Accurate determinations of individuals` one-repetition maximum (1RM) are critical when evaluating the effectiveness of an exercise intervention involving progressive resistance training (RT). Traditional ("bottom-up"; BT) testing methods involve progressions from low to maximal loads and are commonly used in clinical and laboratory environments. Concerns about the reliability of BT testing in certain populations suggest a different technique may be more effective. Purpose: To compare the reliability and effectiveness of traditional 1RM testing to a novel technique (TDT) involving progressive load reductions and a starting intensity equal to 130% of exercisers` estimated 1RM. Method: 70 healthy adults (age = 45.03 ± 25.64 y) with diverse RT experience were randomized into a reliability testing trial (RTT; n = 33) or an optimal method trial (OMT; n = 37). Subjects in the RTT performed either TDT or BT on 3 occasions separated by = 72 hours, while subjects in the OMT performed each method once in random order on separate days. Results: No significant differences in percent coefficient of variation were observed between BT and TDT for either exercise used in the study (pneumatic seated chest press: Hedge`s g = 0.25, p = .49; pneumatic recumbent leg press: Hedge`s g = 0.12, p = .74). TDT was not found to produce significantly higher 1RM values than BT in any group. Conclusion: TDT does not appear to facilitate more reliable 1RM estimates than BT. Further research is needed to determine the stability of these findings across levels of exercisers` age, sex, and previous RT experience.
© Copyright 2021 Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD). All rights reserved.