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

Zongwei Chen, Zheng Gong, Liwen Pan and Xiuli Zhang

PLOS ONE, 2023, vol. 18, issue 11, 1-25

Abstract: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the two-point method in predicting 1RM compared to the direct method, as well as analyze the factors influencing its accuracy. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases was conducted. Out of the 88 initially identified studies, 16 were selected for full review, and their outcome measures were analyzed. The findings of this review indicated that the two-point method slightly overestimated 1RM (effect size = 0.203 [95%CI: 0.132, 0.275]; P

Date: 2023
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0294509 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 94509&type=printable (application/pdf)

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:plo:pone00:0294509

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294509

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().