The velocity of resistance exercise does not accurately assess repetitions-in-reserve.

This study assessed the reliability of mean concentric bar velocity from 3- to 0-repetitions in reserve (RIR) across four sets in different exercises (bench press and prone row) and with different loads (60 and 80% 1-repetition maximum; 1RM). Whether velocity values from set one could be used to predict RIR in subsequent sets was also examined. Twenty recreationally active males performed baseline 1RM testing before two randomised sessions of four sets to failure with 60 or 80% 1RM. A linear position transducer measured mean concentric velocity of repetitions, and the velocity associated with each RIR value up to 0-RIR. For both exercises, velocity decreased between each repetition from 3- to 0-RIR (p ≤ 0.010). Mean concentric velocity of RIR values was not reliable across sets in the bench press (mean intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.40, mean coefficient of variation [CV] = 21.3%), despite no significant between-set differences (p = 0.530). Better reliability was noted in the prone row (mean ICC = 0.80, mean CV = 6.1%), but velocity declined by 0.019-0.027 m·s-1 (p = 0.032) between sets. Mean concentric velocity was 0.050-0.058 m·s-1 faster in both exercises with 60% than 80% 1RM with (p < 0.001). At the individual level, the velocity of specific RIR values from set one accurately predicted RIR from 5- to 0-RIR for 30.9% of repetitions in subsequent sets. These findings suggest that velocity of specific RIR values vary across exercises, loads and sets. As velocity-based RIR estimates were not accurate for 69.1% of repetitions, alternative methods to should be considered for autoregulating of resistance exercise in recreationally active individuals.

Bar velocity of bench press and prone row repetitions decreases on average from 3- to 0-repetitions in reserve (RIR) and is faster for lighter versus heavier loadsThe velocity of 3- to 0-RIR varied across four sets for the prone row but was more reliable for the prone row than the bench pressAt the individual participant level, there was not a consistent decrease in velocity between consecutive repetitions, and target velocities for specific RIR values were not correctly predicted in most cases.Using velocity stops may not be an appropriate method to predict specific RIR in recreationally active individuals.

Load-velocity relationships and predicted maximal strength: A systematic review of the validity and reliability of current methods.

Maximal strength can be predicted from the load-velocity relationship (LVR), although it is important to understand methodological approaches which ensure the validity and reliability of these strength predictions. The aim of this systematic review was to determine factors which influence the validity of maximal strength predictions from the LVR, and secondarily to highlight the effects of these factors on the reliability of predictions. A search strategy was developed and implemented in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL databases. Rayyan software was used to screen titles, abstracts, and full texts to determine their inclusion/eligibility. Eligible studies compared direct assessments of one-repetition maximum (1RM) with predictions performed using the LVR and reported prediction validity. Validity was extracted and represented graphically via effect size forest plots. Twenty-five eligible studies were included and comprised of a total of 842 participants, three different 1RM prediction methods, 16 different exercises, and 12 different velocity monitoring devices. Four primary factors appear relevant to the efficacy of predicting 1RM: the number of loads used, the exercise examined, the velocity metric used, and the velocity monitoring device. Additionally, the specific loads, provision of velocity feedback, use of lifting straps and regression model used may require further consideration.

Repetitions in Reserve Is a Reliable Tool for Prescribing Resistance Training Load.

ABSTRACT: Lovegrove, S, Hughes, L, Mansfield, S, Read, P, Price, P, and Patterson, SD. Repetitions in reserve is a reliable tool for prescribing resistance training load. J Strength Cond Res 36(10): 2696-2700, 2022-This study investigated the reliability of repetitions in reserve (RIR) as a method for prescribing resistance training load for the deadlift and bench press exercises. Fifteen novice trained men (age: 17.3 ± 0.9 years, height: 176.0 ± 8.8 cm, body mass: 71.3 ± 10.7 kg) were assessed for 1 repetition maximum (1RM) for deadlift (118.1 ± 27.3 kg) and bench press (58.2 ± 18.6 kg). Subsequently, they completed 3 identical sessions (one familiarization session and 2 testing sessions) comprising sets of 3, 5, and 8 repetitions. For each repetition scheme, the load was progressively increased in successive sets until subjects felt they reached 1-RIR at the end of the set. Test-retest reliability of load prescription between the 2 testing sessions was determined using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV). A 2-way analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for each exercise to assess differences in the load corresponding to 1-RIR within each repetition scheme. All test-retest comparisons demonstrated a high level of reliability (deadlift: ICC = 0.95-0.99, CV = 2.7-5.7% and bench press: ICC = 0.97-0.99, CV = 3.8-6.2%). Although there were no differences between time points, there was a difference for load corresponding to 1-RIR across the 3 repetition schemes (deadlift: 88.2, 84.3, and 79.2% 1RM; bench press: 93.0, 87.3, and 79.6% 1RM for the 3-, 5-, and 8-repetition sets, respectively). These results suggest that RIR is a reliable tool for load prescription in a young novice population. Furthermore, the between-repetition scheme differences highlight that practitioners can effectively manipulate load and volume (repetitions in a set) throughout a training program to target specific resistance training adaptations.

Estimating Repetitions in Reserve for Resistance Exercise: An Analysis of Factors Which Impact on Prediction Accuracy.

Mansfield, Sean, K, Peiffer, Jeremiah, J, Hughes, Liam, J, and Scott Brendan, R. Estimating repetitions in reserve for resistance exercise: an analysis of factors which impact on prediction accuracy. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of knowing the load being lifted on the accuracy of repetitions-in-reserve (RIR) estimates, during both moderate- (60% 1 repetition maximum [RM]) and heavy-load (80% 1RM) exercise. Twenty trained men (age: 25.9 ± 4.5 years, height: 181 ± 7 cm, body mass: 86.5 ± 13.7 kg) were assessed for 1RM in bench press (98.4 ± 16.4 kg) and prone row (72.0 ± 11.7 kg), before being randomized into control (i.e., informed of the load; n = 10) or blinded (noninformed; n = 10) conditions. Subjects then completed 2 protocols in a randomized order: 3 sets at 80% 1RM and 3 sets at 60% 1RM. During each set of these protocols, subjects were asked to estimate their RIR before continuing the set to failure. Differences in estimated and actual RIR between sets and conditions were determined via 3-way repeated measures analysis of variance for the 60 and 80% 1RM protocols independently. No differences in RIR accuracy were observed between blinded vs nonblinded conditions. Repetitions-in-reserve estimates were lower than actual RIR for the first set of both exercises in 60 and 80% protocols (p ≤ 0.007, effect size [ES]: 1.30-2.89 [moderate-large]) and for set 2 of the 80% bench press protocol (p = 0.046, ES: 0.39 [small]). Knowing the load during resistance exercise or the %1RM of the load lifted did not influence the estimates of RIR. The ability to accurately determine RIR in the 60 and 80% 1RM protocols improved from sets 1-3, indicating that estimation of RIR is enhanced when an individual is estimating RIR at a closer point to actual failure.