Group versus Individualised Minimum Velocity Thresholds in the Prediction of Maximal Strength in Trained Female Athletes

Elias J. G. Caven, Tom J. E. Bryan, Amelia F. Dingley, Benjamin Drury, Amador Garcia-Ramos, Alejandro Perez-Castilla, Jorge Arede and John F. T. Fernandes
Additional contact information
Elias J. G. Caven: Higher Education Sport, Hartpury University, Gloucester GL19 3BE, UK
Tom J. E. Bryan: Higher Education Sport, Hartpury University, Gloucester GL19 3BE, UK
Amelia F. Dingley: Higher Education Sport, Hartpury University, Gloucester GL19 3BE, UK
Benjamin Drury: Higher Education Sport, Hartpury University, Gloucester GL19 3BE, UK
Amador Garcia-Ramos: Department of Physical Education and Sport, University of Granada, 52005 Granada, Spain
Alejandro Perez-Castilla: Department of Physical Education and Sport, University of Granada, 52005 Granada, Spain
Jorge Arede: Research Center in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development, CIDESD, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
John F. T. Fernandes: Higher Education Sport, Hartpury University, Gloucester GL19 3BE, UK

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 21, 1-10

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: one-repetition maximum; velocity-based training; squat; bench press; GymAware; agreement (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/7811/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/7811/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:21:p:7811-:d:434573

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().