Cargando…

Reliability and validity of the multi-point method and the 2-point method’s variations of estimating the one-repetition maximum for deadlift and back squat exercises

This study aimed at examining the concurrent validity and reliability of the multi-point method and the two-point method’s variations for estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the deadlift and squat exercises and to determine the accuracy of which optimal two loads can be used for the two-p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Çetin, Onat, Akyildiz, Zeki, Demirtaş, Barbaros, Sungur, Yılmaz, Clemente, Filipe Manuel, Cazan, Florin, Ardigò, Luca Paolo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PeerJ Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8898007/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35256919
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13013
_version_ 1784663549927227392
author Çetin, Onat
Akyildiz, Zeki
Demirtaş, Barbaros
Sungur, Yılmaz
Clemente, Filipe Manuel
Cazan, Florin
Ardigò, Luca Paolo
author_facet Çetin, Onat
Akyildiz, Zeki
Demirtaş, Barbaros
Sungur, Yılmaz
Clemente, Filipe Manuel
Cazan, Florin
Ardigò, Luca Paolo
author_sort Çetin, Onat
collection PubMed
description This study aimed at examining the concurrent validity and reliability of the multi-point method and the two-point method’s variations for estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the deadlift and squat exercises and to determine the accuracy of which optimal two loads can be used for the two-point method protocol. Thirteen resistance-trained men performed six sessions that consisted of two incremental loading tests (multi-point method: 20–40–60–80–90% and two-point method variations: 40–60%, 40–80%, 40–90%,60–80%, 60–90%) followed by 1RM tests. Both the multi-point method and the two-point method load variations showed reliable results for 1RM estimation (CV < 10%) squat and deadlift exercises. Session-session reliability was found to be low in deadlift (ICC: 0.171–0.335) and squat exercises (ICC: 0.235–0.479) of 40–60% and 60–80% in two-point methods. Deadlift (ICC: 0.815–0.996) and squat (ICC: 0.817–0.988) had high session-to-session reliability in all other methods. Regarding the validity of deadlift exercise, the multipoint method (R(2) = 0.864) and two variations of the two-point method (R(2) = 0.816 for 40–80%, R(2) = 0.732 for 60–80%) showed very large correlations, whereas other two variations of the two-point method (R(2) = 0.945 for 40–90%, R(2) = 0.914 for 60–90%) showed almost perfect correlations with the actual 1RM. Regarding the validity of squat exercise, the multi-point method (R(2) = 0.773) and two variations of the two-point method (R(2) = 0.0847 for 60–80%, R(2) = 0.705 for 40–90%) showed very large correlations, whereas 40–60% variation showed almost perfect correlation (R(2) = 0.962) with the actual 1RM. In conclusion, whereas both the multi-point method and the two-point method load variations showed reliable results, the multiple-point method and most of the two-point methods’ load variations examined in this research provided an accurate (from large-moderate to perfect) estimate of the 1RM. Therefore, we recommend using the multi-point method and especially the two-point methods variations including higher relative loads to estimate 1RM.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8898007
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88980072022-03-06 Reliability and validity of the multi-point method and the 2-point method’s variations of estimating the one-repetition maximum for deadlift and back squat exercises Çetin, Onat Akyildiz, Zeki Demirtaş, Barbaros Sungur, Yılmaz Clemente, Filipe Manuel Cazan, Florin Ardigò, Luca Paolo PeerJ Kinesiology This study aimed at examining the concurrent validity and reliability of the multi-point method and the two-point method’s variations for estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the deadlift and squat exercises and to determine the accuracy of which optimal two loads can be used for the two-point method protocol. Thirteen resistance-trained men performed six sessions that consisted of two incremental loading tests (multi-point method: 20–40–60–80–90% and two-point method variations: 40–60%, 40–80%, 40–90%,60–80%, 60–90%) followed by 1RM tests. Both the multi-point method and the two-point method load variations showed reliable results for 1RM estimation (CV < 10%) squat and deadlift exercises. Session-session reliability was found to be low in deadlift (ICC: 0.171–0.335) and squat exercises (ICC: 0.235–0.479) of 40–60% and 60–80% in two-point methods. Deadlift (ICC: 0.815–0.996) and squat (ICC: 0.817–0.988) had high session-to-session reliability in all other methods. Regarding the validity of deadlift exercise, the multipoint method (R(2) = 0.864) and two variations of the two-point method (R(2) = 0.816 for 40–80%, R(2) = 0.732 for 60–80%) showed very large correlations, whereas other two variations of the two-point method (R(2) = 0.945 for 40–90%, R(2) = 0.914 for 60–90%) showed almost perfect correlations with the actual 1RM. Regarding the validity of squat exercise, the multi-point method (R(2) = 0.773) and two variations of the two-point method (R(2) = 0.0847 for 60–80%, R(2) = 0.705 for 40–90%) showed very large correlations, whereas 40–60% variation showed almost perfect correlation (R(2) = 0.962) with the actual 1RM. In conclusion, whereas both the multi-point method and the two-point method load variations showed reliable results, the multiple-point method and most of the two-point methods’ load variations examined in this research provided an accurate (from large-moderate to perfect) estimate of the 1RM. Therefore, we recommend using the multi-point method and especially the two-point methods variations including higher relative loads to estimate 1RM. PeerJ Inc. 2022-03-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8898007/ /pubmed/35256919 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13013 Text en © 2022 Çetin et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
spellingShingle Kinesiology
Çetin, Onat
Akyildiz, Zeki
Demirtaş, Barbaros
Sungur, Yılmaz
Clemente, Filipe Manuel
Cazan, Florin
Ardigò, Luca Paolo
Reliability and validity of the multi-point method and the 2-point method’s variations of estimating the one-repetition maximum for deadlift and back squat exercises
title Reliability and validity of the multi-point method and the 2-point method’s variations of estimating the one-repetition maximum for deadlift and back squat exercises
title_full Reliability and validity of the multi-point method and the 2-point method’s variations of estimating the one-repetition maximum for deadlift and back squat exercises
title_fullStr Reliability and validity of the multi-point method and the 2-point method’s variations of estimating the one-repetition maximum for deadlift and back squat exercises
title_full_unstemmed Reliability and validity of the multi-point method and the 2-point method’s variations of estimating the one-repetition maximum for deadlift and back squat exercises
title_short Reliability and validity of the multi-point method and the 2-point method’s variations of estimating the one-repetition maximum for deadlift and back squat exercises
title_sort reliability and validity of the multi-point method and the 2-point method’s variations of estimating the one-repetition maximum for deadlift and back squat exercises
topic Kinesiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8898007/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35256919
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13013
work_keys_str_mv AT cetinonat reliabilityandvalidityofthemultipointmethodandthe2pointmethodsvariationsofestimatingtheonerepetitionmaximumfordeadliftandbacksquatexercises
AT akyildizzeki reliabilityandvalidityofthemultipointmethodandthe2pointmethodsvariationsofestimatingtheonerepetitionmaximumfordeadliftandbacksquatexercises
AT demirtasbarbaros reliabilityandvalidityofthemultipointmethodandthe2pointmethodsvariationsofestimatingtheonerepetitionmaximumfordeadliftandbacksquatexercises
AT sunguryılmaz reliabilityandvalidityofthemultipointmethodandthe2pointmethodsvariationsofestimatingtheonerepetitionmaximumfordeadliftandbacksquatexercises
AT clementefilipemanuel reliabilityandvalidityofthemultipointmethodandthe2pointmethodsvariationsofestimatingtheonerepetitionmaximumfordeadliftandbacksquatexercises
AT cazanflorin reliabilityandvalidityofthemultipointmethodandthe2pointmethodsvariationsofestimatingtheonerepetitionmaximumfordeadliftandbacksquatexercises
AT ardigolucapaolo reliabilityandvalidityofthemultipointmethodandthe2pointmethodsvariationsofestimatingtheonerepetitionmaximumfordeadliftandbacksquatexercises