Home > Journals > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Past Issues > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2020 March;60(3) > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2020 March;60(3):338-44

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE  EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOMECHANICS 

The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2020 March;60(3):338-44

DOI: 10.23736/S0022-4707.19.10130-2

Copyright © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Barbell velocity: a practical and precise method for predicting bench press strength in sedentary women

Ryan M. MILLER 1 , Aaron D. HEISHMAN 1, 2, Eduardo D. FREITAS 1, Michael G. BEMBEN 1

1 Department of Health and Exercise Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA; 2 Department of Athletics, Basketball Strength and Performance, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA



BACKGROUND: Bench press one-repetition maximum (BP1RM) prediction models offer a timely approach to predict BP1RM while avoiding the limitations with traditional BP1RM testing. Interestingly, no models have determined the ability for a traditional weight, the 20.5 kg barbell, to predict BP1RM strength. Few models have exclusively examined females and sedentary individuals, leaving the accuracy of these models unknown for these populations. Therefore, this investigation sought to examine the ability for 20.5 kg barbell velocity to predict BP1RM in sedentary females.
METHODS: Nineteen sedentary females (21.79±1.43 years, 166.08±7.76 cm, 63.98±7.54 kg, 31.57±4.72 BP1RM) completed BP1RM testing and completed two additional visits to determine 20.5 kg barbell velocity from a single repetition separated by 7-10 days. Nineteen additional females (21.39±1.09 years, 164.31±7.37 cm, 67.34±9.32 kg, 32.75±5.09 BP1RM) served as a cross-validating group completing identical testing procedures.
RESULTS: Regression analyses revealed that 20.5 kg barbell velocity accounted for 95% of the variance in BP1RM strength while presenting marginal standard error (1.34 kg) and mean absolute error (0.97 kg), with similar values observed in the cross-validating group (SEE: 2.13 kg, MAE: 1.56 kg). Predicted BP1RM values were not significantly different from actual BP1RM (P=0.43) nor were measures in barbell velocity between trials 1 and 2 (P=0.57), while displaying high reliability (ICC: 0.81). Measure bias between BP1RM methods was 0.449±1.651kg and the agreement between methods varied between -2.78 kg less and 0.3686 kg greater for 95% of the participants.
CONCLUSIONS: The present data provides an accurate prediction model regarding BP1RM for sedentary females. These findings can reduce the limitations associated with traditional BP1RM testing while providing a practical and accurate BP1RM approximation with marginal error.


KEY WORDS: Muscle strength; Sedentary behavior; Exercise

top of page