No abstract

No abstract

This study examined the accuracy of predicting a free-weight back squat and a bench press one-repetition maximum (1RM) using both 2- and 4-point submaximal average concentric velocity (ACV) methods. Seventeen resistance trained men performed a warm-up and a 1RM test on the squat and bench press with ACV assessed on all repetitions. The ACVs during the warm-up closest to 1.0 and 0.5m.s-1 were used in the 2-point linear regression forecast of the 1RM and the ACVs established at loads closest to 20, 50, 70, and 80% of the 1RM were used in the 4-point 1RM prediction. Repeated measures ANOVA and Bland-Altman and Mountain plots were used to analyze agreement between predicted and actual 1RMs. ANOVA indicated significant differences between the predicted and the actual 1RM for both the 2- and 4-point equations in both exercises (p<0.001). The 2-point squat prediction overestimated the 1RM by 29.12±0.07kg and the 4-point squat prediction overestimated the 1RM by 38.53±5.01kg. The bench press 1RM was overestimated by 9.32±4.68kg with the 2-point method and by 7.15±6.66kg using the 4-point method. Bland-Altman and Mountain plots confirmed the ANOVA findings as data were not tightly conformed to the respective zero difference lines and Bland-Altman plots showed wide limits of agreement. These data demonstrate that both 2- and 4-point velocity methods predicted the bench press 1RM more accurately than the squat 1RM. However, a lack of agreement between the predicted and the actual 1RM was observed for both exercises when volitional velocity was used.

PurposeA square-wave verification bout to confirm maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O2max) from a graded exercise test (GXT) has been recommended based on mean responses. This study used the test–retest reliability, mean, and individual differences between the highest V̇O2 from the GXT (V̇O2GXT) and verification bout (V̇O2verification) to examine the efficacy of a verification bout in the determination of trueV̇O2max in healthy, recreationally trained, well-motivated men.MethodsTen men (24 ± 4 yr) completed a GXT on a cycle ergometer followed by a submaximal verification bout to determine V̇O2GXT and V̇O2verification. After completion of the initial GXT, subjects rested for 5 min then performed the verification bout at 90% of the peak power output from the initial GXT. Analyses included a two-way repeated-measures ANOVA, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,1), standard errors of the measurement (SEM), minimal differences (MD), and coefficients of variation (COV).ResultsThere was no test (test 1 vs test 2)–method (GXT vs verification) interaction (P = 0.300) and no main effect for test (P = 0.690), but there was a main effect for method (P = 0.003). The V̇O2GXT (46.0 mL⋅kg−1⋅min−1) was significantly greater than V̇O2verification (43.9 mL⋅kg−1⋅min−1), collapsed across test. The V̇O2GXT (ICC = 0.970, SEM = 1.63 mL⋅kg−1⋅min−1, MD = 4.51 mL⋅kg−1⋅min−1, COV = 3.54%) and the V̇O2verification (ICC = 0.953, SEM = 1.87 mL⋅kg−1⋅min−1, MD = 5.17 mL⋅kg−1⋅min−1, COV = 4.25%) demonstrated “excellent” reliability. No subject exceeded the MD test–retest for V̇O2GXT or V̇O2verification. No subject had a V̇O2verification that exceeded V̇O2GXT by more than the MD, but two subjects had a V̇O2GXT, which exceeded V̇O2verification by more than the MD.ConclusionsThe excellent reliability of V̇O2GXT in addition to the examination of the individual differences between V̇O2GXT and V̇O2verification using the MD indicated that a standalone GXT was sufficient to determine V̇O2max.