cardiometabolic health, SMM and QoL in obese MetS patients undergoing CR than WB-EMS.
... Two-to-five days after the incremental exhaustive exercise test, participants returned to the Carnegie Research Institute to complete a four-repetition maximum (4-RM) test (Dohoney et al., 2002) for the squat and bench press exercises. A short warm-up period preceded the test, consisting of 5-minutes of cycling on a cycle ergometer at a self-selected intensity followed by 15-20 repetitions of each exercise using a low load of 20kg. ...
... 1-RM (kg) = -24.62 + (1.12 x load(kg)) + 5.09 x 4) (Dohoney et al., 2002) Exercise Trials Day One. ...
Article
Ageing is associated with reductions in appetite and food intake leading to unintentional weight loss. Such weight loss, particularly through muscle mass reduction, is associated with muscle weakness and functional decline, which represent predictors of poor health outcomes and contribute to frailty in older adults. Exercise-induced anorexia is an established phenomenon in young adults; however appetite and energy intake (EI) responses to resistance exercise are unknown in older adults. Twenty healthy older adults (68 ± 5 years, BMI 26.2 ± 4.5 kg.m-2) undertook two 5-hour experimental trials. Participants rested for 30 minutes before being provided with a standardised breakfast (196 kcal, 75.2% carbohydrate, 8.9% protein and 15.9% fat). Participants then rested for 1-hour before completing: 1-hour resistance exercise bout followed by 2-hour of rest (RE) or, a control condition (CON) where participants rested for 3 hours, in a randomised crossover design. Appetite perceptions were measured throughout both trials and on cessation, an ad libitum meal was provided to assess EI. A repeated-mesures ANOVA revealed no significant condition x time interaction for subjective appetite (p = 0.153). However, area under the curve for appetite was significantly lower in the RE compared with CON (49 ± 8mm•hour-1 vs. 52 ± 9mm•hour-1, p = 0.007, d = 0.27). There was no difference in EI (RE = 681 ± 246 kcal; CON = 673 ± 235 kcal; p = 0.865), suggesting that resistance exercise does not affect EI 2 hours post-exercise in older adults despite a significant but modest reduction in appetite over a 5-h period. In conclusion, resistance exercise may be an appropriate means for optimising muscle mass adaptations without attenuating acute EI of older adults.
... Different liftsto-failure-based prediction equations are available from scientific literature. 5 Although the reliability of these equations has been proved by different authors 6,7 and no sophisticated equipment is required, their dependency on exercise typology, age, sex and training level, number, and cadence of performed repetitions has also been put into question, 8 as well as performing repetitions until muscular failure may induce excessive fatigue. 9 More recently, measuring the concentric movement velocity to create load-velocity or force-velocity performance profiles to calculate 1RM indirectly using submaximal loads or to quantify fatigue has gained great interest in research and practice. ...
Article
Many sports and recreational strength training coaches consider movement velocity essential to improve performance, and velocity-based training has gained attention over the past decade. Furthermore, there is a lack of low-cost, easy to use, and reliable methods to measure movement velocity. Therefore, this current research aims to analyze the validity and reliability of a new linear position transducer device (ADR) for the measurement of barbell mean propulsive velocity. Seventeen trained participants (n = 14 men; n = 3 women; 21.264.0 years) performed an incremental bench press exercise test against five different loads (45%, 55%, 65%, 75%, and 85% 1RM) at maximal concentric velocity. Barbell displacement was derived simultaneously from three devices including: a linear velocity transducer (T-Force, criterion measurement) and two linear position transducers (ADR and Speed4lifts (S4L)). The ADR mean propulsive velocity measurements demonstrated substantial validity compared to both T-Force and S4L at all loads (between the r values and p values r = .86–.99 p \ 0.001). The ADR device was reliable showing very high Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC (95% CI): 0.95 (0.90–0.98), 0.96 (0.91–0.98), 0.75 (0.55–0.88), 0.91 (0.83–0.93), 0.85 (0.72–0.93) for 45%, 55%, 65%, 75%, and 85% 1RM, respectively); low coefficients of variation (CV (95% CI): 9.93 (7.93–11.93, 11.25 (9.25–13.25), 6.78 (4.78–8.78), 10.95 (8.95–12.95), 14.40 (12.40–16.40) for 45%, 55%, 65%, 75%, and 85% 1RM, respectively), and small standardized typical error values (STE = 0.2–0.6). In conclusion, the ADR device can be considered an affordable, reliable, and valid method to measure movement velocity, thereby making it a practical resource for coaches when assessing velocity-based training at gyms.
... At each device, patients were asked to lift the applied weight load as often as possible until muscle failure. It has been suggested that the repetition number should not exceed six in order to be able to make accurate onerepetition maximum predictions [54]. Thus, in case that more than six repetitions were managed, the weight load was raised and a new a test was executed after a recovery period of 3 min. ...
Article
Full-text available
Exercise is a cornerstone in metabolic syndrome (MetS) treatment. However, the effects of low-volume exercise modalities on MetS-associated low-grade inflammation are unclear. A total of 106 MetS patients (53.7 ± 11.4 years) were randomized to low-volume high-intensity interval training (LOW-HIIT, 14 min/session), single-set resistance training (1-RT, ~15 min/session), whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS, 20 min/session), three-set resistance training (3-RT, ~50 min/session), each performed 2 ×/week for 12 weeks, or a control group (CON). All groups received nutritional counseling for weight loss. Inflammatory and cardiometabolic indices were analyzed pre- and post-intervention. All groups significantly reduced body weight by an average of 3.6%. Only LOW-HIIT reduced C-reactive protein (CRP) (−1.6 mg/L, p = 0.001) and interleukin-6 (−1.1 pg/mL, p = 0.020). High-sensitivity CRP and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein decreased following LOW-HIIT (−1.4 mg/L, p = 0.001 and −2.1 ng/mL, p = 0.004) and 3-RT (−0.6 mg/L, p = 0.044 and −2.0 ng/mL, p < 0.001). MetS severity score improved with LOW-HIIT (−1.8 units, p < 0.001), 1-RT (−1.6 units, p = 0.005), and 3-RT (−2.3 units, p < 0.001). Despite similar effects on body weight, low-volume exercise modalities have different impact on inflammatory and cardiometabolic outcomes in MetS patients. LOW-HIIT has superior efficacy for improving inflammation compared to 1-RT and WB-EMS. Resistance-based exercise appears to require a higher volume to promote beneficial impact on inflammation.
... Six repetition maximum (6RM) tests were conducted to estimate maximum isotonic force generating capacity of the plantarflexors, knee extensors and knee flexors. 6RM is a reliable strength assessment that was assessed instead of 1RM because it is safer among clinical populations (Dohoney, Chromiak, Lemire, Abadie, & Kovacs, 2002). ...
Article
Objectives To confirm what impairments are present in runners with Achilles tendinopathy (AT) and explore the variance of AT severity in an adequately powered study. Design Case-control study. Setting Two private physiotherapy clinics in Australia and Spain. Participants Forty-four recreational male runners with AT and 44 healthy controls matched by age, height, and weight. Main outcome measures Demographics, activity (IPAQ-SF), pain and function (VISA-A), pain during hopping (Hop pain VAS), hopping duration, psychological factors (TSK-11, PASS20), and physical tests regarding lower-limb maximal strength and endurance. Results Body mass index (BMI), activity, VISA-A, pain, and duration of hopping, TSK-11, PASS20, standing heel raise to failure, seated heel raise and leg extension 6RM, hip extension and abduction isometric torque were significantly different between groups (P < 0.05) with varied effect sizes (V = 0.22, d range = 0.05–4.18). 46% of AT severity variance was explained by higher BMI (β = −0.41; p = 0.001), weaker leg curl 6RM (β = 0.32; p = 0.009), and higher pain during hopping (β = −0.43; p = 0.001). Conclusion Runners with AT had lower activity levels, lower soleus strength, and were less tall. BMI, pain during hopping, and leg curl strength explained condition severity. This information, identified with clinically applicable tools, may guide clinical assessment, and inform intervention development.
... These are the greatest constraints for the testing protocol frequency and application to every exercise planned for training [29][30][31]. Therefore, the power of the interactions between maximum weight lifting capacity with body composition parameters (i.e., body mass, fat-free body mass, regional body area and volume, girth, and width) would provide confident references for 1RM measurements, controlling muscle strength improvements, and organizing or revising the overload during the training in accordance with the previous target weight and exercise volume [7,9,10,20,[32][33][34]. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study aimed to analyze whether the relationship between regional and whole-body fat-free mass (FFM) and strength is related to FFM distribution and area according to limb involvement. Thirty well-trained male young adults underwent one-repetition maximum test (1RM) to assess the strength in arm curl (AC), bench press (BP), seated row (SR), leg press 45° (LP45), knee extension (KE), and leg curl (LC). Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was used to evaluate FFM. The values for 1RM in AC, BP, and R correlated to FFM in upper limb (R 2 = 0.69, 0.84 and 0.75), without an effect of appendicular mass index (API) or area. For 1RM in KE, the correlation with FFM in lower limb increased with thigh area (R 2 = 0.56), whereas 1RM in LC and LP45° correlation to whole-body FFM increased with API (R 2 = 0.64 and 0.49). The upper limb's FFM may be reliable for indexing the arms and upper trunk strengths, whereas the relationships between FFM and strength in lower limb improve as muscle mass and thigh area increases between subjects.
... It is often contended that it is unsafe for vulnerable individuals, especially compared with other tests. 27,29,30 As a result, 1-RM can be used regularly as a reliable assessment of strength in healthy athletes rather than as a rehabilitation tool. In case of injury, 1-RM of recovering athletes can be compared to baseline to assess if return to preinjury level has been achieved. ...
Article
Full-text available
Strength and power constitute vital predictors for an individual’s quality of life and athletic performance. Measurement of these two parameters is very important in the world of sports science and medicine and necessitates a high level of accuracy and reliability. Several tests are used to measure strength and power, including the isometric maximal voluntary contraction test, the 1-repetition maximum test, and the Wingate test, as well as other tests that target upper and lower limbs. The unique characteristics present in each of these tests entail a subsequently unique mode of application during the process of rehabilitation. This helps athletic trainers and medical personnel evaluate recovery and decide on a potential return to sport. A comprehensive holistic approach that includes multiple testing, psychosocial assessment, and a gradual return to activity is best to achieve promising outcomes and preinjury athletic levels. Level of Evidence V, expert opinion
... Participants rested for 5 minutes between sets. The 1-RM was estimated using previous recommendations if the volunteer could perform more than one repetition in the fourth set [14]. During FVCRT, the investigator increased the load by 2-5 % if the volunteer could ≥ 2 more repetitions than the predetermined number, but always with the consideration of having 2 repetitions in reserve. ...
Article
This study aimed to analyze the benefits of a lower-limb fast-velocity concentric resistance training on rate of force development, mobility, and quality of life in people with Multiple Sclerosis. A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 30 people with Multiple Sclerosis, who were randomly assigned to either an experimental (n=18) or a control (n=12) group. The experimental group carried out 10-weeks of fast-velocity concentric resistance training, while the control group did not perform any intervention. Early and late rate of force development during knee extension in both legs, sit-to-stand and Timed Up and Go tests and quality life questionnaire were evaluated before and after intervention. The training program evoked an increase in early rate of force development in experimental group (0-30; Rightleg: 63.9%, p<0.001;ES=-1.4; Leftleg: 52.7%, p<0.001;ES=-1.0) compared to control group (showed modest increases). Furthermore, experimental group improved mobility after training (Sit-to-stand: 22.2%, p<0.001;ES=1.0; Timed Up and Go Test: 10.1%, p<0.001;ES=1.1) and increased the perception of quality of life after training, while control showed no changes. The fast-velocity concentric resistance training has the potential to improve early rate of force development and mobility after 10-weeks of training. In addition, the increase in self-perceived quality of life following this training modality demonstrates promising results in the Multiple Sclerosis population.
... Traditionally the intensity of resistance training has been prescribed through percentages of the 1RM (maximum load with which only one repetition can be performed) or through the XRM (maximum number of repetitions that can be performed with a given load) 1,[9][10][11] . However, in recent years it has been found that movement velocity is the most accurate and safe variable to control and prescribe intensity in resistance training [12][13][14] allowing to estimate the 1RM through the load-velocity relationship without performing an RM or XRM test. ...
Article
The objective of this work is to analyze the reliability and validity of the new inertial measurement unit (IMU) PUSHTM Band 2.0 to measure barbell velocity. Six healthy males (24.83±3.71years; 69.88±8.36kg; 175.92±4.5cm) participated in this study and performed several sets on the bench press. Barbell concentric mean (MV) and peak (PV) velocity were recorded with a LT and the IMU. Pearson correlation coefficient shows a very high relationship for MV (r = 0.97; SEE: 0.08 m/s; 95%CI: 0.95-0.98; p< 0.001) and PV (r = 0.97; SEE: 0.13 m/s; 95%CI: 0.96-0.98; p< 0.001). There was a very high agreement for the values of MV and PV (MV: ICC = 0.945, CI = 0.834–0.974, α = 0.981; PV: ICC = 0.926, CI = 0.708–0.969, α = 0.977). Paired sample t-test revealed systematic bias for MV (p< 0.001; mean difference between instruments = 0.06 ± 0.09 m/s) and PV (p< 0.001; mean difference between instruments = 0.15 ± 0.18 m/s). Bland-Altman plots showed almost trivial and moderate relationships for MV (r2 = 0.1) and PV (r2 = 0.37). In conclusion, the PUSHTM Band 2.0 was proven to be a valid alternative for measuring barbell velocity in the bench press.
Chapter
Lung cancer incidence is decreasing in the developed world largely due to decreased smoking rates, yet over 1.5 million individuals worldwide are diagnosed with lung cancer annually with nearly as many deaths. Improvements in screening like low-dose computed tomography are allowing clinicians to detect cancer earlier, and treatment advances are further improving survivorship. This growing population of survivors will benefit from rehabilitation across the continuum of care, which spans prehabilitation, inpatient rehabilitation, and home/outpatient therapies. Lung cancer rehabilitation involves various exercise modalities, inspiratory muscle and cough training, nutritional optimization, and symptomatic management of pain and fatigue related to cancer and chemoradiation. The cancer rehabilitation clinician needs to maintain a unique skill set to address impairments and provide compassionate care, particularly as treatment goals evolve due to changes in prognosis.
Article
This study was implemented to determine if predicting 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bench press strength in untrained lifters from a 7-10RM strength test remains valid when subjects practiced the proper bench press technique. Thirty men 18-26 years of age participated in 2 testing sessions to assess 1RM and 7-10RM bench press strength. The sessions were separated by a minimum of 48 hours. Regression analysis indicated the following equation to predict 1RM strength from weight lifted during the 7-10RM strength test: 1RM = 8.841 + (1.1828*7-10RM). Analysis of predictive accuracy of the regression equation indicated correlation of r = 0.969 (SEE = 4.2 kg or 5.56% of the measured [M] 1RM). Subjects were randomly assigned to an experimental group or a control group. The experimental group practiced proper lifting technique during 4 training sessions during a 2-week period. The control group did not lift weights during this period. Following training, all subjects were reassessed for 1RM and 7-10RM bench press strength. Using the regression equation developed before training, the experimental group demonstrated a correlation of r = 0.983 (SEE = 3.1 kg or 4.2% of M 1RM). The control group demonstrated a correlation of r = 0.989 (SEE = 2.5 kg or 8.8% of the M 1RM). An independent t-test comparing the differences between posttraining bench press scores indicated no significant difference in bench press lifting ability between the experimental group (82.96 kg) following technique training and the control group (75.69 kg). Although the experimental group demonstrated a trend for increased lifting ability following instruction, results suggest that lifting technique does not affect the accuracy of the regression equation to predict 1RM strength.
The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of predicting maximal bench press lifting strength from submaximal bench press repetitions before and after a training program. College students (70 men; 101 women) were tested to determine their one repetition maximum (1‐RM) bench press lifting strength before and after 14 weeks of training. Several days after an initial maximum lift determination, each subject was randomly assigned a submaximal load corresponding to 55 to 95% of the 1‐RM and required to perform as many bench press repetitions as possible in 1 minute. The same percent 1‐RM was used following training, as was used before training, to test lifting capacity at a defined percent of the initial 1‐RM for a given individual. Men had a significantly greater 1‐RM bench press strength and absolute integrated submaximal weightlifting ability than women but were not significantly different in percent 1‐RM and repetitions. The exponential relationship between percent 1‐RM and repetitions before and after training did not differ significantly between men and women. Using this relationship, 1‐RM bench press lifting strength could be estimated with a validity coefficient of r >0.90 and a standard error of 2.9 to 3.5 kg for women and 5.7 to 6.6 kg for men regardless of the training state of each group. It was concluded that the number of repetitions completed in 1 minute of lifting a submaximal load can provide an accurate estimate of maximal bench press lifting strength regardless of training status.
Article
This study was done to determine the accuracy of 7 equations for predicting a 1-RM from repetitions to fatigue for the bench press, squat, and deadlift. Subjects, 67 untrained college students (40 M, 27 F) who were enrolled in weight training classes, participated in four 45-min practice sessions to learn proper lifting technique and determine the amount of weight to lift for the 1-RM test. All correlation coefficients between predicted and achieved 1-RM lifts were high (r > 0.95). For the bench press, however, the average differences between achieved and predicted weights were significantly different from zero in all but 2 equations. For the squat, the average difference was significantly different from zero in all but 1 equation. All equations significantly underestimated the deadlift despite high correlations. (C) 1997 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Article
The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of using relative muscular endurance performance to estimate 1 RM bench press strength. College students (184 men and 251 women) were tested for 1 RM strength following 14 weeks of resistance training. Each subject was then randomly assigned a relative endurance load (rep weight) corresponding to 55-95 percent of the 1 RM and required to perform as many bench press repetitions (reps) as possible in one minute. Men had significantly greater 1 RM strength, rep weight, percent 1 RM, and reps than women. Since the regression of percent 1 RM on reps was not significantly different between the men and women, the data were combined to produce the following exponential equation: percent 1 RM = 52.2 + 41.9e -0.055 reps (r = 0.80, p < 0.001). Bench press strength could be estimated from the equation 1 RM = rep weight/predicted percent 1 RM/l00 with an accuracy of r = 0.98 and a standard error of estimate of +/- 4.8 kg. Applications of these equations to a comparable cross-validation group (70 men and 101 women) indicated acceptable validity (r = 0.98, p < 0.001) with an error of only +/- 5.4 kg. Applying the same equations to high school male athletes (n = 25), high school male nonathletes (n = 74) and college football players (n = 45) also produced good cross validation (r > 0.95, p < 0.001) with relatively small standard errors (+/- 3.1 to +/- 5.6 kg). It appears that relative muscular endurance performance can be used to accurately estimate 1 RM bench press strength in a wide variety of individuals. (C) 1992 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Article
This study examined the validity of 6 1-repetition maximum (1RM) repetitions-to-fatigue prediction equations on 11 machine lifts for 51 older adults (70.7 +/- 6.1 years). In the first session, subjects selected a weight that they could lift for 7-10 repetitions on each machine exercise, and a 1RM was predicted using 6 different equations. In session 2, subjects completed an actual 1RM by selecting the maximum load that they could safely lift once (1-3 reps). Correlations between the actual and the 6 predicted 1RM scores demonstrated a moderate to strong relationship for all exercises (upper extremity: r = 0.77-0.90; lower extremity: r = 0.60-0.80). The average predicted 1RM value was lower than the actual 1RM for all exercises and all prediction equations (p <= 0.001). The use of a prediction equation for older adults appears to be a valid measure of 1RM within a range of 1-10 kg, depending on the machine lift. In all cases, the prediction equation underestimated the actual 1RM. (C) 1999 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Article
Ninety-one subjects were tested to determine the number of repetitions they could perform at 40, 60, and 80 percent of one repetition maximum (percent 1 RM) for each of seven specified weight training lifts. Thirty-eight subjects from a previous study (18) were also included in the data analysis. The subjects represented four categories: untrained males (n = 38), untrained females (n = 40), trained males (n = 25) and trained females (n = 26). The results indicated that there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the number of repetitions that males and females can perform at the selected percent 1 RM among the seven weight training lifts, as well as in the number of repetitions performed at these percentages across lifts. When comparing untrained and trained males, a significant difference (p < 0.05) was found in the number of repetitions performed at all selected percent 1 RM for the arm curl, knee extension and sit-ups. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were also found at 60 percent 1 RM for the leg curl and at 60 and 80 percent 1 RM for the lateral pulldown. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were found for any percent 1 RM for the bench press and the leg press. When comparing untrained and trained females, a significant difference in performance (p < 0.05) was found among all seven lifts at 40 percent 1 RM. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were found at 60 percent 1 RM for the knee extension, bench press, sit-ups, leg curl and leg press; and at 80 percent 1 RM for the bench press, sit-ups and leg press. The findings of this study indicate that a given percent of 1 RM will not always elicit the same number of repetitions when performing dafferent lifts. (C) 1990 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Article
The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between absolute muscular endurance and the maximum weight that could be lifted in a bench-press exercise. Subjects were 84 untrained, healthy women ranging from 18 to 25 years of age. Within 72 hours, each subject performed a maximal (1 RM) bench press with free weights, the YMCA bench press test using 15.9 kg (35 pounds) and a modified YMCA bench press test using 20.4 kg (45 pounds). Care was taken to maintain proper form and technique for each exercise. Results of a multiple regression analysis revealed that bench press absolute endurance, plus body weight, was more effective for predicting bench press 1 RM (variance accounted for 66 percent; standard error of estimate = 3.27 kg, using 15.9 kg; and 72 percent of the variance accounted for SEE = 2.95 kg, using 20.4 kg) than absolute muscular endurance alone (62 percent and 67 percent; SEE = 3.34 and 3.14 kg for 15.9 and 20.4 kgs, respectively). Cross-validation (n = 19) of the prediction equations using the bench press absolute muscular endurance tests of 15.9 and 20.4 kg accounted for 67 and 66 percent of the variance between the measured and predicted bench press 1 RM (SEE = 2.91 and 2.99 kg). The results of this study suggest that bench press absolute muscular endurance, combined with body weight, can be used to predict maximal bench press lift in untrained to moderately weight-trained women, and may be used as a safe, time-efficient alternative to the one-repetition maximum bench press test in the assessment of upper body strength. (C) 1992 National Strength and Conditioning Association