Cargando…
Group versus Individualised Minimum Velocity Thresholds in the Prediction of Maximal Strength in Trained Female Athletes
This study examined the accuracy of different velocity-based methods in the prediction of bench press and squat one-repetition maximum (1RM) in female athletes. Seventeen trained females (age 17.8 ± 1.3 years) performed an incremental loading test to 1RM on bench press and squat with the mean veloci...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7662485/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33114479 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217811 |
_version_ | 1783609409093500928 |
---|---|
author | Caven, Elias J. G. Bryan, Tom J. E. Dingley, Amelia F. Drury, Benjamin Garcia-Ramos, Amador Perez-Castilla, Alejandro Arede, Jorge Fernandes, John F. T. |
author_facet | Caven, Elias J. G. Bryan, Tom J. E. Dingley, Amelia F. Drury, Benjamin Garcia-Ramos, Amador Perez-Castilla, Alejandro Arede, Jorge Fernandes, John F. T. |
author_sort | Caven, Elias J. G. |
collection | PubMed |
description | This study examined the accuracy of different velocity-based methods in the prediction of bench press and squat one-repetition maximum (1RM) in female athletes. Seventeen trained females (age 17.8 ± 1.3 years) performed an incremental loading test to 1RM on bench press and squat with the mean velocity being recorded. The 1RM was estimated from the load–velocity relationship using the multiple- (8 loads) and two-point (2 loads) methods and group and individual minimum velocity thresholds (MVT). No significant effect of method, MVT or interaction was observed for the two exercises (p > 0.05). For bench press and squat, all prediction methods demonstrated very large to nearly perfect correlations with respect to the actual 1RM (r range = 0.76 to 0.97). The absolute error (range = 2.1 to 3.8 kg) for bench press demonstrated low errors that were independent of the method and MVT used. For squat, the favorable group MVT errors for the multiple- and two-point methods (absolute error = 7.8 and 9.7 kg, respectively) were greater than the individual MVT errors (absolute error = 4.9 and 6.3 kg, respectively). The 1RM can be accurately predicted from the load–velocity relationship in trained females, with the two-point method offering a quick and less fatiguing alternative to the multiple-point method. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7662485 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76624852020-11-14 Group versus Individualised Minimum Velocity Thresholds in the Prediction of Maximal Strength in Trained Female Athletes Caven, Elias J. G. Bryan, Tom J. E. Dingley, Amelia F. Drury, Benjamin Garcia-Ramos, Amador Perez-Castilla, Alejandro Arede, Jorge Fernandes, John F. T. Int J Environ Res Public Health Article This study examined the accuracy of different velocity-based methods in the prediction of bench press and squat one-repetition maximum (1RM) in female athletes. Seventeen trained females (age 17.8 ± 1.3 years) performed an incremental loading test to 1RM on bench press and squat with the mean velocity being recorded. The 1RM was estimated from the load–velocity relationship using the multiple- (8 loads) and two-point (2 loads) methods and group and individual minimum velocity thresholds (MVT). No significant effect of method, MVT or interaction was observed for the two exercises (p > 0.05). For bench press and squat, all prediction methods demonstrated very large to nearly perfect correlations with respect to the actual 1RM (r range = 0.76 to 0.97). The absolute error (range = 2.1 to 3.8 kg) for bench press demonstrated low errors that were independent of the method and MVT used. For squat, the favorable group MVT errors for the multiple- and two-point methods (absolute error = 7.8 and 9.7 kg, respectively) were greater than the individual MVT errors (absolute error = 4.9 and 6.3 kg, respectively). The 1RM can be accurately predicted from the load–velocity relationship in trained females, with the two-point method offering a quick and less fatiguing alternative to the multiple-point method. MDPI 2020-10-26 2020-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7662485/ /pubmed/33114479 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217811 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Caven, Elias J. G. Bryan, Tom J. E. Dingley, Amelia F. Drury, Benjamin Garcia-Ramos, Amador Perez-Castilla, Alejandro Arede, Jorge Fernandes, John F. T. Group versus Individualised Minimum Velocity Thresholds in the Prediction of Maximal Strength in Trained Female Athletes |
title | Group versus Individualised Minimum Velocity Thresholds in the Prediction of Maximal Strength in Trained Female Athletes |
title_full | Group versus Individualised Minimum Velocity Thresholds in the Prediction of Maximal Strength in Trained Female Athletes |
title_fullStr | Group versus Individualised Minimum Velocity Thresholds in the Prediction of Maximal Strength in Trained Female Athletes |
title_full_unstemmed | Group versus Individualised Minimum Velocity Thresholds in the Prediction of Maximal Strength in Trained Female Athletes |
title_short | Group versus Individualised Minimum Velocity Thresholds in the Prediction of Maximal Strength in Trained Female Athletes |
title_sort | group versus individualised minimum velocity thresholds in the prediction of maximal strength in trained female athletes |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7662485/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33114479 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217811 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT caveneliasjg groupversusindividualisedminimumvelocitythresholdsinthepredictionofmaximalstrengthintrainedfemaleathletes AT bryantomje groupversusindividualisedminimumvelocitythresholdsinthepredictionofmaximalstrengthintrainedfemaleathletes AT dingleyameliaf groupversusindividualisedminimumvelocitythresholdsinthepredictionofmaximalstrengthintrainedfemaleathletes AT drurybenjamin groupversusindividualisedminimumvelocitythresholdsinthepredictionofmaximalstrengthintrainedfemaleathletes AT garciaramosamador groupversusindividualisedminimumvelocitythresholdsinthepredictionofmaximalstrengthintrainedfemaleathletes AT perezcastillaalejandro groupversusindividualisedminimumvelocitythresholdsinthepredictionofmaximalstrengthintrainedfemaleathletes AT aredejorge groupversusindividualisedminimumvelocitythresholdsinthepredictionofmaximalstrengthintrainedfemaleathletes AT fernandesjohnft groupversusindividualisedminimumvelocitythresholdsinthepredictionofmaximalstrengthintrainedfemaleathletes |