Clearly, some of those are pretty far off from a person’s actual 1-RM. The results of the study indicated that the Mayhew equation underestimated 1-RM (-3.1kg) while the Epley (+4.8kg), Lander (+14.1kg), and Brzycki (+14.2kg) equations significantly overestimated 1-RM. The study was fairly simple, with 45 college football players doing bench press and back squats. It wasn’t until 1995 that all of the popular equations (Table 1) were tested against each other.
The author provided an equation for predicting a 1RM based on reps-to-fatigue, but does not say on what information the equation was created from. However, this was not technically based on scientific research, rather on an article detailing strength testing. It was published with an accompanying chart that coaches and trainers would hang up in their gym. It also helped us start to think about who should be using 1-RM vs e1-RMs (see FAQ below).Ī few years later, one of the most common formulas was developed, known as the Brzycki equation. This finding isn’t surprising although it did encourage further research on e1-RM testing. The authors tested a prediction equation prior to 18 weeks of resistance training and afterward, finding that an equation used after training was better (r 2 = 0.89) than before (r 2 = 0.91), but not by much. The next study used a 7-10 repetition knee extension test. Difference between the Lander equation (linear) and Mayhew equation (exponential) for e1-RM in the bench press ( Mayhew et al., 1992 ). Practically, the results of this study meant there was a validated equation test that could accurately predict true 1-RM.įigure 1. This experiment used the bench press and more than 400 people using intensities from 55-95% of their actual 1-RM. The authors found an exponential relationship between a repetition maximum test and 1-RM that resulted in a r 2 of 0.90-0.97, which means the formula explained ~90-97% of the variance in predicted 1-RM (Figure 1). Jumping forward to the 1990s, one of the first studies attempting to estimate 1-RM tested several populations (i.e., college and high school students, football players, etc.,]. Another chart was developed by Lander, at a similar time, but it wasn’t as popular nor validated until later. In fact, research on e1-RM goes back to the 1990s, but the most famous formulas from the early era are the Epley poundage chart (Epley, 1985), which wasn’t validated scientifically until much later. Prediction equations are at the heart of correctly estimating a 1-RM. The Science Behind Estimating Your 1RM (One Rep Max) In this blog we’ll cover the research and history behind e1-RM testing along with a few common questions then provide you with an evidence-based 1-RM calculator to use. Therefore, an alternative method is the estimation of 1-RM (e1-RM) with a prediction equation based on performing repetitions to failure at a specific weight. However, a 1-RM test might not always be feasible or appropriate. Comparatively, a 1-RM in a gym using a barbell, free-weights, or a machine is relatively easy to learn, does not require expensive laboratory-grade equipment, and can be used by all types of athletes.ĭue to the wide use of 1-RM testing, it is important for the 1-RM to be a reliable measurement.
However, an actual determination of muscle strength in the laboratory situations includes the use of isometric and isokinetic dynamometers which require sophisticated equipment and trained personnel.
1-RM is defined as the maximal weight that can be lifted once with correct technique. The 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) test is the gold standard test for evaluating the maximal dynamic strength of a muscle or group of muscles. An Introduction To The 1RM Calculator (One Rep Max)
0 kommentar(er)
