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

ABSTRACT

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.