Resistance Training--methods

This study examined whether accuracy of intraset RIR predictions changes over time. Nine resistance trained men completed three bench press training sessions per week for six weeks, with the last set of each session performed until muscular failure. During the set to failure, subjects verbally indicated when they perceived 4 repetitions in reserve (RIR) and 1 RIR during the set. For each RIR prediction, the difference between perceived RIR and actual RIR was calculated as RIRDIFF. We analyzed differences in RIRDIFF using both the raw RIRDIFF (including positive and negative values) and the absolute values of all RIRDIFF using a factorial MANOVA. Covariates included proximity to failure of the RIR prediction, total repetitions performed per set, percentage of one-repetition maximum lifted, the week of training, and the session (1, 2, or 3 within each seek). For the raw RIRDIFF all covariates, except for percentage of 1RM (p > 0.05) were significantly related to the outcome measure at both the predicted 4 and 1 RIR (p < 0.001 to p = 0.04). Specifically, RIRDIFF was significantly higher in weeks 1-4 versus weeks 5-6 (p < 0.001 to p = 0.005). However, the only covariate which significantly impacted the absolute value RIRDIFF at both the predicted 4 (p = 0.033) and 1 RIR (p = 0.022) was total repetitions per set. These results indicate that trained men tend to shift from overpredicting to underpredicting RIR over time and that more repetitions in a set is related to more inaccurate RIR predictions. However, the actual accuracy (i.e., absolute value RIRDIFF) did not significantly change over six weeks of training.

This study examined the relationship between average concentric velocity (ACV) and repetitions in reserve (RIR) in the back squat, bench press, and deadlift. Fourteen resistance-trained men performed three experimental sessions (one for each exercise), which was comprised of 4 sets to failure at 80% of one-repetition maximum. The ACV was recorded on every repetition of every set and cross-referenced with RIR. The main findings of this study were that RIR was a significant predictor of ACV for all three exercises; the mean set ACV was significantly different between exercises (p<0.001); and the relationship between RIR and ACV was set-dependent (p<0.001). However, the within-exercise difference in ACV from set-to-set is unlikely to be practically significant as all of these ACV differences were below the threshold of 0.06 m.s-1, which is the smallest worthwhile change in ACV. Therefore, these results suggest that the RIR/ACV relationship is exercise-specific, and is stable from set-to-set.

This study examined the accuracy of predicting back squat and bench press one repetition maximum (1RM) from submaximal average concentric velocity (ACV).Seventeen resistance trained men performed a warm-up and 1RM test on the squat and bench press, in which ACV was assessed on all repetitions. The ACVs during the warmup closest to 1.0 and 0.5 m.s-1 were used in a 2-point linear regression forecast of 1RM and the ACVs established at the loads closest to 20, 50, 70, and 80% of 1RM were used in a 4-point 1RM prediction. An ANOVA indicated significant differences between predicted and actual 1RM for all predictions (p<0.001). Both Bland-Altman and Mountain plots confirmed the findings of the ANOVA as data were not tightly conformed to the respective zero difference lines. Therefore, these results suggest that a linear regression forecast using submaximal ACV does not accurately predict 1RM in the ¬back squat and bench press.