Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem
Velocity-Based Approaches More Accurately Estimated the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) After Four Weeks of Training Compared to Baseline and Group-Adjusted 1RM Approaches
| dc.contributor.author | García Ramos, Amador | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-11-25T11:10:58Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2025-11-25T11:10:58Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2025-10-10 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | García-Ramos, A. Velocity-Based Approaches More Accurately Estimated the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) After Four Weeks of Training Compared to Baseline and Group-Adjusted 1RM Approaches. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 10874. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152010874 | es_ES |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10481/108304 | |
| dc.description.sponsorship | 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. | es_ES |
| dc.language.iso | eng | es_ES |
| dc.publisher | MDPI | es_ES |
| dc.rights | Atribución 4.0 Internacional | * |
| dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | * |
| dc.subject | Bench press | es_ES |
| dc.subject | One-repetition maximum | es_ES |
| dc.subject | Resistance training | es_ES |
| dc.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 | es_ES |
| dc.type | journal article | es_ES |
| dc.rights.accessRights | open access | es_ES |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.3390/app152010874 | |
| dc.type.hasVersion | VoR | es_ES |
Ficheros en el ítem
![[PDF]](/themes/Mirage2/images/thumbnails/mimes/pdf.png "pdf")
Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)
Excepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como Atribución 4.0 Internacional