Feasibility of the 2-Point Method for Determining the 1-Repetition Maximum in the Bench Press Exercise
Click name to view affiliation
Search for other papers by Amador García-Ramos in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Guy Gregory Haff in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Francisco Luis Pestaña-Melero in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Alejandro Pérez-Castilla in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Francisco Javier Rojas in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Slobodan Jaric in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purpose: This study compared the concurrent validity and reliability of previously proposed generalized group equations for estimating the bench press (BP) 1-repetition maximum (1RM) with the individualized load–velocity relationship modeled with a 2-point method. Methods: Thirty men (BP 1RM relative to body mass: 1.08 [0.18] kg·kg−1) performed 2 incremental loading tests in the concentric-only BP exercise and another 2 in the eccentric–concentric BP exercise to assess their actual 1RM and load–velocity relationships. A high velocity (≈1 m·s−1) and a low velocity (≈0.5 m·s−1) were selected from their load–velocity relationships to estimate the 1RM from generalized group equations and through an individual linear model obtained from the 2 velocities. Results: The directly measured 1RM was highly correlated with all predicted 1RMs (r = .847–.977). The generalized group equations systematically underestimated the actual 1RM when predicted from the concentric-only BP (P < .001; effect size = 0.15–0.94) but overestimated it when predicted from the eccentric–concentric BP (P < .001; effect size = 0.36–0.98). Conversely, a low systematic bias (range: −2.3 to 0.5 kg) and random errors (range: 3.0–3.8 kg), no heteroscedasticity of errors (r2 = .053–.082), and trivial effect size (range: −0.17 to 0.04) were observed when the prediction was based on the 2-point method. Although all examined methods reported the 1RM with high reliability (coefficient of variation ≤ 5.1%; intraclass correlation coefficient ≥ .89), the direct method was the most reliable (coefficient of variation < 2.0%; intraclass correlation coefficient ≥ .98). Conclusions: The quick, fatigue-free, and practical 2-point method was able to predict the BP 1RM with high reliability and practically perfect validity, and therefore, the authors recommend its use over generalized group equations.
García-Ramos, Pestaña-Melero, Pérez-Castilla, and Rojas are with the Dept of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain. García-Ramos is also with the Faculty of Education, Catholic University of the Most Holy Conception, Concepción, Chile. Haff is with the Centre for Exercise and Sport Science Research, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia. Balsalobre-Fernández is with the Dept of Sport Sciences, Faculty of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, European University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Jaric is with Biomechanics and Movement Science Graduate Program, Dept of Kinesiology and Applied Physiology, University of Delaware, Newark, DE.
© 2024 Human Kinetics