No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Relationship of Push-ups and Absolute Muscular Endurance to Bench Press Strength
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of push-ups and absolute muscular endurance (YMCA bench press test) for predicting the maximal weight that can be lifted in the bench press exercise. Subjects were 144 untrained to moderately weight-trained men ages 18 to 34. Within 15 days, each subject performed a one-repetition maximum bench press with free weights, push-ups timed for 60 seconds and the YMCA bench press test, a test of absolute muscular endurance. Care was taken to maintain proper form for each exercise. All exercises were done with the hands spaced at slightly more than shoulder width and thumbs just touching the outside of the shoulder. Results of a multiple regression analysis revealed that bench press absolute endurance was more effective for predicting bench press strength (86 percent of the variance accounted for; SEE = 6.03 kilograms) than either push-ups (31 percent of the variance accounted for; SEE = 13.33 kilograms), or push-ups and body weight (56 percent of the variance accounted for; SEE = 10.63 kilograms). Body weight did not have any effect on predicting bench press strength from absolute endurance (r = 0.93). Cross-validation (n = 48) of the predication equation using bench press absolute endurance accounted for 91 percent of the variance (SEE = 4.49 kilograms) between the measured and predicted bench press strength (r = 0.95). The results of this study suggest that absolute muscular endurance in some cases may provide a feasible alternative to the one-repetition maximum in the assessment of maximal lifting capacity.
(C) 1991 National Strength and Conditioning Association
... Prior studies investigated the relationship between the push-up test and bench press in able-bodied individuals. [36][37][38][39] Invergo et al. 37 and Mayhew et al. 38 found that the number of push-ups completed in 60 s could not predict the 1RM bench press load. However, other studies found that the push-up test was able to predict the 1RM bench press load based on the mean power measured by a force plate 36 and on the load-velocity relationship measured by a linear encoder. ...
... Prior studies investigated the relationship between the push-up test and bench press in able-bodied individuals. [36][37][38][39] Invergo et al. 37 and Mayhew et al. 38 found that the number of push-ups completed in 60 s could not predict the 1RM bench press load. However, other studies found that the push-up test was able to predict the 1RM bench press load based on the mean power measured by a force plate 36 and on the load-velocity relationship measured by a linear encoder. ...
... The present study adopted the maximum number of repetitions until fatigue, while other studies (unable to predict the 1RM bench press load) used a 60-second period for the test. 37,38 The authors suggest further studies that compare different methods of evaluating the push-up test to investigate this hypothesis. ...
Objectives:
This study aimed to determine whether the synchronous and asynchronous push-up tele-assessment in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) is feasible and valid and to identify the relationship between the participants' self-reported asynchronous strength tele-assessment and asynchronous push-up tele-assessment.
Study design:
Cross-sectional study.
Methods:
Thirty-three men and women with SCI were included in this study. The participants were assessed using the one-maximum repetition test (1RM), the maximum repetitions with 60% of 1RM (MRT) of the bench press exercise, and synchronous and asynchronous push-up tele-assessment. The videos and the total repetitions performed were recorded. The primary outcomes were 1RM, MRT, synchronous push-up tele-assessment and asynchronous volume loads, and the participants' self-reported asynchronous strength tele-assessment volume load.
Results:
The synchronous push-up tele-assessment and asynchronous volume loads presented significant correlations with 1RM (0.73 and 0.45, p < 0.001, respectively) and MRT volume loads (0.87 and 0.66, p < 0.001, respectively). The asynchronous push-up tele-assessment presented significant correlations with the synchronous version (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.72-0.93, p < 0.001) and participants' self-reported asynchronous strength tele-assessment volume loads (ICC = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.75-0.94, p < 0.001). The difference between the synchronous push-up tele-assessment and asynchronous volume load means was 254.9 kg, and the interval around the differences was 1856.1 kg. The difference between asynchronous push-up tele-assessment and participants' self-reported asynchronous strength tele-assessment means was -239.4 kg, and the interval around these was 1884.1 kg.
Conclusion:
The synchronous push-up tele-assessment is a feasible and valid way to assess the maximum resistance strength of individuals with SCI. Although the asynchronous push-up tele-assessment demonstrated excellent and significant correlations with the synchronous push-up tele-assessment and participants' self-reported asynchronous strength tele-assessment, the test repetitions and the volume loads were underestimated by 15.5% (synchronous push-up tele-assessment vs. asynchronous) and overestimated by 17.3% (asynchronous push-up tele-assessment vs. participants' self-reported asynchronous strength tele-assessment), and the effect sizes ranged from 0.19-0.38. The authors suggest emphasizing the criteria of repetition validity to reduce test error.
... Within the bench press, the maximum load lifted for prescribed reps or the velocity of the lift measured with a linear encoder at a certain % of 1 repetition-maximum (1-RM), is frequently used to assess strength capabilities . In contrast, for push-ups the total number of repetitions is often used as an indication of upper body strength or strength endurance (Invergo et al., 1991;Mayhew et al., 1991). In addition to assessment of different expressions of strength, administering tests related to the two exercises is also different. ...
... Prior studies have investigated the relationship between push-up strength and bench press strength for the purposes of predicting performance (Bartolomei et al., 2018;Blackard et al., 1999;Invergo et al., 1991;Mayhew et al., 1991). Invergo et al. (1991) and Mayhew et al. (1991) found that the number of push-ups completed in 60 s was unable to predict the 1-RM bench press load. ...
... Prior studies have investigated the relationship between push-up strength and bench press strength for the purposes of predicting performance (Bartolomei et al., 2018;Blackard et al., 1999;Invergo et al., 1991;Mayhew et al., 1991). Invergo et al. (1991) and Mayhew et al. (1991) found that the number of push-ups completed in 60 s was unable to predict the 1-RM bench press load. However, as Invergo et al. (1991) and Mayhew et al. (1991) suggested, the two different tests rely predominantly on different types of strength; maximal strength and strength endurance, thus prediction cannot be expected (Mayhew et al., 1991). ...
The aims of this study were firstly to compare the similarity in upper-body muscle activation between the bench press and push-up at similar loads, and secondly to establish a 1-RM prediction equation between the two exercises based upon the load-velocity relationship. Twenty resistance-trained male athletes (age 22.5 ± 5.24 years, body mass 83.7 ± 10.7 kg, body height 1.80 ± 0.06 m) performed push-ups and bench presses with four different loads. Push-ups were performed without a weight vest and with a 10-20-30 kg weight vest. Bench presses were performed at 50-80% of athletes’ assumed 1 repetition max (1-RM) in 10 kg steps, while a linear encoder measured performance during the exercises. A load-velocity relationship was established as a product of the load and velocity for the push-up and bench press per participant and the equation was used to establish a predicted 1-RM. Mean muscle activation of eight upper body muscles was recorded for each exercise and each load. The main findings of this study demonstrate an extremely large association between the predicted 1-RM loads performed with the push-up and bench press (r = 0.93) in experienced resistance trained men. Furthermore, most muscles showed similar activations between the two exercises with the different loads except the deltoid and biceps brachii muscles. It may be concluded that it is possible to predict a cross-over 1-RM between the two exercises based upon the load-velocity relationship in each exercise, and that training push-ups largely targets the same muscles as the bench press except the deltoid and biceps muscles. For coaches and athletes, the use of this method is a low cost and time-effective alternative for standard 1-RM bench press testing to predict maximal upper body strength.
... Additionally, the apprehension of lifting these heavy loads could compromise the performance of inexperienced individuals, causing underestimation of their actual strength. Furthermore, the 1RM is time consuming and requires a considerable amount of equipment (11). Whereas an accurate measure of maximal strength may be necessary to design training programs for athletes and serious weight lifters, alternative methods to the 1RM that provide reasonable estimates would be useful in evaluating strength in a general population of subjects. ...
... An absolute muscular endurance load represents a constant amount of weight to be lifted for every individual being evaluated, with the load being dependent on several factors including level of training (2,19) and occupational demand (10). The correlations between 1RM strength and the number of repetitions completed with absolute loads are usually high (r ϭ 0.74 to 0.93) (2,4,11,19,24), indicating that those with greater strength levels have higher absolute muscular endurance. ...
... The results of the current study agree with the findings of Invergo et al. (11) in men and of Rose and Ball (24) in women for the standard YMCA test. The correlations between repetitions completed and 1RM were very similar between the studies, as were the standard errors of the estimate. ...
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of resistance training (RT) performed with two different volumes on body fat and blood biomarkers in untrained older women. Sixty-five physically independent older women (≥ 60 years) were randomly assigned to one of three groups: low volume training group (LV), high volume training group (HV), and a control group (CG). Both training groups performed RT for 12 weeks, using 8 exercises of 10-15 repetitions maximum (RM) for each exercise. LV performed only a single set per exercise whereas HV performed three sets. Anthropometric, body fat (%), trunk fat, triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol (TC), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c), very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-c), glucose (GLU), C- reactive protein (CRP) and composite Z-score were measured. The HV group obtained greater improvements compared to LV (p < 0.05) for TG (LV = -10.5% vs. HV = -16.6%), VLDL-c (LV = -6.5% vs. HV = -14.8%), GLU (LV = -4.7% vs. HV = -11.1%), CRP (LV = -13.2% vs. HV = -30.8%), % body fat (LV = -2.4% vs. HV = -6.1%), and composite Z-score (LV = -0.13 ± 0.30 vs. HV = -0.57 ± 0.29). Trunk fat was reduced (p < 0.05) only in the HV group (-6.8%). We conclude that RT performed in higher volume seems to be the most appropriate strategy to reduce body fat (%), trunk fat, improve blood biomarkers, and reduce composite Z-score in older women.
... The 1 RM bench press test is considered the most accurate assessment of overall upper body strength (Whisenant & Panton, 2003). It is used as a reference standard for determining an individual's dynamic muscular strength (Invergo, Ball, & Looney, 1991). Even though it is accurate in determining strength there are some major disadvantages to using the test. ...
... One RM testing can be very time consuming. Even though the test is aimed at determining the 1 RM as efficiently and as quickly as possible (to avoid muscular fatigue) the design takes time: There are lengthy breaks that must be observed to ensure an accurate measurement (Invergo et al., 1991; Mayhew, Ball, Arnold, & Bowen, 1992). Safety is also a major concern when performing 1 RM testing. ...
... Submaximal strength testing is an alternative to maximal testing and in most instances is more time efficient and safer than maximal testing. There are many methods of submaximal strength testing, ranging from multiple repetitions at a certain percentage of the 1RM (Cummings & Finn, 1998; Horvat, Ramsey, Franklin, Gavin, Palumbo, & Glass, 2003; Kravitz et al., 2003; Mayhew et al., 1992; Reynolds et al., 2006;) to the YMCA Bench Press Test (Invergo et al., 1991; Kim et al., 2002; Nieman, 1999). Regression equations have been developed to predict maximal 1 RM strength from these submaximal strength tests. ...
... Five-minute rest intervals were given based on previous research indicating that 1-minute is sufficient for recovery between maximal benchpress strength tests (23). The reliability of this method has been reported to be greater than r = 0.98 (5,17). One week after the completion of the 1RM test, each player completed the NFL-225 test. ...
... The test was terminated when the subject could not complete a repetition with the proper form. The reliability of similar protocols have been reported to range from r = 0.80 to r = 0.97 (5,17). ...
... kg) was 14.1 6 8.0 reps. The body mass of the subjects and 1RM values obtained in the present study compared favorably with values previously reported for Division I college football players(1,5) ...
The purpose of this study was to compare existing 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bench press prediction equations in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division IA college football players and determine if the error associated with the prediction of 1RM bench press from the National Football League (NFL)-225 test could be reduced through the addition of anthropometric measurements. Anthropometric measures, 1RM bench press, NFL-225 test repetitions to fatigue, and body composition data were collected on 87 Division IA football players (mean+/-SD age 19.9+/-1.3 years; height 182.3+/-7.3 cm; body mass 102.3+/-21.1 kg; % fat 13.9+/-6.7; 1RM bench press 140.5+/-2 6.6 kg; and NFL-225 reps to fatigue 14.1+/-8.0). Hierarchical regression revealed an R=0.87 when predicting 1RM from the NFL-225 test alone, which improved to R=0.90 with the addition of the anthropometric variables: arm circumference and arm length. The following equation was the best performing model to predict 1RM bench press: 1RM (lb)=299.08+2.47 arm circumference (cm)--4.60 arm length (cm)+5.84 reps @ 225; SEE=18.3 lb). This equation predicted 43.7% of subjects' within +/-10 lb of their actual 1RM bench press. Using a crossvalidation group, the equation resulted in estimates of 1RM which were not significantly different than the actual 1RM. Because of the variability that has been shown to be associated with 1RM prediction equations, the use of actual 1RM testing is recommended when this is a critical variable. However, coaches, scouts, and athletes, who choose to estimate 1RM bench press using repetitions to failure from the NFL-225 test, may benefit from the use of the equations developed in this study to estimate 1RM bench press with the inclusion of simple anthropometric measurements.
... Additionally, the apprehension of lifting these heavy loads could compromise the performance of inexperienced individuals, causing underestimation of their actual strength. Furthermore, the 1RM is time consuming and requires a considerable amount of equipment (11). Whereas an accurate measure of maximal strength may be necessary to design training programs for athletes and serious weight lifters, alternative methods to the 1RM that provide reasonable estimates would be useful in evaluating strength in a general population of subjects. ...
... An absolute muscular endurance load represents a constant amount of weight to be lifted for every individual being evaluated, with the load being dependent on several factors including level of training (2,19) and occupational demand (10). The correlations between 1RM strength and the number of repetitions completed with absolute loads are usually high (r ϭ 0.74 to 0.93) (2,4,11,19,24), indicating that those with greater strength levels have higher absolute muscular endurance. ...
... The results of the current study agree with the findings of Invergo et al. (11) in men and of Rose and Ball (24) in women for the standard YMCA test. The correlations between repetitions completed and 1RM were very similar between the studies, as were the standard errors of the estimate. ...
This study evaluated the influence of cadence on the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) bench press test for predicting 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bench press test performance. Fifty-eight medical students (37 men, 21 women) were evaluated for anthropometric variables (age, height, weight, fat-free mass, and percent fat), 1RM bench press, and 2 cadence tests of muscular endurance performed at cadences of 30 and 60 repetitions per minute (reps.min(-1)). Each test was performed on a separate day, with 5 days rest in between. There was no significant difference among the number of repetitions performed at each cadence by men, whereas women performed significantly more repetitions at the slower cadence. Repetitions at either cadence were good predictors of 1RM bench press in both genders (men: 30 reps.min(-1), r(2) = 0.757, standard error of the estimate [SEE] = 8.0 kg; 60 reps.min(-1), r(2) = 0.884, SEE = 8.2 kg; women: 30 reps.min(-1), r(2) = 0.754, SEE = 3.1 kg; 60 reps.min(-1), r(2) = 0.816, SEE = 2.7 kg). The addition of anthropometric dimensions to the regression equations did not improve predictive accuracy. Using both fast and slow cadences, the YMCA bench press test can provide a valid estimation of 1RM performance in untrained young men and women.
... These tests are considered good field tests (i.e., limited equipment necessary to complete), however, since they are body weight dependent for resistance they are considered more difficult for participants to complete and do not standardize the workload between participants. Therefore, proposed benefits of utilizing the YMCA-BPT is to predict 1RM strength [17,18] and to compare muscular endurance amongst participants without having to correct for body weight [17]. Additionally, the YMCA-BPT requires minimal form development, for those unfamiliar the testing modality, thus, advocates for this test believe novices are more effective in the execution of the repetition and reduced risk for injury when compared with the push-up or chin-up exercise tests [19]. ...
... These tests are considered good field tests (i.e., limited equipment necessary to complete), however, since they are body weight dependent for resistance they are considered more difficult for participants to complete and do not standardize the workload between participants. Therefore, proposed benefits of utilizing the YMCA-BPT is to predict 1RM strength [17,18] and to compare muscular endurance amongst participants without having to correct for body weight [17]. Additionally, the YMCA-BPT requires minimal form development, for those unfamiliar the testing modality, thus, advocates for this test believe novices are more effective in the execution of the repetition and reduced risk for injury when compared with the push-up or chin-up exercise tests [19]. ...
... Literature regarding maximal muscular strength as related to relative muscular endurance has been mixed. Dean et al. (1987) concluded that bench press strength accounted for ~50% of the variance in push-up performance, whereas Invergo et al. (1991) and Mayher et al. (1991) concluded that there was no significant relationship between push-up performance and 1RM bench press [23][24][25]. Our finding of a lack of relationship between absolute and relative strength using bench press and lift performance during the Murph challenge highlights the importance of specificity, even if theoretically training the same physiological system (i.e., muscular endurance). ...
... Literature regarding maximal muscular strength as related to relative muscular endurance has been mixed. Dean et al. (1987) concluded that bench press strength accounted for ~50% of the variance in push-up performance, whereas Invergo et al. (1991) and Mayher et al. (1991) concluded that there was no significant relationship between push-up performance and 1RM bench press [23][24][25]. Our finding of a lack of relationship between absolute and relative strength using bench press and lift performance during the Murph challenge highlights the importance of specificity, even if theoretically training the same physiological system (i.e., muscular endurance). ...
We examined physiological predictors of performance on the CrossFit Murph challenge (1-mile run, 100 pullups, 200 pushups, 300 air squats, 1-mile run). Male CrossFit athletes (n = 11, 27 ± 3 years) performed a battery of physical assessments including: (1) body composition, (2) upper and lower body strength, (3) upper body endurance, (4) anaerobic power, and (5) maximal oxygen consumption. No less than 72 h later, participants completed the Murph challenge, heart rate was monitored throughout, and blood lactate was obtained pre-post. Correlations between physiological parameters and total Murph time, and Murph subcomponents, were assessed using Pearson’s correlations. Murph completion time was 43.43 ± 4.63 min, and maximum and average heart rate values were 185.63 ± 7.64 bpm and 168.81 ± 6.41 bpm, respectively, and post-Murph blood lactate was 10.01 ± 3.04 mmol/L. Body fat percentage was the only physiological parameter significantly related to total Murph time (r = 0.718; p = 0.013). Total lift time (25.49 ± 3.65 min) was more strongly related (r = 0.88) to Murph time than total run time (17.60 ± 1.97 min; r = 0.65). Greater relative anaerobic power (r = −0.634) and less anaerobic fatigue (r = 0.649) were related to total run time (p < 0.05). Individuals wanting to enhance overall Murph performance are advised to focus on minimizing body fat percentage and improving lift performance. Meanwhile, performance on the run subcomponent may be optimized through improvements in anaerobic power.
... Findings from the literature confirm this assumption, with the majority of studies reporting that larger or stronger individuals tend to complete more repetitions. The reality is that larger players most likely have higher 1-RMs than smaller players and therefore the 225lbs results in smaller players lifting a load that is a greater percent of their actual 1-RM than larger players (1, 7, 20, 21, [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. Anecdotally, due to the inherent nature of football specific demands such as blocking which requires players to have their hands in a position that appears to resemble the hand position in the bench press, the bench press may appear to be the most appropriate measure of upper-body strength. ...
... This study is believed to be the first to examine how the NFL-225 test relates to playing status between different positions in Division I college football players. The strong relationship between 1-RM bench press and the NFL-225 test is consistent with previous studies [4, 10,31,32,[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]. These results indicate that higher levels of upper body strength likely contribute to achieving more repetitions in the NFL-225 test. ...
The estimated one-repetition maximum (1RM) bench press and NFL-225 (225-lb or 102-kg) repetition test are commonly used to assess upper-body muscular strength and endurance among football players. However, little research has been focused on the relationship of these tests to playing status. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine if significant relationships exist between these tests and playing status in Division I football athletes. Archival data from 31 NCAA Division I football players (age: 20.1±1.4 yrs., height: 188.07 ± 5.93 cm, body mass: 112.4 ± 19.5 kg) on the 1RM Bench press test, NFL-225 test and playing status were utilized for this analysis. A one-way ANOVA was used to detect any differences in 1RM and NFL-225 performance between skill groups: big (linemen), medium (linebackers, quarterbacks, tight ends) and small (receivers, backs, and corners) (p < 0.05). Playing status (starters vs. non-starters) were compared within position groups. A point bi-serial correlation was then utilized to examine the relationship in test performance between groups, as well as between starters and non-starters. Significant differences were discovered in NFL-225 test performance between big and small skill groups. Moderate-to-strong relationships between playing status and performance on the 1RM bench press (r = .660) and the NFL-225 test (r = .685) for the big skills group. The results of this study suggest that playing status and upper-body strength and endurance are strongly related for the big skills position group.
... Mayhew et al. (1991) (5), constataron cómo el gesto de flexo-extensión de brazos no es predictor de 1 RM en press de banca, y por tanto muestran que el gesto objeto de estudio no son un reflejo de la fuerza máxima de las extremidades superiores. Contrariamente, Invergo et al. (1991) (7), hallaron que el gesto en cuestión, en algunos casos puede ser una alternativa viable a la clásica 1RM en press de banca, para la determinación de la máxima capacidad de levantamiento de peso de un individuo. ...
... Mayhew et al. (1991) (5), constataron cómo el gesto de flexo-extensión de brazos no es predictor de 1 RM en press de banca, y por tanto muestran que el gesto objeto de estudio no son un reflejo de la fuerza máxima de las extremidades superiores. Contrariamente, Invergo et al. (1991) (7), hallaron que el gesto en cuestión, en algunos casos puede ser una alternativa viable a la clásica 1RM en press de banca, para la determinación de la máxima capacidad de levantamiento de peso de un individuo. ...
El propósito del estudio fue comprobar si la Plataforma de contacto Ergojump, utilizada para medir la capacidad de impulsión de las extremidades inferiores a través de saltos, era válida para hacerlo sobre las extremidades superiores realizando desde tumbado prono una extensión de codos partiendo de la posición clásica de flexo-extensión de brazos y antebrazos de 90 grados. Se realizó un estudio de correlación entre los registros de la plataforma (Φ=1) y un electromiógrafo. También se ha realizado análisis de la fiabilidad (e) experimental de los distintos planes de medida que conformaban las distintas variables de estudio, obteniendo óptimos resultados.
... Two popular tests of assessing muscular endurance include the YMCA bench press and pushup tests; however, both quantify intensity relative to bodyweight leading to an uncertainty of the relationship between exercises. 11 The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between pushups and bench press when performing repetitions to failure with an equated load. We hypothesized that due to sex differences in upper body strength, there would be a higher correlation between the pushup and bench press in men and that they would perform more repetitions when compared to women, even with an equated load. ...
... 2 However, in order to achieve an equated load, they used pushups with elastic bands, rather than the traditional pushup, and the load for each exercise was determined by a 6RM. 2 Invergo et al. concluded that pushup performance is a direct measure of muscular endurance relative to body mass compared to absolute maximal bench press. 11 Although the current study emphasized repetitions to failure, rather than 1RM or 6RM, an equated load was calculated relative to body mass, which may have contributed to differences in repetitions performed between the two exercises. ...
The bench press and pushup are commonly used for training upper body muscular strength and endurance. Although they are often used interchangeably, differences between the two relative to body mass load are unknown. Furthermore, sex differences may exist due to anthropometric body mass specificity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the pushup and bench press when performing repetitions to failure with an equated load. On day 1, 25 recreationally trained subjects (16 men, age = 23.00 ± 2.36 years, height = 178.19 ± 9.61 cm, mass = 74.80 ± 13.44 kg; 9 women, age = 23.11 ± 2.71 years, height = 160.78 ± 5.95 cm, mass = 53.63 ± 5.60 kg), performed a one repetition maximum bench press and an isometric pushup on a force plate to determine bodyweight load supported in both the up and down positions. Grip width on the bench press was measured as the distance between middle fingers and was used for hand placement during pushups. For the down position, a safety squat device was placed on the right triceps to signal that the upper arms were parallel to the ground, while for the up position, triceps were perpendicular to the floor. Days 2 and 3 consisted of performing repetitions to failure for either the bench press or pushup exercise with a load that was equal to the average relative bodyweight force of the up and down pushup positions. For the pushup, subjects followed a 60 beats per minute tempo and the test was terminated if they failed to complete a full repetition; they could not maintain cadence or there were three faults in form. For the bench press, they followed the same 60 s tempo and the test was terminated if they failed to complete a full repetition or could not maintain cadence. A 2 (exercise: bench press, pushup) × 2 (sex: men, women) mixed factor ANOVA demonstrated no interaction, but there were significant (P < 0.05) main effects for exercise and sex where more repetitions were performed in the pushup (19.36 ± 11.68 reps) than the bench press (11.40 ± 8.38 reps) exercise. Also, men performed significantly more repetitions to failure (men =20.22 ± 8.20 reps, women = 6.78 ± 5.69 reps). For combined sexes, there was a significant (P < 0.05), strong relationship (r = 0.82) between bench press and pushup repetitions to failure. For men, there was a significant (P < 0.05), strong relationship (r = 0.81), while for women, there was a moderate relationship (r = 0.76). Men had significantly (P < 0.05) greater bench press one repetition maximum (men = 99.29 ± 23.98 kg, women = 42.17 ± 8.88 kg), percentage of body mass supported as an average of the up and down positions (men = 74.33 ± 2.57%, women = 69.70 ± 2.63%) and bench press one repetition maximum relative to their body mass (men = 1.32 ± 0.22%, women = 0.79 ± 0.13%). The bench press and pushup are two distinct upper body exercises for repetitions to failure due to upper body musculature and body position sex differences. Choice of the pushup or bench press exercise should be based on training goal and sex.
... Eighty-four recreationally active men who had a mixed athletic background (weightlifting, basketball, soccer, etc.) and were familiar with resistance training volunteered to participate in this investigation. Sixty participants (age: 24.5 6 4.3 years [range: [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]; height: 1.75 6 0.07 m; body mass: 80.8 6 13.5 kg) completed all testing and their data were included in the final data analysis. The study was approved by the University's Institutional Review Board. ...
... They reported a significant, positive relationship (R 2 = 0.50, SEE = 15.7 kg) between 1RM bench press and the product of push-up repetitions and body mass. However, others have reported that the Young Men's Christian Association bench press test is more effective for predicting the 1RM bench press (R 2 = 0.86, SEE = 6.0 kg) than push-up repetitions and body mass (R 2 = 0.56, SEE = 10.6 kg) (18). A recent study examined the relationship between an isometric bench press with the elbows at 90 degrees of extension and 1RM bench press (4). ...
... They laid prone on the floor and placed their thumbs at shoulder width, kept their body in a straight line and touched their chin to a tennis ball at the bottom of each repetition [13]. A cadence was set to 80 beats per minute (40 push-ups per minute) with a metronome and the test lasted a maximum of two min. ...
... This suggests that push-ups could be part of a rock climbers training routine to aid in strengthening the upper body while also working the anterior chain in addition to the posterior chain, which is most often utilized while climbing. Resistance trained men are also at a slight disadvantage during push-ups as they must support greater overall body mass [13]. ...
Studies have shown that advanced rock climbers have greater upper body strength than that of novice climbers or non-climbers. The purpose of this study was to compare upper body strength between rock climbing and resistance trained men. Fifteen resistance trained men (age 25.28 ± 2.26 yrs; height 177.45 ± 4.08 cm; mass 85.17 ± 10.23 kg; body fat 10.13 ± 5.40%) and 15 rock climbing men (age 23.25 ± 2.23 yrs; height 175.57 ± 8.03 cm; mass 66.66 ± 9.40 kg; body fat 6.86 ± 3.82%) volunteered to participate. Rock climbing (RC) men had been climbing for at least two years, 2–3 times a week, able to climb at least a boulder rating of V4–5 and had no current injuries. Resistance trained (RT) men had been total body strength training for at least two years, 2–3 times a week with no current injuries. Each participant performed pull-ups to failure, grip strength, and pinch strength. RT were significantly older and heavier than RC. RC performed significantly more pull-ups (19.31 ± 4.31) than RT (15.64 ± 4.82). RC had greater relative pinch strength (R 0.27 ± 0.10 kg/kg; L 0.24 ± 0.07 kg/kg) than RT (R 0.19 ± 0.04 kg/kg; L 0.16 ± 0.05 kg/kg) and greater relative grip strength (R 0.70 ± 0.10 kg/kg; L 0.65 ± 0.12 kg/kg) than RT (R 0.57 ± 0.14 kg/kg; L 0.56 ± 0.15 kg/kg). Overall, RC men demonstrated greater performance in tests involving relative strength when compared to RT men. Rock climbing can promote increased upper body strength even in the absence of traditional resistance training.
... Reliability for 1RM has previously been established on similar populations at 0.93-0.97 (15,17,34). ...
... Work capacity was calculated as repetitions (RTF) times the load (RepWt). Reliabilities between 0.87 and 0.95 have been noted for RTF in similar populations (15,17,34). ...
The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of resistance training on upper-body muscular strength and the expression of work capacity and muscular endurance. In addition, a training-induced change in the relationship between muscular strength and endurance was assessed by testing changes in the accuracy of using endurance repetitions to predict 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bench press before and after training. College-aged men (n = 85) and women (n = 62) completed a 12-week linear periodization resistance training program. Before and after training, the subjects were assessed for 1RM and repetitions to fatigue (RTFs) with a submaximal load. After pretraining 1RM determination, the subjects were randomly assigned to perform RTFs at 65% 1RM (n = 74) or 90% 1RM (n = 73). Pretraining and posttraining RTFs were conducted at the same respective % 1RM. Work capacity was determined from repetition weight × RTF. After training, there was a significant increase in 1RM in both men (∼14%) and women (∼23%). Posttraining RTF was not different from pretraining RTF at 65 %1RM (18.2 ± 5.1 and 19.0 ± 6.0, respectively) but was significantly reduced in the 90% 1RM group (6.1 ± 3.6 vs. 4.5 ± 2.7, respectively). Likewise, there was a differential effect of training on the expression of work capacity, which increased in the 65 % 1RM group (123 ± 155 kg-reps) but decreased in the 90% 1RM group (-62 ± 208 kg-reps); the effect was independent of gender within each testing group. In conclusion, the changes in muscular strength associated with resistance training produced an increase in work capacity when tested with a 65 % 1RM load without a change in endurance. In contrast, both work capacity and endurance decreased when tested with 90% 1RM. Thus, the impact of strength training on work capacity and muscle endurance is specific to the load at which endurance testing is performed.
... In addition, other studies have shown that light loads mobilised to fatigue at a pace of one repetition every 2 seconds can predict maximum strength in the bench press with a lot accuracy Invergo, Ball, Looney, 1991). ...
... Por otro lado, otros estudios han demostrado que las cargas ligeras movilizadas hasta la fatiga, a un ritmo de una repetición cada dos segundos, pueden predecir muy ajustadamente la fuerza máxima en el press de banca Invergo, Ball, Looney, 1991). ...
The 1RM is the standard measurement to value isotonic strength. Nevertheless, this type of test takes a lot of time, can expose evaluated individuals at a higher risk of injury, etc. Specialized literature recognizes that the use of a procedure which requires a smaller load than 1RM to estimate individuals maximal strength has, undoubted, a great attractive. Therefore, RM tests are the most commonly tool used with general population. Having the intention of proving these proposals among Spanish female population, 28 active women were evaluated in hers 1RM and RM before and after 8 training weeks. The results obtained put the predictive value of these formulas into question, especially regarding its individual predicting value. El test de 1RM es la medición estándar para valorar la fuerza isotónica. No obstante, este tipo de prueba consume mucho tiempo, puede exponer a los sujetos que son evaluados a un mayor riesgo de lesión, etc. La literatura especializada reconoce que la utilización de un procedimiento que requiera una carga menor de 1RM para estimar la fuerza máxima de los sujetos tiene, indudablemente, un gran atractivo. Así, los tests de RM son la herramienta más comúnmente utilizada con la población general. Con la intención de comprobar estos planteamientos entre la población femenina española, 28 mujeres activas fueron evaluadas en su 1RM y RM antes y después de 8 semanas de entrenamiento. Los resultados obtenidos ponen en duda el valor predictivo de las fórmulas más habituales, especialmente respecto a su valor predictivo individual.
... Five-minute rest intervals were given based on previous research indicating that I-minute is sufficient for recovery between maximal bench press strength tests (Weir, Wagner & Housh, 1994). The reliability ofthis method has been reported to be greater than r = 0.98 (Invergo, Ball, & Looney, 1991; Rose, & Ball, 1992). One week following the completion of the I-RM test, each player was required to perform as many repetitions as possible using a 225-lb barbell. ...
... The test was terminated when the subject could not complete a repetition with the proper form. The reliability of similar protocols have been reported to range from r = 0.80 to r = 0.97 (Invergo, Ball, & Looney, 1991; Rose, & Ball, 1992). ...
vii, 69 leaves The purpose of this investigation was to develop a new prediction equation for 1RM bench press performance in Div. I college football players using both submaximal lifts and anthropometric variables. One repetition maximum (1-RM), 5-RM, reps at 225 lbs, and various anthropometric variables were collected on 85 Div. I college football players. Mean and SD were found for the following variables: height 182.3 cm ± 7.2; weight 102.0 kg ± 21.5; age 19.8 yrs ± 1.3; 1-RM 308.9 lbs ± 59.2; 5-RM 261.8 lbs ± 51.2; 225lb repetitions 14.1 reps ± 8.1; upper arm length 37.9 cm ± 2; CSA 125.5 cm2 ± 24.8; and flexed arm 41.2 cm ± 4.2. Findings indicated that the performance variables accounted for the majority of the explained variance; however, anthropometric factors also made a meaningful contribution to the explanation of 1-RM bench press strength. The equation generated in this study produced an R2 of 0.93 with a SEE ± 6.6 kg. Often previously published prediction equations investigated in this study, the equation developed in the current study was the only equation that did not significantly differ from actual 1-RM scores for a cross-validation sample of 31 subjects (p = 0.37). By combining anthropometric factors with performance variables, the current equation was able to predict 87% of individuals within ± 20 lbs of their actual 1-RM bench press performance. Therefore, it was concluded that the equation developed in this study is a valid means of estimating 1-RM bench press strength in Div I college football players. MS
... As bench presses and push-ups are popular resistance exercises, previous studies have compared the relationship between bench press and push-up strength to predict mechanical outputs, such as 1RM, strength endurance, and upper body power performance (1,10,13). For example, Bartolomei,et al. (1) observed that the mean power in ballistic push-ups was strongly associated with 1RM bench press performance (r 5 0.87). ...
van den Tillaar, R, Falch, HN, and Larsen, S. A comparison of maximal push-up and bench press performance and their prediction based on load-velocity relationships. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2025—This study aimed to compare maximal push-up and bench press performance, and their prediction based on the load–velocity relationships. Eleven resistance-trained men (age 25.3 ± 4.0 years, body mass 84.2 ± 6.1 kg, and body height 1.80 ± 0.06 m) performed push-ups and bench presses with 4 different loads randomly. Push-ups were performed with and without a 10-20-30 kg weight vest. Bench press was performed with similar weights as in the push-ups, followed by finding 1RM in each exercise. A linear encoder measured barbell and push-up velocities during the exercises, and force plates were used to measure the average force on the arms during the push-ups. A load–velocity relationship was established between the load and velocity for the push-up and bench press per subject and the equation used to establish a predicted 1RM. The main findings of this study demonstrate that 1RM for push-ups was significantly higher than with bench press (112.4 ± 18.9 vs. 106.4 ± 20.4 kg); meanwhile, there were no differences in the predicted 1RM. Furthermore, an extremely strong association was observed between the actual 1RM loads performed with the push-up and bench press (r = 0.92). Even with different load–velocity relationships for the 2 exercises, it was possible to predict a cross-over 1RM between them, which was not significantly different from the actual 1RM loads. For coaches and athletes, this method is an easy, cost, and time-effective option for standard 1RM bench press testing to predict maximal upper body strength.
... The author concluded that a strong person had a greater ability to carry out a physical task for a longer period of time. Mayhew, Ball, Arnold, and Bowen (1991) and Invergo, Ball, and Looney (1991) have tried to understand if it was possible to estimate the 1RM on a bench press through the number of push-ups to exhaustion and both however concluded that this latter could not be a precise measure of the weighted exercise. Other authors have also tried to relate the results achieved through a 1RM and the repetitions to exhaustion achieved with a relative percentage of that same 1RM. ...
Strength, power and muscular endurance tests have been developed as means of assessing people's physical abilities. However, testing may be expensive or time consuming. A method to reduce the time of physical assessment could be to use predictive algorithms for indirect assessment. The aim of this study will be to determine a relationship between strength, power and muscular endurance in order to identify predictors for an easier and faster assessment. 33 male strength-trained participants (22.8 ± 4.6 years, 172.5 ± 6.7 cm, 68.0 ± 10.6 kg) performed a single pull-up (SPU) and a single push-up (SPH) and a set of pull-ups (EPU) and push-ups (EPH) to exhaustion. The participants were divided into three sub-groups according to their training experience. Force(F), Power(P), Velocity(V) and relative power(R-P), extracted from an accelerometer (500 Hz), were compared between groups (ANOVA) and a subsequent linear regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of the performance measures. The regression models were able to explain 61% of the variance with the EPU as dependent variable and the V of the SPU as independent variable and 68% of the variance with the EPH as dependent variable and EPU as independent variable. In addition, increased performance measures were found according to training experience, in particular regarding muscular endurance of both the EPU and EPH (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01, respectively). A significant effect of training experience was also present for the V of the SPU (p < 0.001). The results indicate that a relation between muscular endurance and velocity is present. The generated equations allow to estimate both the number of EPH and EPU from a SPU. The equations may be helpful to reduce the time of assessment for upper body physical evaluation.
... Nevertheless, we determined that despite the large difference in bench-press performance, women performed as well as men during the push-up. Data from previous studies of young men that performed the standard push-up test and a 1RM bench-press test indicate that push-up performance was moderately correlated to upper-body maximal strength (r = 0.47 to 0.61) (Invergo, Ball, & Looney, 1991;Mayhew, Ball, & Arnold, 1991;Vaara et al., 2012). On the other hand, among college-aged women that performed the modified push-up, a weak relationship (r = 0.26) to bench-press maximal strength was observed. ...
... They reported a significant, positive relationship (R 2 = 0.50, SEE = 15.7 kg) between 1RM bench press and the product of push-uprepetitions and body mass. However, others have reported that the YMCA bench press test is more effective for predicting the 1RM bench press (R 2 = 0.86, SEE = 6.0 kg) than push-up repetitions and body mass (R 2 = 0.56, SEE = 10.6 kg)(18). A recent study examined the relationship between an isometric bench press with the elbows at 90 degrees of extension and ...
Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability of the ballistic push-up (BPU) exercise, and to develop a prediction model for both maximal strength (1RM) in the bench press exercise and upper body power.
Methods:
Sixty recreationally-active men completed a 1RM bench press and two BPU assessments in three separate testing sessions. Peak and mean force, peak and mean rate of force development, net impulse, peak velocity, flight time, and peak and mean power were determined. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to examine the reliability of the BPU. Stepwise linear regression was used to develop 1RM bench press and power prediction equations.
S results:
ICC's ranged from 0.849-0.971 for the BPU measurements. Multiple regression analysis provided the following 1RM bench press prediction equation: 1RM=0.31×Mean Force-1.64×Body mass+0.70 (R=0.837, SEE=11 kg); time-based power prediction equation: Peak Power=11.0×Body Mass+2012.3×Flight Time-338.0 (R=0.658, SEE=150 W), Mean Power=6.7×Body Mass+1004.4×Flight Time-224.6 (R=0.664, SEE=82 W); and velocity-based power prediction equation: Peak Power=8.1×Body Mass+818.6×Peak Velocity-762.0 (R=0.797, SEE=115 W); Mean Power=5.2×Body Mass+435.9×Peak Velocity-467.7 (R=0.838, SEE=57 W).
Conclusions:
The BPU is a reliable test for both upper-body strength and power. Results indicate that the mean force generated from the BPU can be used to predict 1RM bench press, while peak velocity and flight time measured during the BPU can be used to predict upper-body power. These findings support the potential use of the BPU as a valid method to evaluate upper-body strength and power.
... Nevertheless, we determined that despite the large difference in bench-press performance, women performed as well as men during the push-up. Data from previous studies of young men that performed the standard push-up test and a 1RM bench-press test indicate that push-up performance was moderately correlated to upper-body maximal strength (r = 0.47 to 0.61) (Invergo, Ball, & Looney, 1991;Mayhew, Ball, & Arnold, 1991;Vaara et al., 2012). On the other hand, among college-aged women that performed the modified push-up, a weak relationship (r = 0.26) to bench-press maximal strength was observed. ...
Push-up and the bench-press are common exercises to develop upper-body strength and muscle endurance. The purpose of this study was to compare muscle endurance performance of matched load push-up and bench-press between men and women, where women perform modified push-up and men standard push-up. Thirty-two young healthy men and women (16 men and 16 women) participated in the study. Participants completed three tests, push-ups to failure, one repetition maximum (1RM) bench-press, and a bench-press test to failure performed with a load equivalent to percent body mass during the push-up. On average men performed 17.5 more repetitions than women in the bench-press test (men 25.3 (5.7), women 5.9 (4.2), p < 0.001). No difference (p = 0.25) was found between women and men in the number of push-ups performed (men 32.8 (8.3), women 29.6 (7.1)). However, within subjects differences were observed between bench-press and push-up exercises, p < 0.001. 1RM bench-press load was greater in men, in absolute values, men lifted 77.7 kg more than women (p < 0.001), and relative to body mass, men lifted 2.4 times more mass than women (p < 0.001). These results suggest that bench-press and push-up muscle endurance exercises differ greatly in women but not in men, likely due to gender differences in upper-body strength. This is an important consideration for upper-body strength training prescriptions.
... Upper body strength in women is about 50% to 60% that of men which may account for differences in push-up performance (3,12,14,18,21). However push-up performance in men and women correlates weakly (r = 0.26 to 0.56) to upper body strength measured by one repetition maximum during a bench press test (11,16,17). Thus, gender differences in push-up performance may be the result of other factors that can affect relative load, including a change in the moment arm which is determined largely by body mass distribution and its effect on whole body center of mass (5,8,15,19). ...
The purpose of this
study was to investigate the effects of push-up method (standard vs modified) and gender on
percentage of body weight supported. Thirty seven men and women completed five push-ups in
the standard (SPU) and modified (MPU) positions, and 5-sec hold (static) in the up (elbow
extension) and down (elbow flexion) positions. Vertical ground reaction forces (expressed as load
relative to body weight) were measured using force platforms. From a video-captured image, a
computer software distance tool measured vertical range of motion (ROM) achieved in the down
position expressed as a percentage of full vertical ROM. Maximal relative load was greater in
men than women (SPU: 97.7 ± 8.1% vs 80.0 ± 3.9%; MPU: 79.7 ± 7.4% vs 68.2 ± 3.0%, p < .0001)
with a greater effect during SPU (p < .0001). In the static up position, relative load did not differ
between men and women (SPU: 67.0 ± 3.8% vs 65.1 ± 3.1%; MPU: 52.5 ± 3.7% vs 51.5 ± 3.1%);
however, relative load was greater in men during the static down position (SPU: 74.6 ± 3.6 vs 70.3
± 3.1%; MPU: 60.1 ± 4.5 vs 56.6 ± 2.7%, p < .0001). Percentage of full vertical ROM was greater in
men than women (SPU: 67.7 ± 6.1% vs 50.1 ± 11.4%; MPU: 66.6 ± 6.9% vs 60.1 ± 8.9%, p = .001).
These data indicate that women perform the push-up with less relative load and ROM, likely due
to gender differences in movement patterns which can be altered by fatigue.
http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijes/vol7/iss2/7/
... Se justifican tales resultados, debido a la especificidad del gesto entre ambos (Mc Dougall et al., 2005), en el que la musculatura utilizada, el régimen de contracción isotónico y la magnitud de la resistencia a vencer, son muy similares a pesar de existir diferencias en la duración e intensidad del esfuerzo. Mayhew et al. (1991) e Invergo et al. (1991), en sus respectivas investigaciones, comprobaron la relación que existe entre dos pruebas que miden diferentes manifestaciones de fuerza de las extremidades superiores y emplean diferentes cargas esto es, el test de flexo-extensiones de brazos en un minuto y la prueba de 1 RM en press de banca; comprobaron que no son predictoras una de la otra. Bentz (2003) demostró que un entrenamiento de flexo-extensiones de brazos, suponía una ganancia de fuerza significativa (45.3%) en la prueba de máximas repeticiones de dicho gesto, y de tan sólo 12.9% en 1 RM en press de banca. ...
INTRODUCTION: we checked the possibility of using a contact platform to assess upper body strength, from lying prone. PROCEDURE: 84 men executed flexion and extension arms (1') and adapted SJB, 34 of them, throwing medicine ball (3kg and 7 variants). We performed tests for reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient: ICC) and validity (Pearson). RESULTS: ITC launches test (0.98 to 0.83 depending on variant) adapted SJB (0.90), flexion and extension arms in 1'(0.98). R Pearson SJB adapted shoots (r = 0.49) and the test arm flexion and extension (r = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: The three tests are reliable. The SJB adapted predicts the number of flexion and extension arms in 1', but not test launches.
... Research has shown that push-ups have a poor correlation (r = 0.556) to 1RM bench press and therefore are not a good predictor of muscular strength (10). In an attempt to assess upper body power, all three of the major service academies (i.e., U.S. Military Academy, U.S. Naval Academy, U.S. Air Force Academy) currently use the basketball throw as part of the candidate fitness assessment (CFA). ...
The lessons learned from recent combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown operational commanders that the military fitness tests currently used by the different services are inadequate in terms of assessing the physical fitness required for combat. Currently, only the U.S. Marine Corps employs a combat specific fitness test; although the U.S. Army and Air Force have recognized the need and rationale for one as well. Unfortunately, the U.S. Navy continues to lag behind the other services in terms of modernizing its physical fitness training and testing programs. The purpose of this article is four-fold: 1) justify the need for service-specific combat fitness tests, 2) discuss past and current examples service-specific combat fitness tests, 3) introduce a revised general fitness test intended to replace the current Navy Physical Readiness Test (PRT), and 4) propose an operational fitness test that could be adopted and employed by the U.S. Navy.
... Test-retest reliability for a timed push-up test has been reported to be .93, while the sit-up has been reported to be .88-.94 (Knudson, 1995;Invergo, Ball, & Looney, 1991). ...
... Sendo assim, a gordura corporal e o comprimento do tronco e dos membros podem influenciar nos resultados (4). Por exigir força e resistência dos membros superiores, o teste exige uma habilidade mínima para que seja realizado (17). ...
INTRODUCTION: The strength and muscular endurance are important components of physical fitness for health and high performance. The tests of push-up, pull-up and modified pull-up, using own body weight and evaluate motor skills related to physical fitness, health and athletic performance, to measure the strength and muscular endurance upper limbs in both sexes and a wide age range. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to search the literature methodological issues related to validity, reliability, objectivity and specific procedures used in tests: push-up, pull-up and modified pull-up, by doing so, a survey of indicators yield of these tests in elite athletes of different modalities. CONCLUSION: The tests of push-up, pull-up and modified pull-up are efficient, reliable, easy to apply and are tools that employ low cost, and require little training for evaluators. However, as we draw attention to the standardization and methodological recommendations for your applications so they can be safely used in rehabilitation and athletic performance.
... Se justifican tales resultados, debido a la especificidad del gesto entre ambos (Mc Dougall et al., 2005), en el que la musculatura utilizada, el régimen de contracción isotónico y la magnitud de la resistencia a vencer, son muy similares a pesar de existir diferencias en la duración e intensidad del esfuerzo. Mayhew et al. (1991) e Invergo et al. (1991), en sus respectivas investigaciones, comprobaron la relación que existe entre dos pruebas que miden diferentes manifestaciones de fuerza de las extremidades superiores y emplean diferentes cargas esto es, el test de flexo-extensiones de brazos en un minuto y la prueba de 1 RM en press de banca; comprobaron que no son predictoras una de la otra. Bentz (2003) demostró que un entrenamiento de flexo-extensiones de brazos, suponía una ganancia de fuerza significativa (45.3%) en la prueba de máximas repeticiones de dicho gesto, y de tan sólo 12.9% en 1 RM en press de banca. ...
INTRODUCCIÓN: se comprobó la posibilidad de utilizar una plataforma de contacto para evaluar la fuerza del tren superior, desde tumbado prono. PROCEDIMIENTO: 84 varones ejecutaron flexo-extensiones de brazos (1’) y SJB adaptado; 34 de ellos, lanzamientos de balón medicinal (3Kg y 7 variantes). Se realizaron pruebas de fiabilidad (coeficiente de correlación intraclase: CCI) y de validez (Pearson). RESULTADOS: CCI del test de lanzamientos (0,98-0,83 según variante); SJB adaptado (0.90); flexo-extensiones de brazos en 1’ (0,98). “r” de Pearson del SJB adaptado con los lanzamientos (r=0,49) y con el test de flexo-extensiones de brazos (r=0.95). CONCLUSIONES: los tres test son fiables. El SJB adaptado predice el número de flexo-extensiones de brazos en 1’, pero no del test de lanzamientos.
PALABRAS CLAVE: fuerza, extremidades superiores, plataforma de contacto, balón medicinal, SJB, flexo-extensione
... Test-retest reliability for a timed push-up test has been reported to be 0.93, whereas the sit-up has been reported to be 0.88-0.94 (14,18). ...
Currently, there is a paucity of literature that describes physical fitness levels in deploying service members. There has been no data collected that evaluate the Army National Guard or Reserves. This descriptive study will provide physical fitness data for soldiers in the Arizona National Guard (AZNG), allowing for a comparison between the active and reserve components. Sixty soldiers from the AZNG were tested before deployment. Body composition was measured by using air displacement plethysmography. Flexibility testing included the sit and reach (SNR), trunk extension (TE), and shoulder elevation (SE) assessments. Muscular strength was determined by the completion of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bench press and back squat. Muscular endurance was determined by the completion of the Army push-up (P/U) and sit-up (S/U) test. Muscular power was assessed by the completion of the Wingate cycle test and the standing broad jump (SBJ). Cardiorespiratory fitness was determined by the completion of a VO2peak test. The AZNG soldiers demonstrated a fat mass of 22.7 ± 8.9%, SNR, TE, and SE of 30.0 ± 8.9, 117.1 ± 25.2, and 145.5 ± 50.3 cm, 1RM bench press and back squat of 82.2 ± 29.9 and 104.6 ± 29.0 kg, P/U and S/U of 50 ± 18 and 53 ± 14 reps, peak power of 660.9 ± 177.8 W, SBJ of 191.8 ± 28.4 cm, and VO2peak of 48.9 ± 8.8 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1). This is the first study that provides descriptive data for physical fitness in a reserve component. The data demonstrate that these AZNG soldiers are relatively fit and have comparable results to their active duty counterparts. This descriptive data will provide military leadership a better understanding of the condition of soldiers before deployment and will assist them in better preparing soldiers for future conflicts.
... A certain percentage of adults who begin an exercise program may want to improve their physical fitness, but a greater majority are probably exercising for health-related benefits and disease prevention. In its position statement, the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) (1) has recognized the fact that moderately intense exercise may prevent certain dirieases, including cardiovascular disease, and in, 1990 the American Heart Association (10) added physical inactivity as a primary risk factor for the development of coronary artery disease (CAD). ...
The purpose of this study was to determine the average number of repetitions that could be performed at 40, 50, 60, and 70% of 1-repetition maximum (1 RM), and to assess rating of perceived exertion (RPE) values associated with each percentage. Ten men (% age = 48) and 10 women (% age = 49) volunteered for the study. Absolute strength was assessed for each exercise via 1 RM testing, while relative muscular endurance testing consisted of performing maximum repetitions at each percentage of 1 RM. In addition, RPE values were assessed after the 1 0 r~ep etition on each exercise, at each percentage. Results indicated there was a significant difference (p ( .05) in the number of repetitions performed on different exercises at similar percentages of 1 RM. RPE values were also significantly different (p .05) at similar percentages across all lifts. Men and women responded very similar to all lifting conditions. Men performed significantly (p 5 .05) more repetitions on the pulldown compared to all other exercises at 40 and 50%, while women performed more repetitions on the pulldown at all percentages. Both genders performed more repetitions on the chest press than on the arm curl and leg extension, while no differences were noted between the average number of repetitions performed on the arm curl and leg extension at any percentage. RPE values were significantly different across all percentages for each lift, Values were lowest for the pulldown exercise at all percentages, and were highest for the arm curl and leg extension exercises. These findings suggest that the average number of repetitions and RPE values vary for each exercise at any given percentage of 1 RM. Therefore, exercise performance should not be assumed to be equal among different lifts, suggesting resistance exercise prescription be individually tailored.
... The participants in the high-velocity group performed workouts designed to elicit strength gains at high movement speeds by using weights of 30± 50% of maximum strength (maximum strength on each exercise was measured approximately 1 week before the ® rst testing session using standard 1-RM estimation procedures; e.g. Invergo et al., 1991;Abernethy and J rimäe, 1996). These loads are hypothesized to correspond to the loads at which optimum power is produced and have been shown to signi® cantly improve dynamic athletic performance (Wilson et al., 1993). ...
The aim of this study was to determine the effects of 7 weeks of high- and low-velocity resistance training on strength and sprint running performance in nine male elite junior sprint runners (age 19.0+/-1.4 years, best 100 m times 10.89+/-0.21 s; mean +/- s). The athletes continued their sprint training throughout the study, but their resistance training programme was replaced by one in which the movement velocities of hip extension and flexion, knee extension and flexion and squat exercises varied according to the loads lifted (i.e. 30-50% and 70-90% of 1-RM in the high- and low-velocity training groups, respectively). There were no between-group differences in hip flexion or extension torque produced at 1.05, 4.74 or 8.42 rad x s(-1), 20 m acceleration or 20 m 'flying' running times, or 1-RM squat lift strength either before or after training. This was despite significant improvements in 20 m acceleration time (P < 0.01), squat strength (P < 0.05), isokinetic hip flexion torque at 4.74 rad x s(-1) and hip extension torque at 1.05 and 4.74 rad x s(-1) for the athletes as a whole over the training period. Although velocity-specific strength adaptations have been shown to occur rapidly in untrained and nonconcurrently training individuals, the present results suggest a lack of velocity-specific performance changes in elite concurrently training sprint runners performing a combination of traditional and semi-specific resistance training exercises.
Introduction
Low back pain (LBP) is a major cause of visits to ambulatory care, missed duty time, and disability discharge. The subacute phase of LBP presents an opportune time to prevent chronicity and lessen recurrence. The goal of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to determine the relative effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) training and a progressive exercise program (PEP) on improving physical performance, pain, and torso strength in U.S. service members with subacute LBP, compared to standard primary care management (PCM) alone.
Methods
This is an Institutional Review Board–approved protocol for an RCT conducted with active duty military personnel (n = 128) at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, between April 2018 and March 2020. Participants were randomized to receive NMES (n = 43), PEP (n = 42), or PCM (n = 43) for 9 weeks. Outcome measures of physical performance (sit-ups, push-ups, walking, and torso endurance), torso muscle strength (flexion and extension), and pain were assessed at baseline and after 3, 6, and 9 weeks. Analysis was intent-to-treat using linear mixed effects models. A sensitivity analysis was performed to address the protocol deviations that occurred in response to coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, which required rescheduling 17 in-person study visits to home assessments at 9-week testing.
Results
Evidence was found for group differences in physical performance for sit-ups and push-ups, with NMES showing greater improvement than PCM. The two groups showed similar improvements in torso muscle strength, although the NMES groups may show better improvement during early treatment. No group differences in pain levels were observed during the intervention, and all groups improved during the course of the study period. The amount of NMES muscle stimulation was directly related to the level of improvement, which was not the case for the hours reported for PEP exercise.
Conclusion
In an active duty population with subacute LBP, integrating NMES strength training into the rehabilitation therapy may offer a modest benefit for increasing sit-ups and push-ups and improving torso strength.
There are a variety of established one repetition maximum (1RM) prediction equations, however very few prediction equations utilize anthropometric characteristics exclusively or in part, to estimate 1RM strength. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop an original 1RM prediction equation for bench press using anthropometric and performance characteristics in moderately trained male subjects. Sixty male subjects (21.2 ± 2.4 yr) completed a 1RM bench press and were randomly assigned a load to complete as many repetitions as possible. In addition, body composition, upper body anthropometric characteristics, and handgrip strength were assessed. Regression analysis was used to develop a performance-based 1RM prediction equation: 1RM = 1.20 RepWt + 2.19 RTF - 0.56 Biacromial Width (cm) + 9.6 (R = 0.99, SEE = 3.5 kg). Regression analysis to develop a nonperformance-based 1RM prediction equation yielded: 1 RM (kg) = 0.997 CSA (cm) + 0.401 Chest Cir (cm) - 0.385 %fat - 0.185 arm length (cm) + 36.7 (R = 0.81, SEE = 13.0 kg). The performance prediction equations developed in this study had high validity coefficients, minimal mean bias, and small limits of agreement. The anthropometric equations had moderately high validity coefficient but larger limits of agreement. The practical applications of this study indicate that the inclusion of anthropometric characteristics and performance variables produces a valid prediction equation for 1RM strength. In addition, the CSA of the arm uses a simple nonperformance method of estimating the lifter's 1RM. This information may be used to predict the starting load for a lifter performing a 1RM prediction protocol or a 1RM testing protocol.
The purpose of this study was to assess inter-rater reliability and intra-rater reliability of the 2-minute, 90° push-up test as utilized in the Army Physical Fitness Test. Analysis of rater assessment reliability included both total score agreement and agreement across individual push-up repetitions. This study utilized 8 Raters who assessed 15 different videotaped push-up performances over 4 iterations separated by a minimum of 1 week. The 15 push-up participants were videotaped during the semiannual Army Physical Fitness Test. Each Rater randomly viewed the 15 push-up and verbally responded with a "yes" or "no" to each push-up repetition. The data generated were analyzed using the Pearson product-moment correlation as well as the kappa, modified kappa and the intra-class correlation coefficient (3,1). An attribute agreement analysis was conducted to determine the percent of inter-rater and intra-rater agreement across individual push-ups.The results indicated that Raters varied a great deal in assessing push-ups. Over the 4 trials of 15 participants, the overall scores of the Raters varied between 3.0 and 35.7 push-ups. Post hoc comparisons found that there was significant increase in the grand mean of push-ups from trials 1-3 to trial 4 (p < 0.05). Also, there was a significant difference among raters over the 4 trials (p < 0.05). Pearson correlation coefficients for inter-rater and intra-rater reliability identified inter-rater reliability coefficients were between 0.10 and 0.97. Intra-rater coefficients were between 0.48 and 0.99. Intra-rater agreement for individual push-up repetitions ranged from 41.8% to 84.8%. The results indicated that the raters failed to assess the same push-up repetition with the same score (below 70% agreement) as well as failed to agree when viewed between raters (29%). Interestingly, as previously mentioned, scores on trial 4 increased significantly which might have been caused by rater drift or that the Raters did not maintain the push-up standard over the trials. It does appear that the final push-up scores received by each participant was a close approximation of actual performance (within 65%) but when assessing physical performance for retention in the Army, a more reliable test might be considered.
The purpose of this study was to investigate relationships between one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength measures and various sport performance measures in evaluating upper and lower body strength. Fifty-seven high school female athletes ages 14-18 participated in this study. All of the participants completed a 1RM bench and leg press test to determine absolute and relative strength. Athletes were also evaluated on eight different performance measures including: sit-ups, 40-yd sprint, vertical jump, sit and reach, medicine ball toss, shuttle run, leg press repetitions-to-fatigue (91 kg), and bench press repetitions-to-fatigue (27 kg) in conjunction with various body composition variables. A Pearson product correlation and Stepwise regression analysis was utilized to determine relationships between 1RM strength and the performance measures for upper and lower body strength. Based on the data analysis, it was concluded that bench press repetitions-to-fatigue (BPRTF27) using a weight load of 27 kg had the highest correlation with 1RM bench press strength (r= 0.802) and leg press repetitions-to-fatigue using a weight load of 91 kg had the highest correlation with 1RM leg press strength (r= 0.793) indicating that these tests were viable alternatives to 1RM testing for strength assessment. The Stepwise Regression analysis further confirmed that BPRTF27 and LBM (lean body mass) were significant variables in developing the model 1RMBP= 48.44 + (1.42) BPRTF27 + (.153) LBM for upper body strength testing. Similar results occurred in the lower body model (1RMLP= 69.92 + (3.65) LPRTF91 + (1.42) LBM + (2.63) with the addition of the SIT/REA (sit/reach) variable. A positive relationship between 1RM strength and repetitions-to-fatigue testing was evident for all models (p < .001).
This study examined population-specific allometric exponents to control for the effect of body mass (BM) on bench press, clean and squat strength measures among Division IA collegiate football athletes. One-repetition maximum data were obtained from a university pre-season football strength assessment (Bench press, n=207, clean, n=88, and Squat n=86) and categorized into three groups by positions (Line, Linebacker, and Skill). Regression diagnostics and correlations of scaled strength data to BM were used to assess the efficacy of the allometric scaling model and contrasted with that of ratio scaling and theoretically based allometric exponents of 0.67 and 0.33. The log linear regression models yielded the following exponents (b): b=0.559, 0.287 and 0.496 for bench press, clean and squat respectively. Correlations between bench press, clean and squat to BM were r=-0.024, -0.047, and -0.018 respectively, suggesting the derived allometric exponents were effective in partialling out the effect of BM on these lifts and removing between-group differences. Conversely, unscaled, ratio-scaled and allometrically scaled (b=0.67 or 0.33) data resulted in significant differences between groups. It is suggested that the exponents derived in the present study be used for allometrically scaling strength measures in NCAA Division IA football athletes. Use of the normative percentile rank scores provide coaches and trainers with a valid means of judging the effectiveness of their training programs by allowing comparisons between individuals without the confounding influence of BM.
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
To assess the efficacy of the NFL-225 test to evaluate upper-body strength in football players, 142 college players (69 Division IAA and 73 Division II) were measured at the conclusion of their off-season resistance training program for 1 repetition maximum (1 RM) bench press and repetitions to fatigue with 225 lb. A validation sample of players (n = 114) was randomly selected to develop a prediction equation that was significantly correlated with 1 RM (r = 0.96) and allowed reasonably accurate predictions (SEE = 14.1 lb). The remaining 28 players served as a cross-validation sample that produced a high correlation (r = 0.96) and a nonsignificant difference (t = 0.46) between predicted and actual 1 RM. Sixty-eight percent of the cross-validation sample had predicted 1 RM values within +/-10 lb of their actual 1 RM performance. Therefore, muscular endurance repetitions with an absolute load of 225 lb can be used to predict 1 RM bench press strength in college football players, although the error in prediction increases when endurance performance exceeds 10 repetitions.
(C) 1999 National Strength and Conditioning Association
This study examined the relationship between 1-RM bench press performance and the 225-lb bench press reps-to-fatigue test. Using NCAA Div. II football players at a north central university (N = 98), this study found that the 225-lb bench press reps-to-fatigue test is a valid estimate of 1-RM performance in trained college football players (r = 0.96, p < 0.001) with a standard error of +/-10.8 lbs (4.9 kg). The estimation of 1-RM bench press performance was improved when repetitions were 10 or less (R2 = 0.85 vs. 0.76). Thus this study supported the validity of the 225-lb bench press reps-to-fatigue test as a submaximal estimate of 1-RM bench press performance in college football players who are familiar with the exercise and sufficiently conditioned to perform reps with 225 lbs.
(C) 1998 National Strength and Conditioning Association
The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of using relative muscular endurance performance to estimate 1-RM bench press and squat strength in college football players. NCAA Div. II players (N = 45) were tested after 12 weeks of resistance training in a winter conditioning program. Each subject selected a weight he anticipated to be 70% of l-RM for each lift and performed as many repetitions as possible. Results indicated that players selected weights averaging 71.3 and 68.0% of 1-RM bench press and squat, respectively, and averaged 13.9 and 17.4 repetitions-to-failure. The Mayhew et al. equation significantly underestimated 1-RM bench press while the Epley, Lander, and Brzycki equations significantly overestimated it. In the squat, all equations significantly overestimated 1-RM values. It appears that an exponential relative muscular endurance equation can be used to estimate 1-RM bench press strength in college football players, but none of the equations evaluated were accurate for predicting l-RM squat.
(C) 1995 National Strength and Conditioning Association
The purpose of this study was to examine the relative importance of physiological characteristics during firefighting performance, as assessed by the Candidate Physical Ability Test (CPAT). Subjects included career and volunteer firefighters aged 18-39 (N = 33). Upper- and lower-body strength, muscle endurance, lower body muscle power, body composition analysis, aerobic capacity, anaerobic fitness, and the heart rate (HR) and blood pressure response to stair climbing were assessed to determine the physiological characteristics of the subjects. To quantify firefighting performance, the CPAT was administered by members of the fire service. Absolute and relative mean power during the Wingate anaerobic cycling test (WAnT), relative peak power during the WAnT, and absolute maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) were significantly higher in those who passed the CPAT (N = 18), compared to those who failed (N = 15; p < 0.01). Mean power during the WAnT, fatigue index during WAnT, absolute VO2max, upper body strength, grip strength, and the HR response to stair climbing were significantly related to CPAT performance time (p < 0.01). Absolute VO2max and anaerobic fatigue resistance during WAnT best predicted CPAT performance (Adj. R2 = 0.817; p < 0.001). Performance on the ceiling breach and pull was the only CPAT task that was not significantly related to the physiological characteristics assessed. Measures of anaerobic and cardiovascular fitness best predict overall CPAT performance, and individual task performance. Remedial programs aimed at improving firefighting performance should target anaerobic and aerobic fitness qualities.
The objective of this study was to investigate the accuracy of eleven prediction equations and one prediction table when estimating isoinertial knee extension and leg press one repetition maximum (1-RM) performance in subjects with knee injuries and knee osteoarthritis. Study Design: A descriptive quantitative research study was undertaken utilizing a cross-sectional design. Background: Traumatic injuries and osteoarthritis are common musculoskeletal pathologies that can disrupt normal function of the knee joint. A frequent sequela of these pathologies is quadriceps femoris muscle weakness. Such weakness can contribute to disability and diminished levels of functional and recreational activity. Therefore, safe and accurate methods of measuring maximal strength are required to identify and quantify quadriceps strength deficits. One option proposed in the literature is the use of 1-RM prediction equations which estimate 1-RM performance from the number of repetitions completed with sub-maximal loads. These equations have been investigated previously using healthy populations and subjects with calf muscle injuries. However, to date, no known study has investigated their accuracy in individuals with joint pathologies. Method: Machine-weight seated knee extension and seated leg press exercises were investigated in this study. Twenty subjects with knee injuries and 12 subjects with knee OA completed the testing procedures for the knee extension exercise. Nineteen subjects with knee injuries and 18 subjects with knee OA completed the testing procedures for the leg press exercise. All subjects attended the testing venue on three occasions. At the first visit a familiarization session was carried out. At the second and third visits each subject was randomly assigned to perform either actual or predicted 1-RM testing for both of the exercises. Twelve different prediction methods were used to estimate 1-RM performance from the results. The estimates of 1-RM strength were then compared to actual 1-RM performance to assess the level of conformity between these measures. Statistical procedures including Bland and Altman analyses, intraclass correlation coefficients, typical error and total error of measurement were used in the analyses of the results. In addition, paired t-tests were performed to determine whether actual 1-RM values were significantly different across the control and affected limbs and whether there were any significant differences in predictive accuracy for each equation across the control and affected limbs. Finally, the number of subjects with predicted 1-RM values within 5% or less of their actual 1-RM values was determined for each equation. Results: When the knee injury group performed the knee extension exercise, the Brown, Brzycki, Epley, Lander, Mayhew et al., Poliquin and Wathen prediction methods demonstrated the greatest levels of predictive accuracy. When two atypical subjects were identified and excluded from the analyses, the accuracy of these equations improved further. Following the removal of these two subjects, no significant differences in predictive accuracy were found for any of the equations across the affected and control limbs (p > 0.05). Typical errors and total errors were low for the more accurate prediction methods ranging from 2.4-2.8% and from 2.4-3.5%, respectively. Overall, the Poliquin table appeared to be the most accurate prediction method for this sample (affected limbs: bias 0.3 kg, 95% limits of agreement (LOA) -5.8 to 6.4 kg, typical error as a coefficient of variation (COV) 2.4%, total error of measurement (total error) 2.4%; control limbs: bias -1.3 kg, 95% LOA -9.0 to 6.3 kg, typical error as a COV 2.7%, total error 2.8%). When the knee OA group performed the knee extension exercise, the Brown, Brzycki, Epley, Lander, Mayhew et al., Poliquin and Wathen prediction methods demonstrated the greatest levels of predictive accuracy. No significant differences in predictive accuracy were found for any of the equations across the affected and control limbs (p > 0.05). When an atypical subject was identified and excluded from the analyses, the accuracy of the equations improved further. Typical errors as COVs and total errors for the more accurate prediction methods ranged from 2.5-2.7% and from 2.4-2.9%, respectively. Overall, the Poliquin table appeared to be the most accurate prediction method for this sample (affected limbs: bias 0.9 kg, 95% LOA -4.5 to 6.3 kg, typical error as a COV 2.5%, total error 2.5%; control limbs: bias -0.1 kg, 95% LOA -6.0 to 5.9 kg, typical error as a COV 2.5%, total error 2.4%). When the knee injury group performed the leg press, the Adams, Berger, Lombardi and O’Connor equations demonstrated the greatest levels of predictive accuracy. No significant differences in predictive accuracy were found for any of the equations across the affected and control limbs (p > 0.05). Typical errors as COVs and total errors for the more accurate equations ranged from 2.8-3.2% and from 2.9-3.3%, respectively. Overall, the Berger (affected limbs: bias -0.4 kg, 95% LOA -7.2 to 6.3 kg, typical error as a COV 3.2%, total error 3.2%; control limbs: bias 0.1 kg, 95% LOA -6.6 to 6.7 kg, typical error as a COV 3.1%, total error 3.0%) and O’Connor equations (affected limbs: bias -0.6 kg, 95% LOA-6.8 to 5.7 kg, typical error as a COV 2.9%, total error 3.0%; control limbs: bias -0.2 kg, 95% LOA -6.9 to 6.4 kg, typical error as a COV 2.9%, total error 2.9%) appeared to be the most accurate prediction methods for this sample. When the knee OA group performed the leg press, the Adams, Berger, KLW, Lombardi and O’Connor equations demonstrated the greatest levels of predictive accuracy. No significant differences in predictive accuracy were found for any of the equations across the affected and control limbs (p > 0.05). The typical errors as COVs and the total error values for the more accurate prediction methods were the highest observed in this study, ranging from 5.8-6.0% and from 5.7-6.2%, respectively. Overall, the Adams, Berger, KLW and O’Connor equations appeared to be the most accurate prediction methods for this sample. However, it is possible that the predicted leg press 1-RM values produced by the knee OA group might not have matched actual 1-RM values closely enough to be clinically acceptable for some purposes. Conclusion: The findings of the current study suggested that the Poliquin table produced the most accurate estimates of knee extension 1-RM performance for both the knee injury and knee OA groups. In contrast, the Berger and O’Connor equations produced the most accurate estimates of leg press 1-RM performance for the knee injury group, while the Adams, Berger, KLW and O’Connor equations produced the most accurate results for the knee OA group. However, the higher error values observed for the knee OA group suggested that predicted leg press 1-RM performance might not be accurate enough for some clinical purposes. Finally, it can be concluded that no single prediction equation was able to accurately estimate both knee extension and leg press 1-RM performance in subjects with knee injuries and knee OA.
In two studies, the reliability of 3 balance, 2 flexibility, and 4 muscular strength tests proposed as test items were investigated in a health-related fitness (HRF) test battery for adults.
Methodological study.
A health promotion research institute.
In study A, volunteers (n=42) from two worksites participated. In study B, a population sample (n=510) of 37-to 57-year-old men and women was selected.
Intraclass correlation coefficient of repeated measures was used to assess inter-rater reliability. The degree of measurement error was expressed as the standard error of measurement. The mean difference with 95% confidence intervals between the testing days or test trials was used to assess test-retest or trial-to-trial reproducibility. The coefficient of variation(CV=[SD/mean] x 100%) from day to day was also calculated.
The following tests appeared to provide acceptable reliability as methods for field assessment of HRF: standing on one leg with eyes open for balance, side-bending of the trunk for spinal flexibility, modified push-ups for upper body muscular function, and jump and reach and one leg squat for leg muscular function.
This reliability assessment provided useful information on the characteristics of potential test items in a HRF test battery for adults and on the limitations of its practical use. Testers must be properly trained to ensure reliable assessment of HRF of adults.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of repetitions-to-fatigue (RTF) using an absolute load of 102.3 kg (225 lbs) to estimate one-repetition maximum (1-RM) bench press performance in college football players using various prediction equations.
a prospective study on the association between muscular endurance and muscular strength.
260 players from NCAA Division IA (n=43), IAA (n=63), II (n=129), and red-shirts (n=25) were evaluated at the conclusion of a minimum of eight weeks of heavy-resistance training during the off-season.
all subjects performed a 1-RM bench press and RTF using an absolute load of 102.3 kg.
The Mayhew et al. NFL-225 equation nonsignificantly overestimated 1-RM from RTF by 0.5 kg, while the Chapman et al. NFL-225 equation significantly underpredicted by 3.2 kg, although both equations were comparable in the number of players predicted within +/-4.5 kg of actual 1-RM (52% vs 51%, respectively). Only two of nine RTF equations currently in use produced predicted 1-RM values that were not significantly different from actual 1-RM performance.
Specific NFL-225 equations are more accurate in estimating 1-RM bench press from absolute muscle endurance in college football players than previous published RTF equations. The accuracy of prediction decreases at higher repetitions.
Androgen deprivation therapy is a common treatment in men with prostate cancer that may cause fatigue, functional decline, increased body fatness, and loss of lean body tissue. These physical changes can negatively affect health-related quality of life. Resistance exercise may help to counter some of these side effects by reducing fatigue, elevating mood, building muscle mass, and reducing body fat.
In a two-site study, 155 men with prostate cancer who were scheduled to receive androgen deprivation therapy for at least 3 months after recruitment were randomly assigned to an intervention group that participated in a resistance exercise program three times per week for 12 weeks (82 men) or to a waiting list control group (73 men). The primary outcomes were fatigue and disease-specific quality of life as assessed by self-reported questionnaires after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were muscular fitness and body composition.
Men assigned to resistance exercise had less interference from fatigue on activities of daily living (P =.002) and higher quality of life (P =.001) than men in the control group. Men in the intervention group demonstrated higher levels of upper body (P =.009) and lower body (P <.001) muscular fitness than men in the control group. The 12-week resistance exercise intervention did not improve body composition as measured by changes in body weight, body mass index, waist circumference, or subcutaneous skinfolds.
Resistance exercise reduces fatigue and improves quality of life and muscular fitness in men with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy. This form of exercise can be an important component of supportive care for these patients.
To examine predictors of adherence in a randomized controlled trial of resistance exercise training (RET) in prostate cancer survivors receiving androgen deprivation therapy.
A randomized controlled trial conducted at fitness centers in Ottawa and Edmonton, Canada. Prostate cancer survivors (n=155) completed measures of social cognitive variables, quality of life (QOL), behavior, and fitness before being randomized to either an exercise (n=82) or control (n=73) group. The exercise group was asked to perform supervised RET three times per week for 12 weeks.
The exercise group attended 28.2 of the 36 (78.3%) RET sessions. Univariate analyses revealed eight different significant (Ps <.05) predictors of exercise adherence including exercise stage of change, intention, age, QOL, fatigue, subjective norm, leg-press test, and perceived behavioral control. A multivariate analysis indicated that there were three independent predictors of adherence that explained 20.4% of the variance: exercise stage of change (beta=0.26; P=.013), age (beta=-0.22; P=.037), and intention (beta=0.19; P=.073).
Exercise adherence in the trial was very good but not optimal. Adherence was predicted by variables from many different categories including social cognitive, QOL, behavioral, fitness, and demographic. These findings may have important implications for maximizing adherence during clinical trials of exercise in prostate cancer survivors.
Popular fitness literature suggests that varied hand placements during push-ups may isolate different muscles. Scientific literature, however, offers scant evidence that varied hand placements elicit different muscle responses. This study examined whether different levels of electromyographic (EMG) activity in the pectoralis major and triceps brachii muscles are required to perform push-ups from each of 3 different hand positions: shoulder width base, wide base, and narrow base hand placements. Forty subjects, 11 men and 29 women, performed 1 repetition of each push-up. The EMG activity for subjects' dominant arm pectoralis major and triceps brachii was recorded using surface electrodes. The EMG activity was greater in both muscle groups during push-ups performed from the narrow base hand position compared with the wide base position (p < 0.05). This study suggests that, if a goal is to induce greater muscle activation during exercise, then push-ups should be performed with hands in a narrow base position compared with a wide base position.
Males (N = 49), age 17 to 33 yr, served as subjects for the study which investigated the relationship between static strength and submaximal, static muscle endurance of the grip squeezing muscles. The percentages of maximal static strength used for the endurance tests were 30%, 45%, 60%, and 75% with local circulation to the muscles intact and artificially occluded by a pressure cuff. Two groups, a high strength group and a low strength group, were formed based on the mean maximal strength of the subjects. The differences between groups with respect to endurance performance under the two conditions at the 4 percentage levels were tested with univariate ANOVAS. Significant negative correlations were noted between static strength and endurance time for each treatment. The critical occluding tension level was found to be 60% maximal voluntary contractile strength (MVC) for low strength individuals as compared to 45% MVC for high strength individuals. The endurance time of the low strength group was significantly greater than that of the high strength group at the lower tension levels. In contrast, the force output of the high strength was greater than that of the low strength group at the lower tension levels. The negative relationship between static strength and endurance time may be a function of the larger degree of intramuscular occlusion and greater force output of high strength individuals at the lower tension levels.
The study was concerned with devising a model to fit the relationships that were found to exist between isometric measures of strength and endurance, within a sample of 30 men. Two measurer of endurance were taken using different loading factors. The first measure used a common load of 5/8 of the mean of the maximum strengths recorded for the members of the sample and the scores thus obtained were termed the “absolute” endurance. The second measure used an individual load of 5/8 of the maximum strength recorded for each particular member of the group and the scores thus obtained were called the “relative” endurance. On the basis of the interrelationships of the measures, it was suggested that when intramuscular tension becomes sufficient to cause intramuscular vascular occlusion, isometric endurance is related to strength. When the tension produces only partial occlusion the local circulatory efficiency has to be considered and the relationship of endurance to strength becomes less until with very light loading the factors causing cessation of work might bear little relation to strength.