• Login
    View Item 
    •   DSpace Home
    • A) Producción científica UCSC
    • Artículos Científicos
    • View Item
    •   DSpace Home
    • A) Producción científica UCSC
    • Artículos Científicos
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Concentric-only versus touch-and-go bench press one-repetition maximum in men and women

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    Concentric-Only Versus Touch-and-Go Bench Press One-Repetition Maximum in Men and Women-1-2.pdf (68.98Kb)
    Date
    2021-07
    Author
    García Ramos, Amador
    Janicijevic, Danica
    Jukic, Ivan
    Publisher
    SAGE
    Description
    Artículo de publicación ISI
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Background: One-repetition maximum (1RM) tests are time-consuming, and they might not always be logistically possible or warranted due to increased risk of injury when performed incorrectly or by novice athletes. Repetitions-to-failure tests are a widespread method of predicting the 1RM, but its accuracy may be compromised by several factors such as the type of exercise, sex, training history, and the number of repetitions completed in the test. Hypothesis: The touch-and-go bench press would provide a higher 1RM than the concentric-only bench press for both genders regardless of whether the 1RM was obtained by the direct or repetitions-to-failure method and the error in the 1RM prediction would be positively correlated with the number of repetitions performed to failure and negatively correlated with the 1RM strength and resistance training experience. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Level of Evidence: Level 3. Methods: A total of 113 adults (87 men and 26 women) were tested on 2 sessions during the concentric-only and touch-and-go bench press. Each session consisted of an incremental loading test until reaching the 1RM load, followed by a repetitions-to-failure test. Results: The 1RM was higher for the touch-and-go bench press using both the direct (men, 7.80%; women, 7.62%) and repetitions-to-failure method (men, 8.29%; women, 7.49%). A significant, although small, correlation was observed between the error in the estimation of the 1RM and the number of repetitions performed (r = 0.222; P < 0.01), 1RM strength (r = −0.169; P = 0.01), and resistance training experience (r = −0.136; P = 0.05). Conclusion: The repetitions-to-failure test is a valid method of predicting the 1RM during the concentric-only and touch-and-go bench press variants. However, the accuracy of the prediction could be compromised with weaker and less experienced individuals and if more than 10 repetitions are completed during the repetitions-to-failure test. Clinical Relevance: The repetitions-to-failure test does not require any sophisticated equipment and enables a widespread use in different training environments.
    URI
    http://repositoriodigital.ucsc.cl/handle/25022009/2679
    Ir a texto completo en URI:
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738120977861
    Collections
    • Artículos Científicos

    UCSC
    UCSC | Contact Us | Send Feedback
     

     

    Browse

    All of DSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    Login

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    UCSC
    UCSC | Contact Us | Send Feedback