Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11960/3551
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorÇetin, Onat-
dc.contributor.authorAkyildiz, Zeki-
dc.contributor.authorDemirtas, Barbaros-
dc.contributor.authorSungur, Yilmaz-
dc.contributor.authorClemente, Filipe Manuel-
dc.contributor.authorCazan, Florin-
dc.contributor.authorArdigò, Luca Paolo-
dc.date.accessioned2023-10-16T14:57:17Z-
dc.date.available2023-10-16T14:57:17Z-
dc.date.issued2022-03-02-
dc.identifier.citationÇetin, O., Akyildiz, Z., Demirtas, B., Sungur, Y., Clemente, F.M., Cazan, F. & Ardigò, L.P.(2022). Reliability and validity of the multi-point method and the 2-point method's variations of estimating the one-repetition maximum for deadlift and back squat exercises. PeerJ, 10. Doi: 10.7717/peerj.13013pt_PT
dc.identifier.issn2167-8359-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11960/3551-
dc.description.abstractThis study aimed at examining the concurrent validity and reliability of the multi-point method and the two-point method’s variations for estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the deadlift and squat exercises and to determine the accuracy of which optimal two loads can be used for the two-point method protocol. Thirteen resistance-trained men performed six sessions that consisted of two incremental loading tests (multi-point method: 20–40–60–80–90% and two-point method variations: 40–60%, 40–80%, 40–90%,60–80%, 60–90%) followed by 1RM tests. Both the multi-point method and the two-point method load variations showed reliable results for 1RM estimation (CV < 10%) squat and deadlift exercises. Session-session reliability was found to be low in deadlift (ICC: 0.171–0.335) and squat exercises (ICC: 0.235–0.479) of 40–60% and 60–80% in two-point methods. Deadlift (ICC: 0.815–0.996) and squat (ICC: 0.817–0.988) had high session-to-session reliability in all other methods. Regarding the validity of deadlift exercise, the multipoint method (R2 = 0.864) and two variations of the two-point method (R2 = 0.816 for 40–80%, R2 = 0.732 for 60–80%) showed very large correlations, whereas other two variations of the two-point method (R2 = 0.945 for 40–90%, R2 = 0.914 for 60–90%) showed almost perfect correlations with the actual 1RM. Regarding the validity of squat exercise, the multi-point method (R2 = 0.773) and two variations of the two-point method (R2 = 0.0847 for 60–80%, R2 = 0.705 for 40–90%) showed very large correlations, whereas 40–60% variation showed almost perfect correlation (R2 = 0.962) with the actual 1RM. In conclusion, whereas both the multi-point method and the two-point method load variations showed reliable results, the multiple-point method and most of the two-point methods’ load variations examined in this research provided an accurate (from large-moderate to perfect) estimate of the 1RM. Therefore, we recommend using the multi-point method and especially the two-point methods variations including higher relative loads to estimate 1RM.pt_PT
dc.language.isoengpt_PT
dc.rightsopenAccesspt_PT
dc.subjectLoad-velocity relationshippt_PT
dc.subjectMultipoint methodpt_PT
dc.subjectTwo-point methodpt_PT
dc.subjectVelocity-based trainingpt_PT
dc.titleReliability and validity of the multi-point method and the 2-point method's variations of estimating the one-repetition maximum for deadlift and back squat exercisespt_PT
dc.typearticlept_PT
dc.date.updated2023-08-30T18:00:05Z-
dc.description.version9E1A-F9DD-3EB8 | Filipe Manuel Clemente-
dc.description.versionN/A-
dc.identifier.slugcv-prod-3057814-
dc.peerreviewedyespt_PT
degois.publication.volume10pt_PT
degois.publication.titlePeerJpt_PT
dc.identifier.doi10.7717/peerj.13013-
Appears in Collections:ESDL - Publicações indexadas à WoS/Scopus

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Reability and validity.pdf3.41 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.