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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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