Reliability and Validity of Different Lower-Limb Strength Tests to Determine 1RM in the Keiser A300 Leg Press.

ABSTRACT: Larsen, F, Loturco, I, Sigvaldsen, E, Strand, MF, Kalhovde, JM, and Haugen, T. Reliability and validity of different lower-limb strength tests to determine 1RM in the Keiser A300 leg press. J Strength Cond Res 37(10): 1963-1968, 2023-The aim of this study was to explore the reliability and validity of different lower-limb strength tests to determine the one-repetition maximum (1RM) value in the Keiser A300 leg press. Twenty-eight recreationally active subjects performed load-velocity (L-V) relationship, 1RM, isometric midthigh pull (IMTP), and maximal repetitions to failure (MRF) tests on 3 separated sessions. Predicted 1RMs for the L-V relationship were estimated from a linear regression equation, correlating movement velocity and relative loads. The number of repetitions from the MRF tests (at loads relative to bodyweight) and peak force from the IMTP tests were used in regression equations to predict 1RM. The level of significance was set to ρ ≤ 0.05. All 1RM prediction methods were highly comparable with the traditional 1RM test, as only trivial and nonsignificant differences were observed. Furthermore, the L-V relationship was the most reliable (intraclass correlation coefficient [± 95% confidence interval] = 0.99 [0.98, 0.996]; effect size = -0.01 [-0.38, 0.36], standard error of the measurement = 6.4 kg; coefficient of variation = 3.0 [2.2-3.8]% and valid (r = 0.95 [0.89, 0.98], effect size = 0.08 [-0.29, 0.45], standard error of the estimate = 20.4 kg; coefficient of variation = 7.4 [5.5-9.3]%) when compared with direct 1RM measurements. The L-V relationship test showed a significant change score relationship (r = 0.41 [0.04, 0.68]) against the direct 1RM measurements. In conclusion, the tests used in this study cannot be used interchangeably, but they represent a good alternative in training settings where 1RM testing is not feasible.

Validity and reliability of upper body push and pull tests to determine one-repetition maximum.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to explore the validity and reliability of three different strength testing approaches to determine one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the bench press and prone bench pull. METHODS: Twenty-eight recreationally active subjects (25 ± 2 years, 178 ± 8 cm, 78 ± 9 kg) were assessed for load-velocity (L-V) relationship, 1RM, maximal isometric force (MIF), and maximal repetitions to failure (MRF) in a Smith Machine on three separated sessions. Linear regression was used for L-V relationship, MIF, and MRF to predict 1RM. Level of significance was set to ρ ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Reliability analyses of the varying 1RM estimations revealed mean differences from 0.6 to -1.3 kg (mainly trivial effects) between test days 1 and 2, intraclass correlation coefficient was > 0.96, and coefficient of variation (CV) was in the range 2.3-8.3% for all tests. Regarding validity, all 1RM predictions exhibited a mean difference ≤ 1.3 kg (trivial), except for the L-V relationship method that underestimated the predicted 1RM by 5 kg (small) compared to the actual bench press 1RM. However, the L-V relationship method showed the least mean absolute errors. CVs were in the range 4.5-13.2%. Standard error of the estimate was in the range 3.2-9.7 kg. Change scores for all tests were significantly correlated with change scores in actual 1RM, except for MIF in the prone bench pull. Smallest deviations in 1RM predictions were observed for the L-V relationship approach. CONCLUSIONS: All 1RM prediction methods were highly comparable to the traditional 1RM test. However, given the high variability associated with individual predictions for each method, they cannot be used interchangeably.