Suppr超能文献

通过杠铃后深蹲和卧推中的次最大速度预测一次重复最大值的准确性。

Accuracy of Predicting One-Repetition Maximum from Submaximal Velocity in The Barbell Back Squat and Bench Press.

作者信息

Macarilla Christian T, Sautter Nicholas M, Robinson Zac P, Juber Matthew C, Hickmott Landyn M, Cerminaro Rebecca M, Benitez Brian, Carzoli Joseph P, Bazyler Caleb D, Zoeller Robert F, Whitehurst Michael, Zourdos Michael C

机构信息

Florida Atlantic University, Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, Muscle Physiology Laboratory, Boca Raton, FL, USA.

Department of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.

出版信息

J Hum Kinet. 2022 Apr 26;82:201-212. doi: 10.2478/hukin-2022-0046. eCollection 2022 Apr.

Abstract

This study examined the accuracy of predicting a free-weight back squat and a bench press one-repetition maximum (1RM) using both 2- and 4-point submaximal average concentric velocity (ACV) methods. Seventeen resistance trained men performed a warm-up and a 1RM test on the squat and bench press with ACV assessed on all repetitions. The ACVs during the warm-up closest to 1.0 and 0.5ms were used in the 2-point linear regression forecast of the 1RM and the ACVs established at loads closest to 20, 50, 70, and 80% of the 1RM were used in the 4-point 1RM prediction. Repeated measures ANOVA and Bland-Altman and Mountain plots were used to analyze agreement between predicted and actual 1RMs. ANOVA indicated significant differences between the predicted and the actual 1RM for both the 2- and 4-point equations in both exercises (p<0.001). The 2-point squat prediction overestimated the 1RM by 29.12±0.07kg and the 4-point squat prediction overestimated the 1RM by 38.53±5.01kg. The bench press 1RM was overestimated by 9.32±4.68kg with the 2-point method and by 7.15±6.66kg using the 4-point method. Bland-Altman and Mountain plots confirmed the ANOVA findings as data were not tightly conformed to the respective zero difference lines and Bland-Altman plots showed wide limits of agreement. These data demonstrate that both 2- and 4-point velocity methods predicted the bench press 1RM more accurately than the squat 1RM. However, a lack of agreement between the predicted and the actual 1RM was observed for both exercises when volitional velocity was used.

摘要

本研究使用两点和四点次最大平均向心速度(ACV)方法,检验了预测自由重量深蹲和卧推一次重复最大值(1RM)的准确性。17名经过阻力训练的男性进行了热身,并对深蹲和卧推进行了1RM测试,对所有重复动作都评估了ACV。在1RM的两点线性回归预测中,使用了热身期间最接近1.0和0.5m/s的ACV,在四点1RM预测中,使用了在最接近1RM的20%、50%、70%和80%负荷下建立的ACV。采用重复测量方差分析、布兰德-奥特曼分析和山形图来分析预测的和实际的1RM之间的一致性。方差分析表明,在两项练习中,两点和四点方程预测的和实际的1RM之间均存在显著差异(p<0.001)。两点深蹲预测高估1RM 29.12±0.07kg,四点深蹲预测高估1RM 38.53±5.01kg。两点法卧推1RM高估9.32±4.68kg,四点法高估7.15±6.66kg。布兰德-奥特曼分析和山形图证实了方差分析的结果,因为数据并未紧密符合各自的零差异线,布兰德-奥特曼分析图显示一致性界限较宽。这些数据表明,两点和四点速度法预测卧推1RM比深蹲1RM更准确。然而,当使用自主速度时,两项练习预测的和实际的1RM之间均缺乏一致性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b4e4/9465738/1660fa2bac19/hukin-82-201-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验