Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Validity of Different Velocity-Based Methods and Repetitions-to-Failure Equations for Predicting the 1 Repetition Maximum During 2 Upper-Body Pulling Exercises.
J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Jul 01; 35(7):1800-1808.JS

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Pérez-Castilla, A, Suzovic, D, Domanovic, A, Fernandes, JFT, and García-Ramos, A. Validity of different velocity-based methods and repetitions-to-failure equations for predicting the 1 repetition maximum during 2 upper-body pulling exercises. J Strength Cond Res 35(7): 1800-1808, 2021-This study aimed to compare the accuracy of different velocity-based methods and repetitions-to-failure equations for predicting the 1 repetition maximum (i.e., maximum load that can be lifted once; 1RM) during 2 upper-body pulling exercises. Twenty-three healthy subjects (twelve men and eleven women) were tested in 2 sessions during the lat pull-down and seated cable row exercises. Each session consisted of an incremental loading test until reaching the 1RM followed by a set of repetitions-to-failure against the 80% 1RM load. The 1RM was estimated from the individual load-velocity relationships modeled through 4 (∼40, 55, 70, and 85% 1RM; multiple-point method) or 2 loads (∼40 and 85% 1RM; 2-point method). Mean velocity was recorded with a linear position transducer and a Smartphone application. Therefore, 4 velocity-based methods were used as a result of combining the 2 devices and the 2 methods. Two repetitions-to-failure equations (Mayhew and Wathen) were also used to predict the 1RM from the load and number of repetitions completed. The absolute differences with respect to the actual 1RM were higher for the repetitions-to-failure equations than velocity-based methods during the seated cable row exercise (p = 0.004), but not for the lat pull-down exercise (p = 0.200). The repetitions-to-failure equations significantly underestimated the actual 1RM (p < 0.05; range: -6.65 to -2.14 kg), whereas no systematic differences were observed for the velocity-based methods (range: -1.75 to 1.65 kg). All predicted 1RMs were highly correlated with the actual 1RM (r ≥ 0.96). The velocity-based methods provide a more accurate estimate of the 1RM than the Mayhew and Wathen repetitions-to-failure equations during the lat pull-down and seated cable row exercises.

Links

Publisher Full Text (DOI)

Authors+Show Affiliations

Pérez-Castilla A
Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Suzovic D
The Research Center, Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
Domanovic A
The Research Center, Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
Fernandes JFT
Sport, Exercise and Well-being Arena, Hartpury University, Hartpury, United Kingdom; and.
García-Ramos A
Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain. Department of Sports Sciences and Physical Conditioning, Faculty of Education, CIEDE, Catholic University of the Most Holy Concepción, Concepción, Chile.

MeSH

ExerciseExercise TherapyFemaleHumansMaleMuscle StrengthResearch DesignResistance TrainingWeight Lifting

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

30741875

Citation

Pérez-Castilla, Alejandro, et al. "Validity of Different Velocity-Based Methods and Repetitions-to-Failure Equations for Predicting the 1 Repetition Maximum During 2 Upper-Body Pulling Exercises." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, vol. 35, no. 7, 2021, pp. 1800-1808.
Pérez-Castilla A, Suzovic D, Domanovic A, et al. Validity of Different Velocity-Based Methods and Repetitions-to-Failure Equations for Predicting the 1 Repetition Maximum During 2 Upper-Body Pulling Exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35(7):1800-1808.
Pérez-Castilla, A., Suzovic, D., Domanovic, A., Fernandes, J. F. T., & García-Ramos, A. (2021). Validity of Different Velocity-Based Methods and Repetitions-to-Failure Equations for Predicting the 1 Repetition Maximum During 2 Upper-Body Pulling Exercises. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 35(7), 1800-1808. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003076
Pérez-Castilla A, et al. Validity of Different Velocity-Based Methods and Repetitions-to-Failure Equations for Predicting the 1 Repetition Maximum During 2 Upper-Body Pulling Exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Jul 1;35(7):1800-1808. PubMed PMID: 30741875.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Validity of Different Velocity-Based Methods and Repetitions-to-Failure Equations for Predicting the 1 Repetition Maximum During 2 Upper-Body Pulling Exercises. AU - Pérez-Castilla,Alejandro, AU - Suzovic,Dejan, AU - Domanovic,Aleksandra, AU - Fernandes,John F T, AU - García-Ramos,Amador, PY - 2019/2/12/pubmed PY - 2021/6/23/medline PY - 2019/2/12/entrez SP - 1800 EP - 1808 JF - Journal of strength and conditioning research JO - J Strength Cond Res VL - 35 IS - 7 N2 - ABSTRACT: Pérez-Castilla, A, Suzovic, D, Domanovic, A, Fernandes, JFT, and García-Ramos, A. Validity of different velocity-based methods and repetitions-to-failure equations for predicting the 1 repetition maximum during 2 upper-body pulling exercises. J Strength Cond Res 35(7): 1800-1808, 2021-This study aimed to compare the accuracy of different velocity-based methods and repetitions-to-failure equations for predicting the 1 repetition maximum (i.e., maximum load that can be lifted once; 1RM) during 2 upper-body pulling exercises. Twenty-three healthy subjects (twelve men and eleven women) were tested in 2 sessions during the lat pull-down and seated cable row exercises. Each session consisted of an incremental loading test until reaching the 1RM followed by a set of repetitions-to-failure against the 80% 1RM load. The 1RM was estimated from the individual load-velocity relationships modeled through 4 (∼40, 55, 70, and 85% 1RM; multiple-point method) or 2 loads (∼40 and 85% 1RM; 2-point method). Mean velocity was recorded with a linear position transducer and a Smartphone application. Therefore, 4 velocity-based methods were used as a result of combining the 2 devices and the 2 methods. Two repetitions-to-failure equations (Mayhew and Wathen) were also used to predict the 1RM from the load and number of repetitions completed. The absolute differences with respect to the actual 1RM were higher for the repetitions-to-failure equations than velocity-based methods during the seated cable row exercise (p = 0.004), but not for the lat pull-down exercise (p = 0.200). The repetitions-to-failure equations significantly underestimated the actual 1RM (p < 0.05; range: -6.65 to -2.14 kg), whereas no systematic differences were observed for the velocity-based methods (range: -1.75 to 1.65 kg). All predicted 1RMs were highly correlated with the actual 1RM (r ≥ 0.96). The velocity-based methods provide a more accurate estimate of the 1RM than the Mayhew and Wathen repetitions-to-failure equations during the lat pull-down and seated cable row exercises. SN - 1533-4287 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/30741875/Validity_of_Different_Velocity_Based_Methods_and_Repetitions_to_Failure_Equations_for_Predicting_the_1_Repetition_Maximum_During_2_Upper_Body_Pulling_Exercises_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -