Resistance Training and the Effect of Load Blinding in Multiple Repetition Maximum Tests

Click name to view affiliation

Kamila Grandolfi
Search for other papers by Kamila Grandolfi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Vandre Sosciarelli
Search for other papers by Vandre Sosciarelli in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Marcos Polito
Search for other papers by Marcos Polito in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Purpose: To compare performance in successive 1-repetition maximum (1RM) tests with the load known or unknown. Methods: Thirty-two resistance-trained men were randomly divided into 2 groups: load blinding (BLI; n = 16; age 28.1 [6.9] y, body mass 83.1 [11.5] kg, height 175.3 [5.8] cm) and load nonblinding (nBLI; n = 16; age 27.7 [4.1] y, body mass 83.2 [12.8] kg, height 178.7 [7.3] cm). The groups performed a 1RM test during 4 days (with an interval of 24–48 h) in the horizontal bench press with free weight. Results: In the BLI, there were no significant changes throughout the tests, with a difference of 1.6% between the first and fourth 1RM tests. In the nBLI, there was a significant interaction with time, and the values of the second (P = .03), third (P = .02), and fourth (P = .01) tests were higher than the first test; in addition, the fourth test was significantly higher than the second test (P = .02). The percentage difference between the last and first 1RM tests was 7.1%. The comparison between the groups demonstrated differences in the third (P = .04) and fourth (P = .02) tests with higher values in the nBLI. The intraclass correlation coefficient between the first and fourth 1RM tests was .93 for the BLI and .91 for the nBLI. Conclusion: BLI does not influence 1RM testing in the bench press exercise.

The authors are with Physical Education Dept, Londrina State University, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil.

Polito (marcospolito@uel.br) is corresponding author.
  • Collapse
  • Expand
  • 1.

    Garber CE, Blissmer B, Deschenes MR, et al; American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Medicine Position stand: quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43:13341359. PubMed ID: 21694556 doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e318213fefb

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Ritti-Dias RM, Avelar A, Salvador EP, Cyrino ES. Influence of previous experience on resistance training on reliability of one-repetition maximum test. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25:14181422. PubMed ID: 21522076 doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d67c4b

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Bellon CR, Stone MH. The importance of muscular strength: training considerations. Sports Med. 2018;48:765785. PubMed ID: 29372481 doi:10.1007/s40279-018-0862-z

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Ploutz-Snyder LL, Giamis EL. Orientation and familiarization to 1RM strength testing in old and young women. J Strength Cond Res. 2001;15:519523. PubMed ID: 11726267

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    McCurdy K, Langford G, Jenkerson D, Doscher M. The validity and reliability of the 1RM bench press using chain-loaded resistance. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22:678683. PubMed ID: 18438254 doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31816a6ce0

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Benton MJ, Raab S, Waggener GT. Effect of training status on reliability of one repetition maximum testing in women. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27:18851890. PubMed ID: 23037618 doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182752d4a

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Clancy MJ. Overview of research designs. Emerg Med J. 2002;19:546549. PubMed ID: 12421782

  • 8.

    Kirsch I. Response expectancy and the placebo effect. Int Rev Neurobiol. 2018;138:8193. PubMed ID: 29681336 doi:10.1016/bs.irn.2018.01.003

  • 9.

    Soares-Caldeira LF, Ritti-Dias RM, Okuno NM, Cyrino ES, Gurjão AL, Ploutz-Snyder LL. Familiarization indexes in sessions of 1-RM tests in adult women. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23:20392045. PubMed ID: 19855328 doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b3e158

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Colloca L. The fascinating mechanisms and implications of the placebo effect. Int Rev Neurobiol. 2018;138:xvxx. PubMed ID: 29681338 doi:10.1016/S0074-7742(18)30027-8

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Beedie CJ, Foad AJ. The placebo effect in sports performance: a brief review. Sports Med. 2009;39:313329. PubMed ID: 19317519 doi:10.2165/00007256-200939040-00004

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: the optimal theory of motor learning. Psychonom Bull Rev. 2016;23:13821414. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0999-9

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 1994 346 18
Full Text Views 32 9 1
PDF Downloads 16 2 1