These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A Comparison of Subjective Estimations and Objective Velocities at Quantifying Proximity to Failure for the Bench Press in Resistance-Trained Men and Women.
    Author: Hickmott LM, Butcher SJ, Chilibeck PD.
    Journal: J Strength Cond Res; 2024 Jul 01; 38(7):1206-1212. PubMed ID: 38595310.
    Abstract:
    Hickmott, LM, Butcher, SJ, and Chilibeck, PD. A comparison of subjective estimations and objective velocities at quantifying proximity to failure for the bench press in resistance-trained men and women. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): 1206-1212, 2024-The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of quantifying repetitions in reserve (RIR) in the bench press among 18 men and 18 women between 2 conditions: (a) subjective estimations and (b) objective velocities. Subjects performed 4 sessions over 10 days: (a) 1 repetition maximum (1RM) test; (b) repetition-to-failure test at 80% of 1RM; (c) 3 sets to failure at 80% of 1RM; and (d) 3 sets to failure at 75, 80, and 85% of 1RM. During sessions 2, 3, and 4, subjects verbally stated their perceived 4 and 2 RIR intraset, whereas average concentric velocity was recorded on all repetitions. The dependent variable for the subjective estimations condition was the difference between the actual number of RIR and the subject's subjective estimated number of RIR at the verbally stated 4 and 2 RIR. The dependent variable for the objective velocities condition was the difference between the actual number of RIR and the number of RIR calculated from the subject's baseline individualized last repetition average concentric velocity-RIR profile. Significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Sessions 3 and 4 had significant ( p < 0.001) condition × set and condition × load interactions, respectively, at both 4 and 2 RIR. Objective velocities were significantly more accurate than subjective estimations on set 1 and set 2 at both RIRs during session 3 and for 75 and 80% of 1RM at both RIRs during session 4. Objective velocities exhibit significantly greater accuracy than subjective estimations at quantifying RIR during initial sets and lower loads.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]