A Comparison of Three Protocols for Determining Barbell Bench Press Single Repetition Maximum, Barbell Kinetics, and Subsequent Measures of Muscular Performance in Resistance-Trained Adults.

IF 2.2 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES
Sports Pub Date : 2024-12-03 DOI:10.3390/sports12120334
Matthew T Stratton, Austin T Massengale, Riley A Clark, Kaitlyn Evenson-McMurtry, Morgan Wormely
{"title":"A Comparison of Three Protocols for Determining Barbell Bench Press Single Repetition Maximum, Barbell Kinetics, and Subsequent Measures of Muscular Performance in Resistance-Trained Adults.","authors":"Matthew T Stratton, Austin T Massengale, Riley A Clark, Kaitlyn Evenson-McMurtry, Morgan Wormely","doi":"10.3390/sports12120334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>One repetition maximum (1RM) is a vital metric for exercise professionals, but various testing protocols exist, and their impacts on the resulting 1RM, barbell kinetics, and subsequent muscular performance testing are not well understood. This study aimed to compare two previously established protocols and a novel self-led method for determining bench press 1RM, 1RM barbell kinetics, and subsequent muscular performance measures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-four resistance-trained males (n = 12, 24 ± 6.1 years) and females (n = 12, 22.5 ± 5.5 years) completed three laboratory visits in a randomized crossover fashion. During each visit, a 1RM was established using one of the three protocols followed by a single set to volitional fatigue using 80% of their 1RM. A Sex:Protocol repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effects of sex and differences between protocols.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were observed between the protocols for any measure, except for 1RM peak power (<i>p</i> = 0.036). Post hoc pairwise comparisons failed to identify any differences. Males showed significantly higher 1RM, average, and peak power (<i>p</i>s < 0.001), while females demonstrated a greater average concentric velocity (<i>p</i> = 0.031) at 1RM.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These data suggest the protocol used to establish 1RM may have minimal impact on the final 1RM, 1RM barbell kinetics, and subsequent muscular endurance in a laboratory setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":53303,"journal":{"name":"Sports","volume":"12 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11679921/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/sports12120334","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: One repetition maximum (1RM) is a vital metric for exercise professionals, but various testing protocols exist, and their impacts on the resulting 1RM, barbell kinetics, and subsequent muscular performance testing are not well understood. This study aimed to compare two previously established protocols and a novel self-led method for determining bench press 1RM, 1RM barbell kinetics, and subsequent muscular performance measures.

Methods: Twenty-four resistance-trained males (n = 12, 24 ± 6.1 years) and females (n = 12, 22.5 ± 5.5 years) completed three laboratory visits in a randomized crossover fashion. During each visit, a 1RM was established using one of the three protocols followed by a single set to volitional fatigue using 80% of their 1RM. A Sex:Protocol repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effects of sex and differences between protocols.

Results: No significant differences were observed between the protocols for any measure, except for 1RM peak power (p = 0.036). Post hoc pairwise comparisons failed to identify any differences. Males showed significantly higher 1RM, average, and peak power (ps < 0.001), while females demonstrated a greater average concentric velocity (p = 0.031) at 1RM.

Conclusions: These data suggest the protocol used to establish 1RM may have minimal impact on the final 1RM, 1RM barbell kinetics, and subsequent muscular endurance in a laboratory setting.

确定杠铃卧推单次最大重复次数、杠铃动力学和阻力训练成人肌肉表现的三种方案的比较。
背景:单次最大重复(1RM)是运动专业人士的重要指标,但存在各种测试方案,其对1RM、杠铃动力学和随后的肌肉性能测试的影响尚不清楚。本研究旨在比较两种先前建立的方案和一种新的自主方法来确定卧推1RM、杠铃1RM动力学和随后的肌肉性能测量。方法:24名接受阻力训练的男性(n = 12, 24±6.1岁)和女性(n = 12, 22.5±5.5岁)以随机交叉方式完成3次实验室访问。在每次访问期间,使用三种方案中的一种建立1RM,然后使用其80%的1RM进行单组意志疲劳。性别:方案重复测量方差分析用于确定性别的影响和方案之间的差异。结果:除了1RM峰值功率(p = 0.036)外,两种方案之间的任何测量均无显著差异。事后两两比较没有发现任何差异。男性表现出更高的1RM、平均功率和峰值功率(ps < 0.001),而女性在1RM时表现出更高的平均同心速度(p = 0.031)。结论:这些数据表明,在实验室环境中,用于建立1RM的方案可能对最终1RM、1RM杠铃动力学和随后的肌肉耐力的影响最小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Sports
Sports SPORT SCIENCES-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
7.40%
发文量
167
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信