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.

No abstract

METHODS: 82 healthy college students enrolled in a class meeting 2 days/week for 8 weeks; either 1 st 8 weeks TWT (n = 14, age 22.6 ± 4.2 years) and CF (n = 34, age 21.9 ± 3.2 years) or 2 nd 8 weeks TWT (n = 19, age 23 ± 5.3 years) and CF (n = 19, age 21.2 ± 1.9 years). A 5-point Likert-scale questionnaire measured stress, exercise motivation, and enjoyment at baseline and 8-weeks. Higher values corresponded with higher levels of each variable. Changes were compared using a general linear model. RESULTS: As shown in Figure 1, students reported moderate levels of all three variables from baseline to post-test. No significant change in stress, exercise motivation, and exercise enjoyment was found between classes or semester timing. CONCLUSION: All groups maintained baseline levels of stress, exercise motivation, and enjoyment. The absence of change in stress may indicate that CF and TWT classes are effective measures to combat stress during intense periods of the semester, such as midterms. Moreover, stability in exercise motivation and enjoyment may indicate that each class type similarly affects adherence.

METHODS: 82 healthy college students enrolled in a class meeting 2 days/week for 8 weeks; either 1 st 8 weeks TWT (n = 14, age 22.6 ± 4.2 years) and CF (n = 34, age 21.9 ± 3.2 years) or 2 nd 8 weeks TWT (n = 19, age 23 ± 5.3 years) and CF (n = 19, age 21.2 ± 1.9 years). A 5-point Likert-scale questionnaire measured stress, exercise motivation, and enjoyment at baseline and 8-weeks. Higher values corresponded with higher levels of each variable. Changes were compared using a general linear model. RESULTS: As shown in Figure 1, students reported moderate levels of all three variables from baseline to post-test. No significant change in stress, exercise motivation, and exercise enjoyment was found between classes or semester timing. CONCLUSION: All groups maintained baseline levels of stress, exercise motivation, and enjoyment. The absence of change in stress may indicate that CF and TWT classes are effective measures to combat stress during intense periods of the semester, such as midterms. Moreover, stability in exercise motivation and enjoyment may indicate that each class type similarly affects adherence.

PURPOSE:To compare changes in back squat one repetition maximum (1RM) between training programs with different proximities to failure using the repetitions in reserve (RIR)-based rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale. METHODS: Fourteen males (height: 175.77±5.72cm, body mass: 80.15±13.12kg, squat 1RM relative to body mass: 1.72±0.25) with ≥2yrs of back squat experience were assigned to one of two groups: 1) 4-6 RPE, n=7 (4-6 RIR) or 2) 7-9 RPE, n=7(1-3 RIR) for 8wks. Pre and post 1RM strength testing was performed 48 hours before the first training session and 48 hours after the last training session, respectively. Both groups performed the back squat 3x/wk on non-consecutive days (e.g., Mon., Wed., Fri.) using the same number of sets and repetitions on an undulating resistance training program, which linearly decreased repetitions throughout. Weeks 1-3 consisted of 10, 8, and 6 repetitions on sessions 1, 2, and 3, respectively; weeks 4-5 consisted of 9, 7, and 5 repetitions; and weeks 6-7 consisted of 8, 6, and 4 repetitions. Week 1 served as an introductory week in which fewer sets were performed at a lower RPE. Week 8 served as a taper with 4 and 2 repetition days on session 1 and session 2, respectively, followed by post-testing in session 3. In weeks 2-7 (i.e., main training period), 10 weekly sets were performed for each back squat and bench press. Subjects were instructed to select a load in which the set ended with 4-6 RPE or 7-9 RPE. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess 1RM changes and independent t-tests compared average intensity (% of 1RM) and total relative volume (% of 1RM × reps). RESULTS: Significant increases in back squat 1RM were observed in both the 4-6 RPE group (142.29 ± 50.05 to 156.07 ± 44.65 kg; p<0.01; +11.53%; p<0.01; +11.68%; g=0.26); however, no significant group × time interactions were observed (p>0.05). The 7-9 RPE group trained with significantly higher average relative intensity (82.2 ± 5.18 vs. 72.0 ± 4.57 %1RM, p=.002) and performed significantly higher relative volume (338.7 ± 21.46 vs. 380.1 ± 25.83kg, p=.007). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that resistance training with 4-6 RPE and 7-9 RPE produce similar back squat strength improvements.