Test-retest reliability of a single isometric mid-thigh pull protocol to assess peak force and strength-endurance

The purpose of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability of strength-endurance protocols using isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). Twenty-eight participants (23.2 ± 4.9 years) completed two protocols across four testing sessions. Protocol one consisted of 10 maximal IMTP tests lasting 5 seconds each with 10 seconds rest between. Protocol two consisted of a prolonged 60 second maximal IMTP. Data from protocol 1 was analysed in two ways; (a) use of the highest peak value from the first three IMTP efforts, and the lowest peak value from the final three IMTP efforts, and (b) use of the mean peak force from the first three IMTP efforts and mean peak force from the final three IMTP efforts. Data from protocol two used the highest and lowest peak values in the first- and final-15 seconds. Analyses revealed excellent reliability for peak force across all four testing sessions (ICC = 0.94), as well as good test-retest reliability for strength-endurance for protocol 1 (a; ICC = 0.81, b; ICC = 0.79). Test-retest reliability for protocol 2 was poor (ICC = 0.305). Bland-Altman bias values were smaller for protocol 1(a = -8.8 Nm, b = 21.7 Nm) compared to protocol 2 = (119.3 Nm). Our data suggest that 10 maximal IMTP tests performed as described herein is a reliable method for exercise professionals to assess both peak force and strength-endurance in a single, time-efficient protocol.

Reproducibility of strength performance and strength-endurance profiles: A test-retest study

The present study was designed to evaluate the test-retest consistency of repetition maximum tests at standardized relative loads and determine the robustness of strength-endurance profiles across test-retest trials. Twenty-four resistance-trained males and females (age, 27.4 ± 4.0 y; body mass, 77.2 ± 12.6 kg; relative bench press one-repetition maximum [1-RM], 1.19 ± 0.23 kg•kg-1) were assessed for their 1-RM in the free-weight bench press. After 48 to 72 hours, they were tested for the maximum number of achievable repetitions at 90%, 80% and 70% of their 1-RM. A retest was completed for all assessments one week later. Gathered data were used to model the relationship between relative load and repetitions to failure with respect to individual trends using Bayesian multilevel modeling and applying four recently proposed model types. The maximum number of repetitions showed slightly better reliability at lower relative loads (ICC at 70% 1-RM = 0.86, 90% highest density interval: [0.71, 0.93]) compared to higher relative loads (ICC at 90% 1-RM = 0.65 [0.39, 0.83]), whereas the absolute agreement was slightly better at higher loads (SEM at 90% 1-RM = 0.7 repetitions [0.5, 0.9]; SEM at 70% 1-RM = 1.1 repetitions [0.8, 1.4]). The linear regression model and the 2-parameters exponential regression model revealed the most robust parameter estimates across test-retest trials. Results testify to good reproducibility of repetition maximum tests at standardized relative loads obtained over short periods of time. A complementary free-to-use web application was developed to help practitioners calculate strength-endurance profiles and build individual repetition maximum tables based on robust statistical models.

Relationship of Barbell and Dumbbell Repetitions With One Repetition Maximum Bench Press in College Football Players

ABSTRACT

Heinecke, ML, Mauldin, ML, Hunter, ML, Mann, JB, and Mayhew, JL. Relationship of barbell and dumbbell repetitions with one repetition maximum bench press in college football players. J Strength Cond Res 35(2S): S66-S71, 2021-Dumbbell training to augment barbell training is gaining popularity. However, information is lacking that details the compatibility of strength and endurance between dumbbell and barbell performances in the same exercise. Therefore, the purposes of this study were to compare the similarity of muscular endurance performance between dumbbell and barbell exercises and to assess the accuracy of predicting one repetition maximum (1RM) barbell bench press from barbell and dumbbell repetitions to fatigue (RTF). College football players (n = 40) performed 1RM barbell bench press and RTF with a 90.9-kg barbell. On separate days, unilateral (45.5 kg) and bilateral dumbbell (90.9 kg) RTF were performed. Barbell RTF (13.8 ± 9.2) were significantly greater (effect size [ES] = 0.14) than bilateral dumbbell RTF (12.5 ± 9.5) but highly correlated (r = 0.96). Unilateral dumbbell RTF were significantly greater (ES = 0.13) for dominant hand (10.8 ± 10.1) than nondominant hand (9.5 ± 9.7) but highly correlated (r = 0.97). Prediction of 1RM barbell bench press was equally effective using a constant weight barbell (r = 0.90) or equivalent weight bilateral dumbbells (r = 0.87) with total errors of 7.3 and 8.2%, respectively. Barbell and dumbbell repetitions with equivalent weights place a similar demand on the upper-body musculature for training and testing purposes in football athletes.

The National Football League-225 Bench Press Test and the Size-Weight Illusion

The purpose of this study was to test reports that size and arrangement manipulations of weight plates (i.e., inducing a size-weight illusion [SWI]) effect athletic weightlifting performance. The participants were 72 experienced, weight-trained collegiate American football players. Across three weeks, each athlete performed three different repetitions-to-fatigue bench press tests (NFL-225, SWI-225, and SWI-215). A multiple regression revealed a positive association between participants' strength relative to the test load and repetitions for NFL-225 and SWI-215, but no association with SWI-225. To explore these results, players were ranked into quartiles based on their one-repetition maximum relative to 102.27 kg (225 lb), and a 3 × 4 repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted. The primary finding was a significant Test Condition × Quartile interaction ( p = .004). Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons revealed that Quartile 4 (those with lowest strength relative to test load) completed more repetitions for SWI-225 compared with NFL-225 ( p = .049). These results suggest that alternate weight plate arrangements may be beneficial for those whose bench press load is near the lifter's one-repetition maximum. However, variations of the SWI do not appear to affect the performance of repetitions-to-fatigue bench press tests for the majority of collegiate American football players.

Profiling of Junior College Football Players and Differences between Position Groups

This study profiled junior college football players. Sixty-two subjects completed vertical jump (VJ; height and peak power), standing broad jump (SBJ), 36.58 m sprint, pro-agility shuttle, three-cone drill, and maximal-repetition bench press and front squat. The sample included 2 quarterbacks (QB), 7 running backs (RB), 13 wide receivers (WR), 1 tight end (TE), 18 defensive backs (DB), 8 linebackers (LB), and 13 offensive and defensive linemen (LM). To investigate positional differences, subjects were split into skill (SK; WR, DB), big skill (BSK; QB, RB, TE, LB), and LM groups. A one-way ANOVA determined between-group differences. LM were taller and heavier than SK and BSK players. The SK and BSK groups were faster than LM in the 0–36.58 m sprint, pro-agility shuttle, and three-cone drill (p ≤ 0.009). The SK group had greater VJ height and SBJ distance; LM generated greater VJ peak power (p ≤ 0.022). There were no between-group differences in the strength endurance tests. Compared to Division I data, junior college players were smaller, slower, and performed worse in jump tests. Positional differences in junior college football are typical to that of established research. Junior college players should attempt to increase body mass, and improve speed and lower-body power.