Feasibility of the 2-Point Method for Determining the 1-Repetition Maximum in the Bench Press Exercise

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 474-481 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Guy Gregory Haff ◽  
Francisco Luis Pestaña-Melero ◽  
Alejandro Pérez-Castilla ◽  
Francisco Javier Rojas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Point Method ◽  
Repetition Maximum

Bench Press 1-Repetition Maximum Estimation Through the Individualized Load–Velocity Relationship: Comparison of Different Regression Models and Minimal Velocity Thresholds

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danica Janicijevic ◽  
Ivan Jukic ◽  
Jonathon Weakley ◽  
Amador García-Ramos
Keyword(s):  
Linear Regression ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Point Method ◽  
Multiple Point ◽  
Prediction Methods ◽  
Loading Test ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Minimal Velocity ◽  
General Velocity

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of nine 1-repetition maximum (1RM) prediction methods during the paused and touch-and-go bench press exercises performed in a Smith machine. Method: A total of 86 men performed 2 identical sessions (incremental loading test until reaching the 1RM followed by a set to failure) in a randomized order during the paused and touch-and-go bench press exercises. Individualized load–velocity relationships were modeled by linear and polynomial regression models considering 4 loads (45%–60%–75%–90% of 1RM) (multiple-point methods) and considering only 2 loads (45%–90% of 1RM) by a linear regression (2-point method). Three minimal velocity thresholds were used: the general velocity of 0.17 m·s−1 (general velocity of the 1RM [V1RM]), the velocity obtained when lifting the 1RM load (individual V1RM), and the velocity obtained during the last repetition of a set to failure. Results: The 1RM prediction methods were generally valid (range: r = .96–.99, standard error of the estimate = 2.8–4.9 kg or 4.6%–8.0% of 1RM). The multiple-point linear method (2.79 [2.29] kg) was more precise than the multiple-point polynomial method (3.54 [3.31] kg; P = .013), but no significant differences were observed when compared with the 2-point method (3.09 [2.66] kg, P = .136). The velocity of the last repetition of a set to failure (3.47 [2.97] kg) was significantly less precise than the individual V1RM (2.91 [2.75] kg, P = .009) and general V1RM (3.00 [2.65] kg, P = .010). Conclusions: Linear regression models and a general minimal velocity threshold of 0.17 m·s−1 should be recommended to obtain a quick and precise estimation of the 1RM during the bench press exercise performed in a Smith machine.

Comparison of the bench press one-repetition maximum obtained by different procedures: Direct assessment vs. lifts-to-failure equations vs. two-point method

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 337-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandro Pérez-Castilla ◽  
Daniel Jerez-Mayorga ◽  
Dario Martínez-García ◽  
Ángela Rodríguez-Perea ◽  
Luis J Chirosa-Ríos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Direct Method ◽  
Maximum Load ◽  
Point Method ◽  
Loading Test ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Data Points ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Incremental Loading

This study examined the differences in the bench press one-repetition maximum obtained by three different methods (direct method, lifts-to-failure method, and two-point method). Twenty young men were tested in four different sessions. A single grip width (close, medium, wide, or self-selected) was randomly used on each session. Each session consisted of an incremental loading test until reaching the one-repetition maximum, followed by a single set of lifts-to-failure against the 75% one-repetition maximum load. The last load lifted during the incremental loading test was considered the actual one-repetition maximum (direct method). The one-repetition maximum was also predicted using the Mayhew’s equation (lifts-to-failure method) and the individual load–velocity relationship modeled from two data points (two-point method). The actual one-repetition maximum was underestimated by the lifts-to-failure method (range: 1–2 kg) and overestimated by the two-point method (range: –3 to –1 kg), being these differences accentuated using closer grip widths. All predicted one-repetition maximums were practically perfectly correlated with the actual one-repetition maximum ( r ≥  0.95; standard error of the estimate ≤ 4 kg). The one-repetition maximum was higher using the medium grip width (83 ± 3 kg) compared to the close (80 ± 3 kg) and wide (79 ± 3 kg) grip widths ( P ≤  0.025), while no significant differences were observed between the medium and self-selected (81 ± 3 kg) grip widths ( P =  1.000). In conclusion, although both the Mayhew’s equation and the two-point method are able to predict the actual one-repetition maximum with an acceptable precision, the differences between the actual and predicted one-repetition maximums seem to increase when using close grip widths.

scholarly journals Prediction of One Repetition Maximum Using Reference Minimum Velocity Threshold Values in Young and Middle-Aged Resistance-Trained Males

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 71
Author(s):  
John F. T. Fernandes ◽  
Amelia F. Dingley ◽  
Amador Garcia-Ramos ◽  
Alejandro Perez-Castilla ◽  
James J. Tufano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Young Group ◽  
Middle Aged ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Back Squat ◽  
Velocity Threshold ◽  
Low Load ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
Minimum Velocity

Background: This study determined the accuracy of different velocity-based methods when predicting one-repetition maximum (1RM) in young and middle-aged resistance-trained males. Methods: Two days after maximal strength testing, 20 young (age 21.0 ± 1.6 years) and 20 middle-aged (age 42.6 ± 6.7 years) resistance-trained males completed three repetitions of bench press, back squat, and bent-over-row at loads corresponding to 20–80% 1RM. Using reference minimum velocity threshold (MVT) values, the 1RM was estimated from the load-velocity relationships through multiple (20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM), two-point (20 and 80% 1RM), high-load (60 and 80% 1RM) and low-load (20 and 40% 1RM) methods for each group. Results: Despite most prediction methods demonstrating acceptable correlations (r = 0.55 to 0.96), the absolute errors for young and middle-aged groups were generally moderate to high for bench press (absolute errors = 8.2 to 14.2% and 8.6 to 20.4%, respectively) and bent-over-row (absolute error = 14.9 to 19.9% and 8.6 to 18.2%, respectively). For squats, the absolute errors were lower in the young group (5.7 to 13.4%) than the middle-aged group (13.2 to 17.0%) but still unacceptable. Conclusion: These findings suggest that reference MVTs cannot accurately predict the 1RM in these populations. Therefore, practitioners need to directly assess 1RM.

scholarly journals Assessing Changes in Absolute and Relative One-repetition Maximum Bench Press After a Six-week Blindfolded Training

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (5S) ◽  
pp. 786-787
Author(s):  
Ali Boolani ◽  
Masoud Moghaddam ◽  
Timothy Baghurst ◽  
Timothy Jones ◽  
Essameldin Hamido ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Repetition Maximum

Differences in the one-repetition maximum and load-velocity profile between the flat and arched bench press in competitive powerlifters

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Alejandro Pérez-Castilla ◽  
Francisco Javier Villar Macias ◽  
Pedro Á. Latorre-Román ◽  
Juan A. Párraga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Velocity Profile ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
The One

scholarly journals Validity and reliability of an optoelectronic system to measure movement velocity during bench press and half squat in a Smith machine

2019 ◽  
Vol 234 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-97
Author(s):  
Borja Muniz-Pardos ◽  
Gabriel Lozano-Berges ◽  
Jorge Marin-Puyalto ◽  
Alex Gonzalez-Agüero ◽  
German Vicente-Rodriguez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Reference Method ◽  
Testing Session ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Optoelectronic System ◽  
Movement Velocity ◽  
Force System ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Strength Exercises ◽  
Wide Range

The purpose of this study was to determine the validity and reliability of a camera-based optoelectronic system to measure movement velocity during bench press and half squat at different load intensities. A total of 22 active males (age: 28.2 ± 3.9 years; one-repetition maximum bench press: 77.9 ± 19.0 kg; one-repetition maximum half squat: 116.6 ± 22.5 kg) participated in this study. After an initial one-repetition maximum testing session, participants performed five repetitions for each load (40%, 60% and 80% one-repetition maximum) and exercise (bench press and half squat) on a Smith machine in the second testing session. A third testing session was used for the test–retest reliability study. Time, displacement and mean propulsive velocity were simultaneously determined by the reference method (T-Force system) and the Velowin system. In bench press, ordinary least products regression analysis revealed low fixed biases for mean propulsive velocity at 40%, time at 60% and displacement at 80% one-repetition maximum (intercept = 0.065 m s−1, −28.02 ms and 0.87 cm, respectively). In half squat, low fixed biases were also detected for mean propulsive velocity at 40% and 80% one-repetition maximum (intercept = −0.040 and 0.023 m s−1, respectively), time at 40% and 60% one-repetition maximum (intercept = −53.05 and −101.85 ms, respectively) and displacement at 60% one-repetition maximum (intercept = −1.95 cm). Proportional bias was only observed for mean propulsive velocity at 80% bench press. In half squat, there was proportional bias for time and mean propulsive velocity at 40% one-repetition maximum, and also for time at 60% one-repetition maximum. The reliability test showed low and comparable fixed and proportional biases between systems across exercises and intensities. Velowin confirmed to be a valid and reliable system to measure movement velocity across a wide range of intensities (40%–80% one-repetition maximum) for two basic strength exercises through a robust statistical approach. Velowin would provide coaches and trainers with a suitable, affordable and easy-to-use equipment capable of measuring movement velocity in various exercises at different load intensities.

Muscle Strength, Body Composition, and Performance of an Elite Shot-Putter

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 394-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerasimos Terzis ◽  
Thomas Kyriazis ◽  
Giorgos Karampatsos ◽  
Giorgos Georgiadis
Keyword(s):  
Body Composition ◽  
Muscle Strength ◽  
Lean Body Mass ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Scientific Data ◽  
The Body ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Shot Put

Purpose:Although muscle mass and strength are thought to be closely related to throwing performance, there are few scientific data about these parameters in elite shot-putters. The purpose of this case report was to present longitudinal data for muscle strength and body composition in relation to performance of an elite male shot-putter.Methods:A male national champion with the best rotational shot-put performance of 20.36 m (in 2010) was followed from 2003 to 2011 (current age: 29 y). Data regarding body composition (dual X-ray absorptiometry), as well as 1-repetition-maximum muscle strength (bench press, squat, snatch) and rotational shot-put performance, were collected every February for the last 9 y, 4 wk before the national indoor championship event.Results:The athlete’s personal-best performances in squat, bench press, and snatch were 175 kg, 210 kg, and 112.5 kg, respectively. His peak total lean body mass was 92.4 kg, bone mineral density 1.55 g/cm2, and lowest body fat 12.9%. His shot-put performance over these 9 years was significantly correlated with 1-repetition-maximum squat strength (r = .93, P < .01), bench press (r = .87, P < .01), and snatch (r = .92, P < .01). In contrast, shot-put performance was not significantly correlated with any of the body-composition parameters.Conclusions:The results of this case study suggest that elite rotational shot-put performance may not be directly correlated with lean body mass. Instead, it seems that it is closely related with measures of muscle strength.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document