Validity of Different Velocity-Based Methods and Repetitions-to-Failure Equations for Predicting the 1 Repetition Maximum During 2 Upper-Body Pulling Exercises

Alejandro Pérez-Castilla, Dejan Suzovic, Aleksandra Domanovic, John Fernandes, Amador Garcia-Ramos

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal Article

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of different velocity-based methods and repetitions-to-failure equations for predicting the one-repetition maximum (i.e., maximum load that can be lifted once; 1RM) during two upper-body pulling exercises. Twenty-three men were tested in two sessions during the lat pulldown 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 modelled through four (~40, 55, 70, and 85%1RM; multiple-point method) or two loads (~40 and 85%1RM; two-point method). Mean velocity was recorded with a linear position transducer and a smartphone application. Therefore, four velocity-based methods were used as a result of combining the two devices and the two methods. Two repetitions-to-failure equations (Mayhew and Wathan) 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 pulldown exercise (P=0.200). The repetitions-to-failure equations significantly underestimated the actual 1RM (P<0.05; range: -6.65 to -2.14 kg), while 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 Wathan repetitions-to-failure equations during the lat pulldown and seated cable row exercises.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages27
JournalJournal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Early online date6 Feb 2019
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 6 Feb 2019

Fingerprint

Exercise
Transducers
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • Maximum dynamic strength
  • lat pulldown
  • seated cable row
  • linear position
  • transducer
  • smartphone application

Cite this

@article{24daa08ed66d4facb49fd99e41408706,
title = "Validity of Different Velocity-Based Methods and Repetitions-to-Failure Equations for Predicting the 1 Repetition Maximum During 2 Upper-Body Pulling Exercises",
abstract = "This study aimed to compare the accuracy of different velocity-based methods and repetitions-to-failure equations for predicting the one-repetition maximum (i.e., maximum load that can be lifted once; 1RM) during two upper-body pulling exercises. Twenty-three men were tested in two sessions during the lat pulldown 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 modelled through four (~40, 55, 70, and 85{\%}1RM; multiple-point method) or two loads (~40 and 85{\%}1RM; two-point method). Mean velocity was recorded with a linear position transducer and a smartphone application. Therefore, four velocity-based methods were used as a result of combining the two devices and the two methods. Two repetitions-to-failure equations (Mayhew and Wathan) 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 pulldown exercise (P=0.200). The repetitions-to-failure equations significantly underestimated the actual 1RM (P<0.05; range: -6.65 to -2.14 kg), while 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 Wathan repetitions-to-failure equations during the lat pulldown and seated cable row exercises.",
keywords = "Maximum dynamic strength, lat pulldown, seated cable row, linear position, transducer, smartphone application",
author = "Alejandro P{\'e}rez-Castilla and Dejan Suzovic and Aleksandra Domanovic and John Fernandes and Amador Garcia-Ramos",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "6",
doi = "10.1519/JSC.0000000000003076",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research",
issn = "1064-8011",
publisher = "NSCA National Strength and Conditioning Association",

}

Validity of Different Velocity-Based Methods and Repetitions-to-Failure Equations for Predicting the 1 Repetition Maximum During 2 Upper-Body Pulling Exercises. / Pérez-Castilla, Alejandro; Suzovic, Dejan; Domanovic, Aleksandra; Fernandes, John; Garcia-Ramos, Amador.

In: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 06.02.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal Article

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

AU - Garcia-Ramos, Amador

PY - 2019/2/6

Y1 - 2019/2/6

N2 - This study aimed to compare the accuracy of different velocity-based methods and repetitions-to-failure equations for predicting the one-repetition maximum (i.e., maximum load that can be lifted once; 1RM) during two upper-body pulling exercises. Twenty-three men were tested in two sessions during the lat pulldown 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 modelled through four (~40, 55, 70, and 85%1RM; multiple-point method) or two loads (~40 and 85%1RM; two-point method). Mean velocity was recorded with a linear position transducer and a smartphone application. Therefore, four velocity-based methods were used as a result of combining the two devices and the two methods. Two repetitions-to-failure equations (Mayhew and Wathan) 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 pulldown exercise (P=0.200). The repetitions-to-failure equations significantly underestimated the actual 1RM (P<0.05; range: -6.65 to -2.14 kg), while 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 Wathan repetitions-to-failure equations during the lat pulldown and seated cable row exercises.

AB - This study aimed to compare the accuracy of different velocity-based methods and repetitions-to-failure equations for predicting the one-repetition maximum (i.e., maximum load that can be lifted once; 1RM) during two upper-body pulling exercises. Twenty-three men were tested in two sessions during the lat pulldown 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 modelled through four (~40, 55, 70, and 85%1RM; multiple-point method) or two loads (~40 and 85%1RM; two-point method). Mean velocity was recorded with a linear position transducer and a smartphone application. Therefore, four velocity-based methods were used as a result of combining the two devices and the two methods. Two repetitions-to-failure equations (Mayhew and Wathan) 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 pulldown exercise (P=0.200). The repetitions-to-failure equations significantly underestimated the actual 1RM (P<0.05; range: -6.65 to -2.14 kg), while 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 Wathan repetitions-to-failure equations during the lat pulldown and seated cable row exercises.

KW - Maximum dynamic strength

KW - lat pulldown

KW - seated cable row

KW - linear position

KW - transducer

KW - smartphone application

U2 - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003076

DO - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003076

M3 - Journal Article

JO - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

JF - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

SN - 1064-8011

ER -