Amador García-Ramos1,2, Danica Janicijevic3, Ivan Jukic4. 1. Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain. 2. Department of Sports Sciences and Physical Conditioning, Faculty of Education, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción, Chile. 3. University of Belgrade, Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, The Research Centre, Belgrade, Serbia. 4. Sport Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Abstract
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
1RM prediction; maximum strength; resistance training; upper-body exercise
Authors: Jonathon Weakley; Carlos Ramirez-Lopez; Shaun McLaren; Nick Dalton-Barron; Dan Weaving; Ben Jones; Kevin Till; Harry Banyard Journal: Int J Sports Physiol Perform Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 4.010
Authors: Amador García-Ramos; Francisco Luis Pestaña-Melero; Alejandro Pérez-Castilla; Francisco Javier Rojas; Guy Gregory Haff Journal: Int J Sports Physiol Perform Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 4.010
Authors: Francisco Luis Pestaña-Melero; G Gregory Haff; Francisco Javier Rojas; Alejandro Pérez-Castilla; Amador García-Ramos Journal: J Appl Biomech Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 1.833