Muscular Endurance Repetitions to Predict Bench Press and Squat Strength in College Football Players

Ware, John S.; Clemens, Chuck T.; Mayhew, Jerry L.; Johnston, Tom J.

doi:10.1519/00124278-199505000-00008

Cited by 18 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The 1RM test, despite being one of the most widely used and frequently mentioned tests in the literature, has been associated with some weaknesses; e.g. it requires considerable time in the preparation for the testing session but also some prior knowledge of the performance technique when reaching a maximal effort (20,29), Moreover the administration is time consuming and impracticable to use in large groups of athletes, making this method very difficult to apply on a regular basis during the training process (19). On the other hand, multiple repetition tests have been described as safer (4) and therefore much more applicable to certain populations such as young, older or with pre-existing medical conditions (25).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Loading Intensity Prediction by Velocity and the OMNI-RES 0–10 Scale in Bench Press

Naclerio

Larumbe-Zabala

2017

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the possibility of using movement velocity and the perceived exertion as indicators of relative load in the bench press exercise. Three hundred eight young, healthy, resistance trained athletes (242 male and 66 female) performed a progressive strength test up to the one-repetition maximum for the individual determination of the full load-velocity and load-exertion relationships. Longitudinal regression models were used to predict the relative load from the average velocity and the OMNI-RES 0-10 scale, considering sets as the time-related variable. Load associated with the average velocity and the OMNI-RES 0-10 scale value expressed after performing a set of 1-3 repetitions were used to construct two adjusted predictive equations: Relative load = 107.75 -62.97 × average velocity; and Relative load = 29.03 + 7.26 × OMNI-RES 0-10 scale value. The two models were capable of estimating the relative load with an accuracy of 84% and 93% respectively. These findings confirm the ability of the two calculated regression models, using load-velocity and loadexertion from the OMNI-RES 0-10 scale, to accurately predict strength performance in bench press.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Loading Intensity Prediction by Velocity and the OMNI-RES 0–10 Scale in Bench Press

Naclerio

Larumbe-Zabala

2017

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Its popularity is related to factors such as the possibility of evaluating various muscle groups, ease of administration, low cost, and lack of need for sophisticated equipment. It is considered to be a safe and valid indicator for the estimation of muscle strength in different populations [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11].The most widely used exercises utilized for measuring strength are the bench press (BP) and squat (SQ) [12][13][14][15]. In addition, the arm curl (AC) is a common component of training programs [16,17] and provides measurement of a smaller muscle group frequently utilized for upper-body manual tasks.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and smallest worthwhile difference in 1RM tests according to previous resistance training experience in young women

Nascimento¹,

Ribeiro²,

Padilha³

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strength testing reliability INTRODUCTIONThe one-repetition maximum (1RM) test is the premier method used to determine relative loads for prescribing resistance training (RT) program intensity and to assess changes in muscle strength during RT [1,2]. Its popularity is related to factors such as the possibility of evaluating various muscle groups, ease of administration, low cost, and lack of need for sophisticated equipment. It is considered to be a safe and valid indicator for the estimation of muscle strength in different populations [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11].The most widely used exercises utilized for measuring strength are the bench press (BP) and squat (SQ) [12][13][14][15]. In addition, the arm curl (AC) is a common component of training programs [16,17] and provides measurement of a smaller muscle group frequently utilized for upper-body manual tasks. Several studies have shown that to obtain stable 1RM measures in these exercises, previous familiarization sessions are needed [18][19][20][21][22]. Variables such as age [18,19], gender [18,[20][21][22][23] ABSTRACT:The objective of this study was to determine the familiarization and smallest worthwhile difference (SWD) of one-repetition maximum (1RM) tests in detrained women according to their previous resistance training experience. Three groups of women with varying amounts of previous resistance training experience were recruited: Novice (n = 27, 1 to 6 months), Intermediate (n = 13, from 7 to 12 months), and Advanced (n = 20, 13 to 24 months). All participants performed four 1RM test sessions in the bench press (BP), squat (SQ), and arm curl (AC). A significant (p< 0.05) (group vs. time) interaction was observed in SQ suggesting that more experienced participants needed fewer 1RM test sessions to reach a stable load compared to the less experienced groups. Strength changes (p<0.05) observed in BP and AC occurred with no significant interaction for groups (p> 0.05), suggesting that experience had no impact on familiarization for these lifts. SWDs suggest that strength gains greater than 2-4% in these lifts would indicate a meaningful improvement in strength beyond random variation from trial to trial no matter the experience of the subject. Women with limited previous resistance training experience do not require more trials to reach load stabilization than those with more experience. Stability of 1RM loads for BP and AC may require only two sessions, while SQ may require at least three trials. CITATION:

show abstract

“…Abadie et al (1999) 15) found that the regression equation that had been established before training was still valid after technique practice. By contrast, many other studies showed that the equation could be affected by training experience, gender, muscle groups involved, and individual differences 7,[16][17][18] ; attributable to muscular, neurological, metabolic or endocrinal disparities, or genetic influences 8) . Moreover, Sakamoto and Sinclair (2006) 19) reported that, using a within-subject study, movement velocity immediately affected the repetition-intensity relationship.…”

Section: Repetition-intensity Relationshipmentioning

confidence: 87%

Strategies for maximizing power and strength gains in isoinertial resistance training: Implications for competitive athletes

Sakamoto

Sinclair

Naito

2016

JPFSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Isoinertial resistance is imposed during natural human dynamics, where muscles contract at varying velocities and joint angles. In many sports, the ability to produce greater force at faster speed is essential for successful outcomes. Hence, power training under isoinertial resistance (e.g., body mass, weights or flywheel, etc.) provides event-specific adaptive stimuli. Conventional power training consists of a combination of strength-oriented (> 70% 1RM) and speed-oriented (< 30% 1RM, e.g., plyometrics) methods, with the aim of being able to overcome variable external loadings across a range of velocities. An alternative maximum power output training (Pmax training, 30-70% 1RM) has been found to elicit equivalent or greater effectiveness compared to the conventional methods. It is, however, difficult to precisely reproduce the prescribed intensities, given several concerns associated with 1RM testing and the variable accuracies of the repetition-intensity or velocity-intensity relationship. No matter what level of resistance is assigned to an exercise, it is far more important to exert as much effort (or fastest concentric speed) as possible per repetition, otherwise, the training effects are reduced. At light intensities, however, a large portion of the concentric phase is spent in deceleration for the subsequent phase transition, which may limit effort. Making projectile motions, therefore, are necessary. The utilization of stretch-shortening cycle effects, with increased power ability, may give a further training edge. Coaches and trainees should be aware that successful movements in power training are defined as greater acceleration, speed and displacement for every repetition, rather than simply neat form or smooth repetitiveness.

show abstract

Muscular Endurance Repetitions to Predict Bench Press and Squat Strength in College Football Players

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

Loading Intensity Prediction by Velocity and the OMNI-RES 0–10 Scale in Bench Press

Loading Intensity Prediction by Velocity and the OMNI-RES 0–10 Scale in Bench Press

Reliability and smallest worthwhile difference in 1RM tests according to previous resistance training experience in young women

Strategies for maximizing power and strength gains in isoinertial resistance training: Implications for competitive athletes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About