Validity of the bench press one-repetition maximum test predicted through individualized load-velocity relationship using different repetition criteria and minimal velocity thresholds

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Alejandro Pérez-Castilla ◽  
John F.T. Fernandes ◽  
Amador García-Ramos
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Absolute Difference ◽  
Prediction Methods ◽  
Loading Test ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Free Weight ◽  
Maximum Test ◽  
Velocity Relationship ◽  
Minimal Velocity ◽  
Preliminary Session

BACKGROUND: More practical and less fatiguing strategies have been developed to accurately predict the one-repetition maximum (1RM). OBJETIVE: To compare the accuracy of the estimation of the free-weight bench press 1RM between six velocity-based 1RM prediction methods. METHODS: Sixteen men performed an incremental loading test until 1RM on two separate occasions. The first session served to determine the minimal velocity threshold (MVT). The second session was used to determine the validity of the six 1RM prediction methods based on 2 repetition criteria (fastest or average velocity) and 3 MVTs (general MVT of 0.17 m⋅s-1, individual MVT of the preliminary session, and individual MVT of the validity session). Five loads (≈ 2540557085% of 1RM) were used to assess the individualized load-velocity relationships. RESULTS: The absolute difference between the actual and predicted 1RM were low (range = 2.7–3.7%) and did not reveal a significant main effect for repetition criterion (P= 0.402), MVT (P= 0.173) or their two-way interaction (P= 0.354). Furthermore, all 1RM prediction methods accurately estimated bench press 1RM (P⩾ 0.556; ES ⩽ 0.02; r⩾ 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The individualized load-velocity relationship provides an accurate prediction of the 1RM during the free-weight bench press exercise, while the repetition criteria and MVT do not appear to meaningfully affect the prediction accuracy.

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.

scholarly journals Reliability of the velocity achieved during the last repetition of sets to failure and its association with the velocity of the 1-repetition maximum

PeerJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. e8760 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Danica Janicijevic ◽  
Jorge M. González-Hernández ◽  
Justin W.L. Keogh ◽  
Jonathon Weakley
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Loading Test ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Healthy Men ◽  
Velocity Threshold ◽  
Velocity Relationship ◽  
Minimal Velocity ◽  
Repetitions To Failure ◽  
Incremental Loading

Background This study aimed to determine the reliability of the velocity achieved during the last repetition of sets to failure (Vlast) and the association of Vlast with the velocity of the 1-repetition maximum (V1RM) during the paused and touch-and-go bench press (BP) exercises performed in a Smith machine. Methods A total of 96 healthy men participated in this study that consisted of two testing sessions. A single BP variant (paused BP or touch-and-go BP) was evaluated on each session in a randomized order. Each session consisted of an incremental loading test until reaching the 1RM, followed by two sets of repetitions to failure against a load ranging from 75% to 90% of 1RM. Results The reliability of Vlast was unacceptable for both BP variants (CV > 18.3%, ICC < 0.60). The correlations between V1RM and Vlast were small for the paused BP (r = 0.18) and moderate for the touch-and-go BP (r = 0.37). Conclusions Although these results suggest that Vlast could be a better indicator of the minimal velocity threshold than V1RM, the low reliability of Vlast and the similar values of Vlast for both BP variants suggest that a standard V1RM should be used to estimate the 1RM from the individualized load-velocity relationship.

Differences in the Load–Velocity Profile Between 4 Bench-Press Variants

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Francisco Luis Pestaña-Melero ◽  
Alejandro Pérez-Castilla ◽  
Francisco Javier Rojas ◽  
Guy Gregory Haff
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Loading Test ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Pooled Data ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Velocity Relationship ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Incremental Loading

Purpose: To compare the load–velocity relationship between 4 variants of the bench-press (BP) exercise. Methods: The full load–velocity relationship of 30 men was evaluated by means of an incremental loading test starting at 17 kg and progressing to the individual 1-repetition maximum (1RM) in 4 BP variants: concentric-only BP, concentric-only BP throw (BPT), eccentric-concentric BP, and eccentric-concentric BPT. Results: A strong and fairly linear relationship between mean velocity (MV) and %1RM was observed for the 4 BP variants (r2 > .96 for pooled data and r2 > .98 for individual data). The MV associated with each %1RM was significantly higher in the eccentric-concentric technique than in the concentric-only technique. The only significant difference between the BP and BPT variants was the higher MV with the light to moderate loads (20–70%1RM) in the BPT using the concentric-only technique. MV was significantly and positively correlated between the 4 BP variants (r = .44–.76), which suggests that the subjects with higher velocities for each %1RM in 1 BP variant also tend to have higher velocities for each %1RM in the 3 other BP variants. Conclusions: These results highlight the need for obtaining specific equations for each BP variant and the existence of individual load–velocity profiles.

Force–Velocity Relationship of Upper Body Muscles: Traditional Versus Ballistic Bench Press

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 178-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Slobodan Jaric ◽  
Paulino Padial ◽  
Belén Feriche
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Maximum Velocity ◽  
Maximum Force ◽  
Upper Body ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Velocity Relationship ◽  
Force Velocity ◽  
Relationship Of

This study aimed to (1) evaluate the linearity of the force–velocity relationship, as well as the reliability of maximum force (F0), maximum velocity (V0), slope (a), and maximum power (P0); (2) compare these parameters between the traditional and ballistic bench press (BP); and (3) determine the correlation of F0 with the directly measured BP 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Thirty-two men randomly performed 2 sessions of traditional BP and 2 sessions of ballistic BP during 2 consecutive weeks. Both the maximum and mean values of force and velocity were recorded when loaded by 20–70% of 1RM. All force–velocity relationships were strongly linear (r > .99). While F0 and P0 were highly reliable (ICC: 0.91–0.96, CV: 3.8–5.1%), lower reliability was observed for V0 and a (ICC: 0.49–0.81, CV: 6.6–11.8%). Trivial differences between exercises were found for F0 (ES: < 0.2), however the a was higher for the traditional BP (ES: 0.68–0.94), and V0 (ES: 1.04–1.48) and P0 (ES: 0.65–0.72) for the ballistic BP. The F0 strongly correlated with BP 1RM (r: 0.915–0.938). The force–velocity relationship is useful to assess the upper body maximal capabilities to generate force, velocity, and power.

Effect of the Menstrual Cycle When Estimating 1 Repetition Maximum From the Load-Velocity Relationship During the Bench Press Exercise

2020 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Felipe García-Pinillos ◽  
Carlos Lago-Fuentes ◽  
Pascual Bujalance-Moreno ◽  
Alejandro Pérez-Castilla
Keyword(s):  
Menstrual Cycle ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Velocity Relationship

Precision of 7 Commercially Available Devices for Predicting Bench-Press 1-Repetition Maximum From the Individual Load–Velocity Relationship

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. 1442-1446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandro Pérez-Castilla ◽  
Antonio Piepoli ◽  
Gabriel Garrido-Blanca ◽  
Gabriel Delgado-García ◽  
Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Effect Size ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Inertial Measurement Units ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Inertial Measurement ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Velocity Relationship ◽  
Measurement Units ◽  
The Individual

Objective: To compare the accuracy of different devices to predict the bench-press 1-repetition maximum (1RM) from the individual load–velocity relationship modeled through the multiple- and 2-point methods. Methods: Eleven men performed an incremental test on a Smith machine against 5 loads (45–55–65–75–85%1RM), followed by 1RM attempts. The mean velocity was simultaneously measured by 1 linear velocity transducer (T-Force), 2 linear position transducers (Chronojump and Speed4Lift), 1 camera-based optoelectronic system (Velowin), 2 inertial measurement units (PUSH Band and Beast Sensor), and 1 smartphone application (My Lift). The velocity recorded at the 5 loads (45–55–65–75–85%1RM), or only at the 2 most distant loads (45–85%1RM), was considered for the multiple- and 2-point methods, respectively. Results: An acceptable and comparable accuracy in the estimation of the 1RM was observed for the T-Force, Chronojump, Speed4Lift, Velowin, and My Lift when using both the multiple- and 2-point methods (effect size ≤ 0.40; Pearson correlation coefficient [r] ≥ .94; standard error of the estimate [SEE] ≤ 4.46 kg), whereas the accuracy of the PUSH (effect size = 0.70–0.83; r = .93–.94; SEE = 4.45–4.80 kg), and especially the Beast Sensor (effect size = 0.36–0.84; r = .50–.68; SEE = 9.44–11.2 kg), was lower. Conclusions: These results highlight that the accuracy of 1RM prediction methods based on movement velocity is device dependent, with the inertial measurement units providing the least accurate estimate of the 1RM.

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 Group versus Individualised Minimum Velocity Thresholds in the Prediction of Maximal Strength in Trained Female Athletes

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (21) ◽  
pp. 7811
Author(s):  
Elias J. G. Caven ◽  
Tom J. E. Bryan ◽  
Amelia F. Dingley ◽  
Benjamin Drury ◽  
Amador Garcia-Ramos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bench Press ◽  
Female Athletes ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Point Method ◽  
Multiple Point ◽  
Loading Test ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Velocity Relationship ◽  
Minimum Velocity

This study examined the accuracy of different velocity-based methods in the prediction of bench press and squat one-repetition maximum (1RM) in female athletes. Seventeen trained females (age 17.8 ± 1.3 years) performed an incremental loading test to 1RM on bench press and squat with the mean velocity being recorded. The 1RM was estimated from the load–velocity relationship using the multiple- (8 loads) and two-point (2 loads) methods and group and individual minimum velocity thresholds (MVT). No significant effect of method, MVT or interaction was observed for the two exercises (p > 0.05). For bench press and squat, all prediction methods demonstrated very large to nearly perfect correlations with respect to the actual 1RM (r range = 0.76 to 0.97). The absolute error (range = 2.1 to 3.8 kg) for bench press demonstrated low errors that were independent of the method and MVT used. For squat, the favorable group MVT errors for the multiple- and two-point methods (absolute error = 7.8 and 9.7 kg, respectively) were greater than the individual MVT errors (absolute error = 4.9 and 6.3 kg, respectively). The 1RM can be accurately predicted from the load–velocity relationship in trained females, with the two-point method offering a quick and less fatiguing alternative to the multiple-point method.

Reliability of the Load–Velocity Relationship Obtained Through Linear and Polynomial Regression Models to Predict the 1-Repetition Maximum Load

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 184-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Luis Pestaña-Melero ◽  
G. Gregory Haff ◽  
Francisco Javier Rojas ◽  
Alejandro Pérez-Castilla ◽  
Amador García-Ramos
Keyword(s):  
Coefficient Of Variation ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Polynomial Regression ◽  
Maximum Load ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Velocity Relationship ◽  
Polynomial Regression Models ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Relationship Of

This study aimed to compare the between-session reliability of the load–velocity relationship between (1) linear versus polynomial regression models, (2) concentric-only versus eccentric–concentric bench press variants, as well as (3) the within-participants versus the between-participants variability of the velocity attained at each percentage of the 1-repetition maximum. The load–velocity relationship of 30 men (age: 21.2 [3.8] y; height: 1.78 [0.07] m, body mass: 72.3 [7.3] kg; bench press 1-repetition maximum: 78.8 [13.2] kg) were evaluated by means of linear and polynomial regression models in the concentric-only and eccentric–concentric bench press variants in a Smith machine. Two sessions were performed with each bench press variant. The main findings were: (1) first-order polynomials (coefficient of variation: 4.39%–4.70%) provided the load–velocity relationship with higher reliability than the second-order polynomials (coefficient of variation: 4.68%–5.04%); (2) the reliability of the load–velocity relationship did not differ between the concentric-only and eccentric–concentric bench press variants; and (3) the within-participants variability of the velocity attained at each percentage of the 1-repetition maximum was markedly lower than the between-participants variability. Taken together, these results highlight that, regardless of the bench press variant considered, the individual determination of the load–velocity relationship by a linear regression model could be recommended to monitor and prescribe the relative load in the Smith machine bench press exercise.

scholarly journals Concentric-Only Versus Touch-and-Go Bench Press One-Repetition Maximum in Men and Women

2021 ◽  
pp. 194173812097786
Author(s):  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Danica Janicijevic ◽  
Ivan Jukic
Keyword(s):  
Resistance Training ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Training Experience ◽  
Loading Test ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Repetitions To Failure

Background: One-repetition maximum (1RM) tests are time-consuming, and they might not always be logistically possible or warranted due to increased risk of injury when performed incorrectly or by novice athletes. Repetitions-to-failure tests are a widespread method of predicting the 1RM, but its accuracy may be compromised by several factors such as the type of exercise, sex, training history, and the number of repetitions completed in the test. Hypothesis: The touch-and-go bench press would provide a higher 1RM than the concentric-only bench press for both genders regardless of whether the 1RM was obtained by the direct or repetitions-to-failure method and the error in the 1RM prediction would be positively correlated with the number of repetitions performed to failure and negatively correlated with the 1RM strength and resistance training experience. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Level of Evidence: Level 3. Methods: A total of 113 adults (87 men and 26 women) were tested on 2 sessions during the concentric-only and touch-and-go bench press. Each session consisted of an incremental loading test until reaching the 1RM load, followed by a repetitions-to-failure test. Results: The 1RM was higher for the touch-and-go bench press using both the direct (men, 7.80%; women, 7.62%) and repetitions-to-failure method (men, 8.29%; women, 7.49%). A significant, although small, correlation was observed between the error in the estimation of the 1RM and the number of repetitions performed ( r = 0.222; P < 0.01), 1RM strength ( r = −0.169; P = 0.01), and resistance training experience ( r = −0.136; P = 0.05). Conclusion: The repetitions-to-failure test is a valid method of predicting the 1RM during the concentric-only and touch-and-go bench press variants. However, the accuracy of the prediction could be compromised with weaker and less experienced individuals and if more than 10 repetitions are completed during the repetitions-to-failure test. Clinical Relevance: The repetitions-to-failure test does not require any sophisticated equipment and enables a widespread use in different training environments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document