Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

RETRACTED ARTICLE

Load-velocity relationship 1RM predictions: A comparison of Smith machine and free-weight exercise.
J Sports Sci. 2020 Nov; 38(22):2562-2568.JS

Abstract

This study aimed to determine differences in the validity and reliability of 1RM predictions made using load-velocity relationships in Smith machine and free-weight exercise. Twenty well-trained males attended six sessions, comprising the Smith machine and free-weight squat, bench press, prone row and overhead press. Load-velocity relationship-based 1RM predictions were performed using minimal velocity threshold (1RMMVT), load at zero velocity (1RMLD0) and force-velocity (1RMFV) methods, with 5- or 7-loads. Measured 1RM did not differ from 1RMMVT or 1RMLD0 for any of the Smith machine exercises, while it was higher than 1RMFV for all exercises except the prone row. For the free-weight variations all 1RM predictions differed from measured 1RM for the squat and overhead press, while measured and predicted 1RM did not differ in the bench press and prone row. No differences were observed between 7-and 5-load predictions. 1RMMVT was the most reliable and valid of the methods. Smith machine exercises resulted in more reliable predictions than free weight exercises. 1RMMVT provides valid and reliable predictions for the Smith machine, squat, bench press, prone row and overhead press and free-weight bench press and prone row. Practitioners must be aware of the poor validity of free-weight squat and overhead press predictions.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Exercise Science Department, College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University , Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia. Murdoch Applied Sports Science Laboratory, Murdoch University , Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.Exercise Science Department, College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University , Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia. Murdoch Applied Sports Science Laboratory, Murdoch University , Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.Exercise Science Department, College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University , Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia. Murdoch Applied Sports Science Laboratory, Murdoch University , Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Retracted Publication

Language

eng

PubMed ID

32669051

Citation

Hughes, Liam J., et al. "Load-velocity Relationship 1RM Predictions: a Comparison of Smith Machine and Free-weight Exercise." Journal of Sports Sciences, vol. 38, no. 22, 2020, pp. 2562-2568.
Hughes LJ, Peiffer JJ, Scott BR. Load-velocity relationship 1RM predictions: A comparison of Smith machine and free-weight exercise. J Sports Sci. 2020;38(22):2562-2568.
Hughes, L. J., Peiffer, J. J., & Scott, B. R. (2020). Load-velocity relationship 1RM predictions: A comparison of Smith machine and free-weight exercise. Journal of Sports Sciences, 38(22), 2562-2568. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1794235
Hughes LJ, Peiffer JJ, Scott BR. Load-velocity Relationship 1RM Predictions: a Comparison of Smith Machine and Free-weight Exercise. J Sports Sci. 2020;38(22):2562-2568. PubMed PMID: 32669051.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Load-velocity relationship 1RM predictions: A comparison of Smith machine and free-weight exercise. AU - Hughes,Liam J, AU - Peiffer,Jeremiah J, AU - Scott,Brendan R, Y1 - 2020/07/15/ PY - 2020/7/17/pubmed PY - 2021/1/5/medline PY - 2020/7/17/entrez KW - Velocity-based training KW - load-velocity relationships KW - resistance training SP - 2562 EP - 2568 JF - Journal of sports sciences JO - J Sports Sci VL - 38 IS - 22 N2 - This study aimed to determine differences in the validity and reliability of 1RM predictions made using load-velocity relationships in Smith machine and free-weight exercise. Twenty well-trained males attended six sessions, comprising the Smith machine and free-weight squat, bench press, prone row and overhead press. Load-velocity relationship-based 1RM predictions were performed using minimal velocity threshold (1RMMVT), load at zero velocity (1RMLD0) and force-velocity (1RMFV) methods, with 5- or 7-loads. Measured 1RM did not differ from 1RMMVT or 1RMLD0 for any of the Smith machine exercises, while it was higher than 1RMFV for all exercises except the prone row. For the free-weight variations all 1RM predictions differed from measured 1RM for the squat and overhead press, while measured and predicted 1RM did not differ in the bench press and prone row. No differences were observed between 7-and 5-load predictions. 1RMMVT was the most reliable and valid of the methods. Smith machine exercises resulted in more reliable predictions than free weight exercises. 1RMMVT provides valid and reliable predictions for the Smith machine, squat, bench press, prone row and overhead press and free-weight bench press and prone row. Practitioners must be aware of the poor validity of free-weight squat and overhead press predictions. SN - 1466-447X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/32669051/Load_velocity_relationship_1RM_predictions:_A_comparison_of_Smith_machine_and_free_weight_exercise_ L2 - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2020.1794235 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -