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

Overview

Journal PeerJ

Specialties Biology
Environmental Health
General Medicine

Date 2022 Mar 8

PMID 35256919

Authors

Onat Cetin

Zeki Akyildiz

Barbaros Demirtas

Yilmaz Sungur

Filipe Manuel Clemente

Florin Cazan

Luca Paolo Ardigo

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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 = 0.864) and two variations of the two-point method (R = 0.816 for 40-80%, R = 0.732 for 60-80%) showed very large correlations, whereas other two variations of the two-point method (R = 0.945 for 40-90%, R = 0.914 for 60-90%) showed almost perfect correlations with the actual 1RM. Regarding the validity of squat exercise, the multi-point method (R = 0.773) and two variations of the two-point method (R = 0.0847 for 60-80%, R = 0.705 for 40-90%) showed very large correlations, whereas 40-60% variation showed almost perfect correlation (R = 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.

Citing Articles

Is two-point method a valid and reliable method to predict 1RM? A systematic review.

Chen Z, Gong Z, Pan L, Zhang X PLoS One. 2023; 18(11):e0294509.

PMID: 37983216 PMC: 10659210. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294509.

Test-Retest Reliability of the Functional Electromechanical Dynamometer for Squat Exercise.

Del-Cuerpo I, Jerez-Mayorga D, Delgado-Floody P, Morenas-Aguilar M, Chirosa-Rios L Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20(2).

PMID: 36674047 PMC: 9859296. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20021289.

References

Thompson S, Rogerson D, Dorrell H, Ruddock A, Barnes A . The Reliability and Validity of Current Technologies for Measuring Barbell Velocity in the Free-Weight Back Squat and Power Clean. Sports (Basel). 2020; 8(7). PMC: 7404723. DOI: 10.3390/sports8070094. View

Hecksteden A, Pitsch W, Rosenberger F, Meyer T . Repeated testing for the assessment of individual response to exercise training. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2018; 124(6):1567-1579. DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00896.2017. View

Munoz-Lopez M, Marchante D, Cano-Ruiz M, Chicharro J, Balsalobre-Fernandez C . Load-, Force-, and Power-Velocity Relationships in the Prone Pull-Up Exercise. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017; 12(9):1249-1255. DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2016-0657. View

Suchomel T, Nimphius S, Bellon C, Stone M . The Importance of Muscular Strength: Training Considerations. Sports Med. 2018; 48(4):765-785. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-018-0862-z. View

Banyard H, Nosaka K, Haff G . Reliability and Validity of the Load-Velocity Relationship to Predict the 1RM Back Squat. J Strength Cond Res. 2016; 31(7):1897-1904. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001657. View

Lake J, Naworynsky D, Duncan F, Jackson M . Comparison of Different Minimal Velocity Thresholds to Establish Deadlift One Repetition Maximum. Sports (Basel). 2018; 5(3). PMC: 5968962. DOI: 10.3390/sports5030070. View

Conceicao F, Fernandes J, Lewis M, Gonzalez-Badillo J, Jimenez-Reyes P . Movement velocity as a measure of exercise intensity in three lower limb exercises. J Sports Sci. 2015; 34(12):1099-106. DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1090010. View

Scott B, Duthie G, Thornton H, Dascombe B . Training Monitoring for Resistance Exercise: Theory and Applications. Sports Med. 2016; 46(5):687-98. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-015-0454-0. View

Sanchez-Medina L, Gonzalez-Badillo J, Perez C, Pallares J . Velocity- and power-load relationships of the bench pull vs. bench press exercises. Int J Sports Med. 2013; 35(3):209-16. DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1351252. View

10.

Jimenez-Alonso A, Garcia-Ramos A, Cepero M, Miras-Moreno S, Rojas F, Perez-Castilla A . Velocity Performance Feedback During the Free-Weight Bench Press Testing Procedure: An Effective Strategy to Increase the Reliability and One Repetition Maximum Accuracy Prediction. J Strength Cond Res. 2020; 36(4):1077-1083. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003609. View

11.

Garcia-Ramos A, Barboza-Gonzalez P, Ulloa-Diaz D, Rodriguez-Perea A, Martinez-Garcia D, Guede-Rojas F . Reliability and validity of different methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. J Sports Sci. 2019; 37(19):2205-2212. DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2019.1626071. View

12.

Bazuelo-Ruiz B, Padial P, Garcia-Ramos A, Morales-Artacho A, Miranda M, Feriche B . Predicting Maximal Dynamic Strength From the Load-Velocity Relationship in Squat Exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2015; 29(7):1999-2005. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000821. View

13.

Lacome M, Peeters A, Mathieu B, Bruno M, Christopher C, Piscione J . Can we use GPS for assessing sprinting performance in rugby sevens? A concurrent validity and between-device reliability study. Biol Sport. 2019; 36(1):25-29. PMC: 6413573. DOI: 10.5114/biolsport.2018.78903. View

14.

Sanchez-Medina L, Perez C, Gonzalez-Badillo J . Importance of the propulsive phase in strength assessment. Int J Sports Med. 2010; 31(2):123-9. DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1242815. View

15.

Sanchez-Medina L, Gonzalez-Badillo J . Velocity loss as an indicator of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011; 43(9):1725-34. DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318213f880. View

16.

Garcia-Ramos A, Pestana-Melero F, Perez-Castilla A, Rojas F, Haff G . Differences in the Load-Velocity Profile Between 4 Bench-Press Variants. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017; 13(3):326-331. DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2017-0158. View

17.

Jaric S . Two-Load Method for Distinguishing Between Muscle Force, Velocity, and Power-Producing Capacities. Sports Med. 2016; 46(11):1585-1589. PMC: 5056118. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-016-0531-z. View

18.

Wisloff U, Castagna C, Helgerud J, Jones R, Hoff J . Strong correlation of maximal squat strength with sprint performance and vertical jump height in elite soccer players. Br J Sports Med. 2004; 38(3):285-8. PMC: 1724821. DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.2002.002071. View

19.

Fry A, Kraemer W . Resistance exercise overtraining and overreaching. Neuroendocrine responses. Sports Med. 1997; 23(2):106-29. DOI: 10.2165/00007256-199723020-00004. View

20.

Kraemer W, Ratamess N . Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004; 36(4):674-88. DOI: 10.1249/01.mss.0000121945.36635.61. View