Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 194 items for :

  • "one-repetition maximum" x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All
Restricted access

Petrus Gantois, Drumond Gilo, Ana Denise, Alejandro Muñoz-López, Fábio Yuzo Nakamura, and Fabiano de Souza Fonseca

patterns, muscular requirements, and kinematics output during resistance training programs. Resistance training loads are often prescribed based on relative intensities of the one-repetition maximum (1RM; González-Badillo et al., 2011 ). Nevertheless, their regular assessment is not always possible due to

Restricted access

J. L. Mayhew, Chad D. Kerksick, Doug Lentz, John S. Ware, and David L. Mayhew

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of repetitions to fatigue (RTF) for estimating one-repetition maximum (1-RM) bench press performance in male high school athletes. Members of high school athletic teams (N = 213, age = 16.3 ± 1.1 yrs, weight = 79.9 ± 16.7 kg) from four states were tested for 1-RM bench press and RTF after completing 4–6 weeks of resistance training. A new equation for use with male high school athletes was developed from a random sample of 180 participants; it appears to have excellent predictive potential (r = 0.96, SEE = 4.5 kg) and cross-validated well on a subsample (n = 33) from this population (r = 0.98, t = 0.64). Therefore, RTF can be used with acceptable accuracy to estimate maximal strength in the majority of adolescent male athletes who need to handle excessively heavy weights.

Restricted access

Irineu Loturco, Timothy Suchomel, Chris Bishop, Ronaldo Kobal, Lucas A. Pereira, and Michael McGuigan

-velocity relationship for 1RM prediction . J Strength Cond Res . 2011 ; 25 : 267 – 270 . PubMed ID: 19966589 doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b62c5f 19966589 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b62c5f 14. Ruf L , Chery C , Taylor KL . Validity and reliability of the load-velocity relationship to predict the one-repetition

Restricted access

Jerónimo Aragón-Vela, Yaira Barranco-Ruiz, Cristina Casals-Vázquez, Julio Plaza-Díaz, Rafael A. Casuso, Luis Fontana, and Jesús F. Rodríguez Huertas

and performance of athletes’ lower body is half squat ( McMaster, Gill, Cronin, & McGuigan, 2014 ), both male and female athletes carried out a maximum incremental strength test (MIST) in a half-squat apparatus with increasing intensities until they reached their one repetition maximum (1RM). We show

Restricted access

Aline C. Tritto, Salomão Bueno, Rosa M.P. Rodrigues, Bruno Gualano, Hamilton Roschel, and Guilherme G. Artioli

bench press in one-repetition maximum (1RM) tests. Exclusion criteria were as follows: smoking, current or past use of anabolic steroids or other banned substances, chronic use of anti-inflammatory drugs, use of creatine in the 3 months prior to the study, and a daily protein intake below 1.7 g/kg body

Restricted access

María Hernández, Fabrício Zambom-Ferraresi, Pilar Cebollero, Javier Hueto, José Antonio Cascante, and María M. Antón

of the lower limbs The bilateral maximum dynamic strength (one-repetition maximum [1RM]) of the quadriceps femoris (QF) muscle was examined via the bilateral leg press exercise. A machine was used (Technogym, Gambettola, Italy) to measure the displaced load in the 1RM QF of the bilateral leg press

Restricted access

George J. Salem, Man-Ying Wang, and Susan Sigward

In order to obtain joint-specific baseline strength characteristics in older adults, clinicians and researchers must have knowledge regarding the relative stability of the various strength tests (the strength difference between repeated measures) and the number of prebaseline practice sessions required to obtain consistent data. To address these needs, the relative multiple-test stability and reliability associated with lower extremity isokinetic and 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) strength measures were assessed in a sample of older adults (N = 30, 65.2 ± 6.3 years), over 4 weeks (T1-T4). Isokinetic ankle plantar-flexion (30°/s) strength and 1RM ankle plantar-flexion, leg-press, and knee-flexion strength exhibited poor stability between Weeks T1 and T2 but stabilized between Weeks T2 and T3 and Weeks T3 and T4. The measures exhibited low incidence of injury and induced low levels of residual muscle soreness. Findings suggest that the 1RM measures require at least 1 prebaseline training session in order to establish consistent baseline performance and are more reliable than isokinetic ankle plantar-flexion tests.

Restricted access

Alejandro Pérez-Castilla, Ainara Jiménez-Alonso, Mar Cepero, Sergio Miras-Moreno, F. Javier Rojas, and Amador García-Ramos

prescribe both the intensity (commonly expressed as a percentage of the one-repetition maximum [1RM]) and volume (number of repetitions performed in each set) during resistance training ( González-Badillo, Marques, & Sánchez-Medina, 2011 ). An additional benefit of the real-time monitoring of movement

Restricted access

Brandon J. Shad, Janice L. Thompson, James Mckendry, Andrew M. Holwerda, Yasir S. Elhassan, Leigh Breen, Luc J.C. van Loon, and Gareth A. Wallis

leg extension 1RM (kg) 82 ± 11 HF leg extension 1RM (kg) 81 ± 12 Note. Values are mean ±  SD . n  = 9. BMI = body mass index; 1RM = one-repetition maximum; LF = low frequency; HF = high frequency. Pretesting During the initial screening visit, the participants underwent maximal strength testing and

Full access

Pedro Lopez, Mikel Izquierdo, Regis Radaelli, Graciele Sbruzzi, Rafael Grazioli, Ronei Silveira Pinto, and Eduardo Lusa Cadore

of the training period and the RT intensity prescription method (percentage of one-repetition maximum [%1-RM] vs. rate of perceived effort [RPE]) in the main outcomes. Methods Study Selection Procedure The study was undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews