Professional Documents
Culture Documents
En V9n5a12 PDF
En V9n5a12 PDF
En V9n5a12 PDF
ARTICLE VERSION
TABLE 1
Results from studies on intra-tester reliability of strength and muscular endurance tests
Ploutz-Snyder sedentary young (23 ± 4 yr; 1RM knee extension young: 2-5 sessions for difference < 1 kg
and Giamis8 n = 7) and older old: 7-10 sessions for difference < 1 kg
F (66 ± 5 yr; n = 6) r2 = 0.94 between the last two sessions
Pereira M (n = 4) and F (n = 6) 1RM squat and R = 0.986 (p < 0.001) and 0.999 (p < 0.001)
and Gomes 8-10RM 25o·s-1 bench press R = 0.989 (p < 0.001) and 0.999 (p < 0.001)
(unpublished 8-10RM 100o·s-1 R = 0.990 (p < 0.001) and 0.997 (p < 0.001)
data)
Pereira M (n = 5) and F (n = 3) 1RM squat and R = 0.991 (p < 0.001) and 0.997 (p < 0.001)
and Gomes 75%1RM 25o·s-1 bench press R = 0.711 (p = 0.041) and 0.703 (p = 0.080)
(unpublished 75%1RM 100o·s-1 R = 0.410 (p = 0.292) and 0.896 (p = 0.002)
data)
Rikli et al.10 older M (n = 42) 1RM leg press, knee R = 0.97 to 0.98*
extension, bench
press, seated row
Braith et al.9 M (n = 33) and F (n = 25) 1RM bilateral knee pre-training (n = 58): r = 0.98 (p < 0.05)
sedentary young adults extension post-training (n = 47): r = 0.99 (p < 0.05)
Hoeger et al.13 M (n = 16) and F (n = 12) 1RM leg press, lat M: R = 0.89 to 0.98*
pulldown, bench F: R = 0.79 to 0.98*
40% 1RM press, knee M: R = 0.80 to 0.98*
extension, curl-ups, F: R = 0.80 to 0.96*
60% 1RM knee flexion, elbow M: R = 0.79 to 0.96*
flexion F: R = 0.80 to 0.95*
80% 1RM M: R = 0.89 to 0.98*
F: R = 0.80 to 0.95*
M – males; F – females; R – intraclass correlation coefficient; r – Pearson’s correlation coefficient; * p value not reported.
TABLE 2
Results from studies on prediction of 1RM from the maximum number of repetitions with a fixed load
Cosgrove and F (n = 51) chest press 33.1 ± 8.4 44.1 ± 20.0 18.2 1RM(kg) = 18.1+0.34·reps
Mayhew16 R = 0.81 SEE = 5.0 kg
Chapman et al.14 M (n = 98) bench press 121.3 ± 18.5 7.2 ± 5.5 102.1 r2 = 0.92 SEE = 4.9 kg*
Mayhew et al.15 M (n = 114) bench press 137.1 ± 20.7 10.6 ± 6.4 102.1 1RM(lb) = 226.7+7.1·reps
r = 0.96 SEE = 14.1 lb (6.4 kg)
M – males; F – females; SD – standard deviation; R – multiple correlation coefficient; r – Pearson’s correlation coefficient; SEE – standard error of the estimate; reps – number of
repetitions; * equation to predict 1RM not reported.
TABLE 3
Results from studies on prediction of 1RM from the maximum number
of repetitions with a load equivalent to a proportion of body mass
M – males; F – females; BM – body mass; R – multiple correlation coefficient; SEE – standard error of the estimate; reps – number of repetitions.
TABLE 4
Results from studies on prediction of 1RM from the maximum number
of repetitions, with a load equivalent to a percentage of 1RM
Hoeger M (n = 63) and F (n = 66) leg press, lat pulldown, 40 reps SIG different
et al.13 trained and untrained bench press, knee 60 trained SIG different from untrained
extension, curl-ups, knee 80
flexion, elbow flexion
Mayhew M (n = 70) and F (n = 51) bench press 55-95 reps pre NS different post
et al.25 pre- and post- training r > 0.68 SEE < 7.8%
Clairborne F (n = 20) leg press, elbow flexion, 60 reps SIG different
and Donolli19 untrained knee flexion, knee 80
extension, lat pulldown
M – males; F – females; R – multiple correlation coefficient; r – simple correlation coefficient; reps – number of repetitions; SIG – significantly; NS – non significantly.
TABLE 5
Results from studies on prediction of 1RM from the nRM test
Pereira and M (n = 11) and F (n = 13) 8-10RM squat 25o·s-1: M: r = 0.83; F: r = 0.86
e Gomes27 25o·s-1 and 100o·s-1 100º·s-1: M: r = 0.94; F: r = 0.91
bench press 25o·s-1: M: r = 0.92; F: r = 0.95
100º·s-1: M: r = 0.94; F: r = 0.95
Hopkins M (n = 3) and F (n = 16) 7-10RM shoulder press ~85%1RM pre r = 0.98; post r = 0.99
et al.26 untrained pre- and
(3 w/ no adaptation) post-training knee extension ~80%1RM pre r = 0.96; post r = 0.98
Abadie and F (n = 30) 5-10RM chest press 1RM(lb) = 7.24+1.05·load
Wentworth29 untrained r = 0.91 SEE = 2.5 kg
shoulder press 1RM(lb) = 1.43+1.20·load
r = 0.92 SEE = 1.6 kg
knee extension 1RM(lb) = 4.67+1.14·load
r = 0.94 SEE = 2.3 kg
M – males; F – females; R – multiple correlation coefficient; r – Pearson’s or simple correlation coefficient; SEE – standard error of the estimate; reps – number of repetitions.
a) b) c)
kg
kg
Fig. 1 – Load for 8-10RM at 25 and 100o·s-1 for squat and bench press exercises, for: a) males, n = 11; b) females, n = 13; and c) the whole group,
n = 24
* significantly different at 25o·s-1 for p < 0.05
Kravitz et al.21 M (n = 18) adolescents, bench press height, BM, chest circumference, not available
elite weightlifters squat arm circumference
dead lift 0.02 to 0.58
Mayhew et al.32 M (n = 58) bench press BM, LBM, arm CSA, arm R = 0.87 SEE = 12.1 kg
trained squat circumference, thigh CSA, R = 0.74 SEE = 23.9 kg
dead lift thigh circumference R = 0.67 SEE = 23.1 kg
0.50 to 0.79
Mayhew et al.33 M (n = 72) bench press LBM, arm circumference R = 0.83 SEE = 13.2 kg
trained squat 0.52 to 0.71 R = 0.74 SEE = 21.6 kg
dead lift R = 0.67 SEE = 18.4 kg
Bale et al.35 M adults (n = 58) bench press BM, LBM, ponderal index, R = 0.52 to 0.80 SEE = 14.5 to 18.5 kg
M adolescents (n = 85) dead lift endo, meso, ecto R = 0.43 to 0.65 SEE = 18.0 to 24.9 kg
trained adults 0.33 to 0.61
adolescents 0.46 to 0.71
Mayhew and F adolescents (n = 15) leg press BMI, full length of the leg R = 0.67 SEE = 20.2 kg
Hafertepe36 trained 0.54 and –0.63
Cummings F (n = 57) bench press BM, arm CSA, arm predictor: arm circumference
and Finn30 untrained circumference, biacromial r = 0.47 SEE = 2.3 kg
diameter
0.27 to 0.51
Ballmann et al.31 F (n = 124) bench press LBM, arm CSA, arm R = 0.51 to 0.63
untrained circumference, chest SEE = 5.2 to 5.7 kg
circumference, meso
0.38 to 0.41
Scanlan et al.34 F (n = 113) bench press arm CSA, arm circumference, R = 0.51 to 0.64
untrained forearm circumference, SEE = 5.4 to 6.0 kg
meso
0.42 to 0.45
M – males; F – females; BM – body mass; LBM – lean body mass; BMI – body mass index; CSA – cross sectional area; endo – endomorphy; meso – mesomorphy; ecto –
ectomorphy; R – multiple correlation coefficient; r – simple correlation coefficient; SEE – standard error of the estimate.
Mayhew M (n = 225) and repetitions for 1 min bench press Mayhew et al.24 NS differences
et al.24 F (n = 101) w/ fixed load
Mayhew M (n = 220) maximum repetitions bench press Brzycki37, Lander39, SIG differences (p < 0.05)
et al.44 w/ fixed load Mayhew et al.24,
Epley38, Lombardi40,
O’Conner et al.41
Ware M athletes maximum repetitions bench press Brzycki37, Epley38, SIG correlations (p < 0.01)
et al.45 (n = 45) w/ fixed load squat Lander39, Mayhew et al.24 SIG differences (p < 0.01)
LeSuer M (n = 40) and maximum repetitions bench press Brzycki37, Epley38, SIG* correlations
et al.43 F (n = 27) w/ fixed load squat Lander39, Lombardi40, bench press: SIG differences (p < 0.01)**
untrained dead lift Mayhew et al.24, squat: SIG differences (p < 0.01)***
O’Conner et al.41, dead lift: SIG differences (p < 0.01)
Wathan42
Hopkins M (n = 3) and 7-10RM shoulder press Braith et al.9 SIG* differences pre- and post-training
et al.26 F (n = 16) knee extension
TABLE 8
Results from cross validation studies to predict
bench press 1RM from anthropometric variables
Ballmann et al.31 F (n = 124) 5 drawn from Mayhew et al.46 and SIG* differences
untrained Scanlan et al.34 from 7.9 to 21.1%
Scanlan et al.34 F (n = 113) 3 drawn from Mayhew et al.46 SIG* differences
untrained from 19.5 to 24.3%
Only three of the reviewed studies16,17,28 and Pereira and exercises at speeds of 25 and 100o·s-1 27 indicate significant
Gomes (unpublished data) used some type of control of differences for the 8-10RM load between the two veloci-
movement velocity. This variable may also interfere in the ties, for both exercises (figure 1).
relationships, as shown in the studies by LaChance and Prediction of 1RM from submaximal tests and anthropo-
Hortobagyi47, in which the number of repetitions for pull- metric variables (circumferences, height, percent fat, so-
ups and push-ups varied according to different cadences, matotype, among others), or even exercise prescription
and by Silva et al.48, who found differences between free should be carefully considered. The specificity of the sam-
rhythm and paced speed for the number of repetitions for ple (males vs. females, trained vs. untrained), of the exer-
pull-ups. Preliminary results with squat and bench press cise (upper limbs vs. lower limbs, multi-joint vs. single
344 Rev Bras Med Esporte _ Vol. 9, Nº 5 – Set/Out, 2003
joint, big muscle groups vs. small muscle groups), of age 16. Cosgrove L, Mayhew J. A modified YMCA bench press test to predict
strength in adult women. IAHPERD Journal [online] 1997 [downloaded
(young vs. old), of the level of strength (very strong vs.
in August 2002];30:[2 screens]. Available at URL: http://www. mum.edu/
less strong) are factors that may interfere in the relation- exss_dept/iahperd/journal/j97s_bench.html.
ships. 17. Kuramoto AK, Payne VG. Predicting muscular strength in women: a
preliminary study. Res Q Exerc Sport 1995;66:168-72.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 18. Schell J, Ware JS, Mayhew JL. Muscular endurance performance rela-
tive to body weight to predict 1-RM bench press in college football play-
To CAPES, Ministry of Education, for the financial support to ers. IAHPERD Journal 1999;32:30-1.
the first author of this article. 19. Clairborne JM, Donolli JD. Number of repetitions at selected percent-
ages of one repetition maximum in untrained college women [Abstract].
All the authors declared no potential conflict of interests Res Q Exerc Sport 1993;64:A39-40.
20. Hoeger WWK, Barette SL, Hale DF, Hopkins DR. Relationship between
regarding this article.
repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition maximum. Jour-
nal of Applied Sport Science Research 1987;1:11-3.
21. Kravitz L, Akalan C, Nowicki K, Kinzey SJ. Prediction of 1 repetition
REFERENCES
maximum in high-school power lifters. J Strength Cond Res 2003;17:
1. American College of Sports Medicine. Position Stand: The recommend- 167-72.
ed quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining car- 22. McNanamee C, Prather L, Cochrane J, Mayhew J. Comparison of rela-
diorespiratory and muscular fitness, and flexibility in healthy adults. Med tive muscular endurance for arm and leg exercises in college women.
Sci Sports Exerc 1998;30:975-91. IAHPERD Journal 1997;31:12-3.
2. American College of Sports Medicine. Position Stand: Exercise and 23. Gomes PSC, Pereira MIR. Effects of testing velocity on total resistance
physical activity for older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998;30:992- work at submaximal load [Abstract]. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002;34: S152.
1008. 24. Mayhew JL, Ball TE, Arnold MD, Bowen JC. Relative muscular endur-
3. American College of Sports Medicine. Position Stand: Progression mod- ance performance as a predictor of bench press strength in college men
els in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002; and women. Journal of Applied Sport Science Research 1992;6:200-6.
34:364-80. 25. Mayhew JL, Ball TE, Bowen JC. Prediction of bench press lifting abil-
4. Shaw CE, McCully KK, Posner JD. Injuries during the one repetition ity from submaximal repetitions before and after training. Sports Medi-
maximum assessment in the elderly. J Cardiopulm Rehabil 1995; 15:283- cine, Training and Rehabilitation 1992;3:195-201.
7. 26. Hopkins L, Cochrane J, Mayhew JL. Prediction of arm and leg strength
5. Adams KJ, Swank AM, Barnard KL, Berning JM, Sevene-Adams PG. from the 7-10-RM before and after strength training on Nautilus ma-
Safety of maximal power, strength, and endurance testing in older Afri- chine weights. IAHPERD Journal 1999;33:40-1.
can American women. J Strength Cond Res 2000;13:254-60. 27. Pereira MIR, Gomes PSC. Relationship between 1RM and 8-10RM at
6. Faigenbaum AD, Milliken LA, Westcott WL. Maximal strength testing two speeds for squat and bench press exercises [Abstract]. Med Sci Sports
in healthy children. J Strength Cond Res 2003;17:162-6. Exerc 2001;33:S332.
7. Pollock ML, Carrol JF, Graves JE, Leggett SH, Braith RW, Limacher 28. Kraemer RR, Kilgore JL, Kraemer GR, Castracane VD. Growth hor-
M, et al. Injuries and adherence to walk/jog and resistance training pro- mone, IGF-I, and testosterone responses to resistive exercise. Med Sci
grams in the elderly. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1991;23:1194-200. Sports Exerc 1992;24:1346-52.
8. Ploutz-Snyder LL, Giamis EL. Orientation and familiarization to 1RM 29. Abadie BR, Wentworth MC. Prediction of one repetition maximal
strength testing in old and young women. J Strength Cond Res 2001;15: strength from a 5-10 repetition submaximal strength test in college-aged
519-23. females. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online [online] 2000 [down-
9. Braith RW, Graves JE, Leggett SH, Pollock ML. Effect of training on loaded in July 2002];3:[6 screens]. Available at URL: http://www.css.edu/
the relationship between maximal and submaximal strength. Med Sci users/tboone2/asep/JEPonlineABADIE.html.
Sports Exerc 1993;25:132-8. 30. Cummings B, Finn KJ. Estimation of a one repetition maximum bench
10. Rikli RE, Jones CJ, Beam WC, Duncan SJ, Lamar B. Testing versus press for untrained women. J Strength Cond Res 1998;12:262-5.
training effects on 1RM strength assessment in older adults [Abstract]. 31. Ballmann KL, Scanlan JM, Mayhew JL, Lantz CD. Prediction of bench
Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996;28:S153. press strength in untrained females from anthropometric dimensions and
11. Vincent WJ. Statistics in kinesiology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, psychological indicators of activity involvement. Journal of Human
1999. Movement Studies 1999;37:217-33.
12. Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. 32. Mayhew JL, Piper FC, Ware JS. Anthropometric correlates with strength
Sports Med 2000;30:1-15. performance among resistance trained athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fit-
13. Hoeger WWK, Hopkins DR, Barette SL, Hale DF. Relationship between ness 1993;33:159-65.
repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition maximum: a com- 33. Mayhew JL, Piper FC, Ware JS. Relationships of anthropometric di-
parison between untrained and trained males and females. Journal of mensions to strength performance in resistance trained athletes. Journal
Applied Sport Science Research 1990;4:47-54. of Physical Education & Sport Science 1993;5:7-16.
14. Chapman PP, Whitehead JR, Binkert RH. The 225-lb reps-to-fatigue test 34. Scanlan JM, Ballmann KL, Mayhew JL, Lantz CD. Anthropometric di-
as a submaximal estimate of 1-RM bench press performance in college mensions to predict 1-RM bench press in untrained females. J Sports
football players. J Strength Cond Res 1998;12:258-61. Med Phys Fitness 1999;39:54-60.
15. Mayhew JL, Ware JS, Bemben MG, Wilt B, Ward TE, Farris B, et al. 35. Bale P, Colley E, Mayhew JL, Piper FC, Ware JS. Anthropometric and
The NFL-225 test as a measure of bench press strength in college foot- somatotype variables related to strength in American football players. J
ball players. J Strength Cond Res 1999;13:130-4. Sports Med Phys Fitness 1994;34:383-9.