A comparison of absolute, ratio standard and allometric approaches for bench press performance assessment in men over 60

Guilherme Weiss Freccia, Wladymir Kulkamp, J. Júnior, Joana Muller, Kleber Santos, L. Carminatti
{"title":"A comparison of absolute, ratio standard and allometric approaches for bench press performance assessment in men over 60","authors":"Guilherme Weiss Freccia, Wladymir Kulkamp, J. Júnior, Joana Muller, Kleber Santos, L. Carminatti","doi":"10.4025/jphyseduc.v34i1.3424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Body mass is known to affect muscle strength and the outcome of some functional tests, so that heavier and taller people will be stronger than lighter and smaller ones. Ratio standard (RS) has been widely used to remove the body mass effect, despite long date criticism due to its inadequacy. Allometry (ALLO), in turn, has been applied as an efficient method for normalizing muscular strength. As the bench press (BP) is a well-recognized strength and conditioning exercise for older adults, the aim of the present study was to verify the influence of body mass on the performance assessment of a group of older men in the BP, by comparing the absolute, RS and ALLO approaches. Sixteen healthy old men (65.5±5.13 years old; 75.42±9.78Kg; 1.73±5.98m; 25.11±2.71 kg/m2; 24.76±4.10 %fat) volunteered to participate in the study. Maximum dynamic load was verified by individual one-repetition maximum (1-RM) tests. Comparisons of means revealed that significant 1-RM difference between lighter (54.9±8.85Kg) and heavier (66.2±8.86Kg) participants was identified only in absolute approach (p<0.05; ES=0.57). RS failed in completely remove the body mass effect, allowing correlation between normalized muscular strength and BM (r=0.23), in contraire of ALLO (r=0.03 and 0.06). Kendall's concordance coefficient revealed an absolute lack of agreement between approaches when compared their respective ordinal classifications (kw=0.003; p>0.05). In line with previous research, ALLO has shown to be the only suitable method to remove adequately the body mass effect and to provide appropriated performance scores for the older men evaluated in this study.","PeriodicalId":16809,"journal":{"name":"journal of physical education","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"journal of physical education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4025/jphyseduc.v34i1.3424","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Body mass is known to affect muscle strength and the outcome of some functional tests, so that heavier and taller people will be stronger than lighter and smaller ones. Ratio standard (RS) has been widely used to remove the body mass effect, despite long date criticism due to its inadequacy. Allometry (ALLO), in turn, has been applied as an efficient method for normalizing muscular strength. As the bench press (BP) is a well-recognized strength and conditioning exercise for older adults, the aim of the present study was to verify the influence of body mass on the performance assessment of a group of older men in the BP, by comparing the absolute, RS and ALLO approaches. Sixteen healthy old men (65.5±5.13 years old; 75.42±9.78Kg; 1.73±5.98m; 25.11±2.71 kg/m2; 24.76±4.10 %fat) volunteered to participate in the study. Maximum dynamic load was verified by individual one-repetition maximum (1-RM) tests. Comparisons of means revealed that significant 1-RM difference between lighter (54.9±8.85Kg) and heavier (66.2±8.86Kg) participants was identified only in absolute approach (p<0.05; ES=0.57). RS failed in completely remove the body mass effect, allowing correlation between normalized muscular strength and BM (r=0.23), in contraire of ALLO (r=0.03 and 0.06). Kendall's concordance coefficient revealed an absolute lack of agreement between approaches when compared their respective ordinal classifications (kw=0.003; p>0.05). In line with previous research, ALLO has shown to be the only suitable method to remove adequately the body mass effect and to provide appropriated performance scores for the older men evaluated in this study.
绝对、比率标准和异速方法在60岁以上男性卧推性能评估中的比较
众所周知,体重会影响肌肉力量和一些功能测试的结果,因此,重而高的人会比轻而小的人更强壮。比率标准(RS)被广泛用于消除体重效应,尽管长期以来因其不足而受到批评。异速测量(ALLO),反过来,已被应用作为一种有效的方法来规范肌肉力量。由于卧推(BP)是老年人公认的力量和调节运动,本研究的目的是通过比较绝对、RS和ALLO方法,验证体重对一组老年男性在BP中的表现评估的影响。健康老年人16例(65.5±5.13岁);75.42±9.78公斤;1.73±5.98米;25.11±2.71 kg / m2;(24.76±4.10%脂肪)自愿参加研究。最大动载荷通过单次重复最大(1-RM)试验验证。均数比较显示,较轻(54.9±8.85Kg)和较重(66.2±8.86Kg)的受试者仅在绝对方法中存在显著的1-RM差异(p0.05)。与先前的研究一致,ALLO已被证明是唯一合适的方法来充分消除体重效应,并为本研究中评估的老年男性提供适当的表现评分。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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