@misc{10481/108304,
year = {2025},
month = {10},
url = {https://hdl.handle.net/10481/108304},
organization = {This study aimed to determine whether traditional approaches based on baseline or groupadjusted 1RM values, or velocity-based methods, provide more accurate 1RM estimations
after short-term training programs. Thirty resistance-trained men were randomly assigned
to either a ballistic training group (bench press [BP] throw at 40% 1RM) or a traditional
strength training group (BP at 70–90% 1RM) for 4 weeks (2 sessions/week). The postintervention BP 1RM was compared to four 1RM estimations: (i) baseline 1RM—the preintervention value without modification; (ii) group-adjusted 1RM—the baseline adjusted
by the group-level percentage change in 1RM; (iii) load-velocity profile—estimated postintervention as the load corresponding to a mean velocity of 0.17 m·s
−1
; and (iv) baseline
%1RM–velocity extrapolation—estimated from a single post-intervention velocity applied to the pre-intervention individual %1RM–velocity relationship. Trivial differences
(ES < 0.20) were found between actual and estimated 1RM, except for a small underestimation using baseline 1RM in both groups (ballistic: ES = −0.28; traditional: ES = −0.23).
Velocity-based methods showed greater accuracy (absolute errors: 2.0–2.1 kg) compared to
baseline (5.1 kg) and group-adjusted (4.4 kg) approaches. These results suggest that, after a
4-week training period, velocity-based methods provide more accurate guidance for load
prescription than baseline 1RM values.},
publisher = {MDPI},
keywords = {Bench press},
keywords = {One-repetition maximum},
keywords = {Resistance training},
title = {Velocity-Based Approaches More Accurately Estimated the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) After Four Weeks of Training Compared to Baseline and Group-Adjusted 1RM Approaches},
doi = {10.3390/app152010874},
author = {García Ramos, Amador},
}