PMID- 37729511
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20230922
LR  - 20230922
IS  - 1533-4287 (Electronic)
IS  - 1064-8011 (Linking)
VI  - 37
IP  - 10
DP  - 2023 Oct 1
TI  - Reliability and Validity of Different Lower-Limb Strength Tests to Determine 1RM 
      in the Keiser A300 Leg Press.
PG  - 1963-1968
LID - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004516 [doi]
AB  - 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 rho </= 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.
CI  - Copyright (c) 2023 National Strength and Conditioning Association.
FAU - Larsen, Fredrik
AU  - Larsen F
AD  - School of Health Sciences, Kristiania University College, Oslo, Norway; and.
FAU - Loturco, Irineu
AU  - Loturco I
AD  - NAR - Nucleus of High Performance in Sport, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
FAU - Sigvaldsen, Eirik
AU  - Sigvaldsen E
AD  - School of Health Sciences, Kristiania University College, Oslo, Norway; and.
FAU - Strand, Martin Frank
AU  - Strand MF
AD  - School of Health Sciences, Kristiania University College, Oslo, Norway; and.
FAU - Kalhovde, John Magne
AU  - Kalhovde JM
AD  - School of Health Sciences, Kristiania University College, Oslo, Norway; and.
FAU - Haugen, Thomas
AU  - Haugen T
AUID- ORCID: 0000-0001-5929-0389
AD  - School of Health Sciences, Kristiania University College, Oslo, Norway; and.
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
PL  - United States
TA  - J Strength Cond Res
JT  - Journal of strength and conditioning research
JID - 9415084
SB  - IM
MH  - Humans
MH  - *Leg
MH  - Reproducibility of Results
MH  - Body Weight
MH  - Correlation of Data
MH  - Linear Models
EDAT- 2023/09/20 18:42
MHDA- 2023/09/22 06:42
CRDT- 2023/09/20 15:03
PHST- 2023/09/22 06:42 [medline]
PHST- 2023/09/20 18:42 [pubmed]
PHST- 2023/09/20 15:03 [entrez]
AID - 00124278-202310000-00007 [pii]
AID - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004516 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - J Strength Cond Res. 2023 Oct 1;37(10):1963-1968. doi: 
      10.1519/JSC.0000000000004516.