等长测试能否替代单次最大深蹲测试?

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 PHYSIOLOGY
Konstantin Warneke, Michael Keiner, David G Behm, Klaus Wirth, Martin Kaufmann, Mareike Sproll, Andreas Konrad, Sebastian Wallot, Martin Hillebrecht
{"title":"等长测试能否替代单次最大深蹲测试?","authors":"Konstantin Warneke, Michael Keiner, David G Behm, Klaus Wirth, Martin Kaufmann, Mareike Sproll, Andreas Konrad, Sebastian Wallot, Martin Hillebrecht","doi":"10.1007/s00421-024-05554-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When measuring maximum strength, a high accuracy and precision is required to monitor the training adaptations. Based on available reliability parameters, the literature suggests the replacement of the one repetition maximum (1RM) by isometric testing to save testing time. However, from a statistical point of view, correlation coefficients do not provide the required information when aiming to replace one test by another. Therefore, the literature suggests the inclusion of the mean absolute error (MAE), the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) for agreement analysis. Consequently, to check the replaceability of 1RM testing methods, the current study examined the agreement of isometric and dynamic testing methods in the squat and the isometric mid-thigh pull. While in accordance with the literature, correlations were classified high r = 0.638-0.828 and ICC = 0.630-0.828, the agreement analysis provided MAEs of 175.75-444.17 N and MAPEs of 16.16-57.71% indicating an intolerable high measurement error between isometric and dynamic testing conditions in the squat and isometric mid-thigh pull. In contrast to previous studies, using MAE, MAPE supplemented by CCC and BA analysis highlights the poor agreement between the included strength tests. The recommendation to replace 1RM testing with isometric testing routines in the squat does not provide suitable concordance and is not recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":12005,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Applied Physiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can isometric testing substitute for the one repetition maximum squat test?\",\"authors\":\"Konstantin Warneke, Michael Keiner, David G Behm, Klaus Wirth, Martin Kaufmann, Mareike Sproll, Andreas Konrad, Sebastian Wallot, Martin Hillebrecht\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00421-024-05554-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>When measuring maximum strength, a high accuracy and precision is required to monitor the training adaptations. Based on available reliability parameters, the literature suggests the replacement of the one repetition maximum (1RM) by isometric testing to save testing time. However, from a statistical point of view, correlation coefficients do not provide the required information when aiming to replace one test by another. Therefore, the literature suggests the inclusion of the mean absolute error (MAE), the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) for agreement analysis. Consequently, to check the replaceability of 1RM testing methods, the current study examined the agreement of isometric and dynamic testing methods in the squat and the isometric mid-thigh pull. While in accordance with the literature, correlations were classified high r = 0.638-0.828 and ICC = 0.630-0.828, the agreement analysis provided MAEs of 175.75-444.17 N and MAPEs of 16.16-57.71% indicating an intolerable high measurement error between isometric and dynamic testing conditions in the squat and isometric mid-thigh pull. In contrast to previous studies, using MAE, MAPE supplemented by CCC and BA analysis highlights the poor agreement between the included strength tests. The recommendation to replace 1RM testing with isometric testing routines in the squat does not provide suitable concordance and is not recommended.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12005,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Applied Physiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Applied Physiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-024-05554-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Applied Physiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-024-05554-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在测量最大力量时,需要较高的准确性和精确度来监测训练适应性。根据现有的可靠性参数,文献建议用等长测试取代单次最大力量(1RM)测试,以节省测试时间。然而,从统计学的角度来看,相关系数并不能在用一种测试取代另一种测试时提供所需的信息。因此,文献建议采用平均绝对误差(MAE)和平均绝对百分比误差(MAPE)进行一致性分析。因此,为了检验 1RM 测试方法的可替代性,本研究考察了深蹲和等长大腿中段拉力的等长和动态测试方法的一致性。虽然根据文献,相关性被归类为高 r = 0.638-0.828 和 ICC = 0.630-0.828,但一致性分析提供了 175.75-444.17 N 的 MAE 和 16.16-57.71% 的 MAPE,表明深蹲和等长大腿中部拉伸的等长和动态测试条件之间存在难以容忍的高测量误差。与之前的研究相比,使用 MAE、MAPE 并辅以 CCC 和 BA 分析,突出显示了所包含的力量测试之间的一致性很差。用深蹲等长测试程序取代 1RM 测试的建议并不能提供适当的一致性,因此不推荐使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Can isometric testing substitute for the one repetition maximum squat test?

Can isometric testing substitute for the one repetition maximum squat test?

When measuring maximum strength, a high accuracy and precision is required to monitor the training adaptations. Based on available reliability parameters, the literature suggests the replacement of the one repetition maximum (1RM) by isometric testing to save testing time. However, from a statistical point of view, correlation coefficients do not provide the required information when aiming to replace one test by another. Therefore, the literature suggests the inclusion of the mean absolute error (MAE), the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) for agreement analysis. Consequently, to check the replaceability of 1RM testing methods, the current study examined the agreement of isometric and dynamic testing methods in the squat and the isometric mid-thigh pull. While in accordance with the literature, correlations were classified high r = 0.638-0.828 and ICC = 0.630-0.828, the agreement analysis provided MAEs of 175.75-444.17 N and MAPEs of 16.16-57.71% indicating an intolerable high measurement error between isometric and dynamic testing conditions in the squat and isometric mid-thigh pull. In contrast to previous studies, using MAE, MAPE supplemented by CCC and BA analysis highlights the poor agreement between the included strength tests. The recommendation to replace 1RM testing with isometric testing routines in the squat does not provide suitable concordance and is not recommended.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
227
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Applied Physiology (EJAP) aims to promote mechanistic advances in human integrative and translational physiology. Physiology is viewed broadly, having overlapping context with related disciplines such as biomechanics, biochemistry, endocrinology, ergonomics, immunology, motor control, and nutrition. EJAP welcomes studies dealing with physical exercise, training and performance. Studies addressing physiological mechanisms are preferred over descriptive studies. Papers dealing with animal models or pathophysiological conditions are not excluded from consideration, but must be clearly relevant to human physiology.
×
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