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

This study examined the reliability and validity of three methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. Twenty-six men (22 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental loading test until reaching their 1RM, followed by a set of re...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of sports sciences 2019-10, Vol.37 (19), p.2205-2212
Main Authors: García-Ramos, Amador, Barboza-González, Paola, Ulloa-Díaz, David, Rodriguez-Perea, Angela, Martinez-Garcia, Darío, Guede-Rojas, Francisco, Hinojosa-Riveros, Hans, Chirosa-Ríos, Luis Javier, Cuevas-Aburto, Jesualdo, Janicijevic, Danica, Weakley, Jonathon
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Lift-to-failure equations
linear position transducer
load-velocity relationship
Methods
Repetition
resistance training
Strength training
velocity-based training
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study examined the reliability and validity of three methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. Twenty-six men (22 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental loading test until reaching their 1RM, followed by a set of repetitions-to-failure. Eighteen participants were re-tested to conduct the reliability analysis. The 1RM was estimated through the lifts-to-failure equations proposed by Lombardi and O'Connor, general load-velocity (L-V) relationships proposed by Sánchez-Medina and Loturco and the individual L-V relationships modelled using four (multiple-point method) or only two loads (two-point method). The direct method provided the highest reliability (coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.45% and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97), followed by the Lombardi's equation (CV = 3.44% and ICC = 0.94), and no meaningful differences were observed between the remaining methods (CV range = 4.95-6.89% and ICC range = 0.81-0.91). The lifts-to-failure equations overestimated the 1RM (3.43-4.08%), the general L-V relationship proposed by Sánchez-Medina underestimated the 1RM (−3.77%), and no significant differences were observed for the remaining prediction methods (−0.40-0.86%). The individual L-V relationship could be recommended as the most accurate method for predicting the 1RM during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.
ISSN:0264-0414
1466-447X
DOI:10.1080/02640414.2019.1626071