| dc.creator | García-Ramos, Amador | |
| dc.creator | Haff, Guy Gregory | |
| dc.creator | Pestaña-Melero, Francisco Luis | |
| dc.creator | Pérez-Castilla, Alejandro | |
| dc.creator | Rojas, Francisco Javier | |
| dc.creator | Balsalobre-Fernández, Carlos | |
| dc.creator | Jaric, Slobodan | |
| dc.date | 2020-06-01T23:45:32Z | |
| dc.date | 2020-06-01T23:45:32Z | |
| dc.date | 2018-04 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-10-18T12:07:02Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-10-18T12:07:02Z | |
| dc.identifier | International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2018, Volume 13: Issue 4, 474-481 | |
| dc.identifier | 1555-0265 | |
| dc.identifier | http://repositoriodigital.ucsc.cl/handle/25022009/1720 | |
| dc.identifier | 10.1123/ijspp.2017-0374 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/4441354 | |
| dc.description | Artículo de publicación ISI | |
| dc.description | Purpose: This study compared the concurrent validity and reliability of previously proposed generalized group equations for estimating the bench press (BP) 1-repetition maximum (1RM) with the individualized load–velocity relationship modeled with a 2-point method. Methods: Thirty men (BP 1RM relative to body mass: 1.08 [0.18] kg·kg−1) performed 2 incremental loading tests in the concentric-only BP exercise and another 2 in the eccentric–concentric BP exercise to assess their actual 1RM and load–velocity relationships. A high velocity (≈1 m·s−1) and a low velocity (≈0.5 m·s−1) were selected from their load–velocity relationships to estimate the 1RM from generalized group equations and through an individual linear model obtained from the 2 velocities. Results: The directly measured 1RM was highly correlated with all predicted 1RMs (r = .847–.977). The generalized group equations systematically underestimated the actual 1RM when predicted from the concentric-only BP (P < .001; effect size = 0.15–0.94) but overestimated it when predicted from the eccentric–concentric BP (P < .001; effect size = 0.36–0.98). Conversely, a low systematic bias (range: −2.3 to 0.5 kg) and random errors (range: 3.0–3.8 kg), no heteroscedasticity of errors (r2 = .053–.082), and trivial effect size (range: −0.17 to 0.04) were observed when the prediction was based on the 2-point method. Although all examined methods reported the 1RM with high reliability (coefficient of variation ≤ 5.1%; intraclass correlation coefficient ≥ .89), the direct method was the most reliable (coefficient of variation < 2.0%; intraclass correlation coefficient ≥ .98). Conclusions: The quick, fatigue-free, and practical 2-point method was able to predict the BP 1RM with high reliability and practically perfect validity, and therefore, the authors recommend its use over generalized group equations. | |
| dc.language | en | |
| dc.publisher | Human Kinetics | |
| dc.source | https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2017-0374 | |
| dc.subject | Velocity-based training | |
| dc.subject | Load-velocity relationship | |
| dc.subject | Maximum strength | |
| dc.subject | Validity | |
| dc.subject | Reliability | |
| dc.title | Feasibility of the 2-point method for determining the 1-repetition maximum in the bench press exercise | |
| dc.type | Artículos de revistas | |
