Precision of 7 Commercially Available Devices for Predicting Bench-Press 1-Repetition Maximum From the Individual Load-Velocity Relationship

Perez-Castilla, Alejandro; Piepoli, Antonio; Garrido-Blanca, Gabriel; Delgado-Garcia, Gabriel; Balsalobre-Fernandez, Carlos; Garcia-Ramos, Amador

VL / 14 - BP / 1442 - EP / 1446
Objective: To compare the accuracy of different devices to predict the bench-press 1-repetition maximum (1RM) from the individual load-velocity relationship modeled through the multiple- and 2-point methods. Methods: Eleven men performed an incremental test on a Smith machine against 5 loads (45-55-65-75-85%1RM), followed by 1RM attempts. The mean velocity was simultaneously measured by 1 linear velocity transducer (T-Force), 2 linear position transducers (Chronojump and Speed4Lift), 1 camera-based optoelectronic system (Velowin), 2 inertial measurement units (PUSH Band and Beast Sensor), and 1 smartphone application (My Lift). The velocity recorded at the 5 loads (45-55-65-75-85%1RM), or only at the 2 most distant loads (45-85%1RM), was considered for the multiple- and 2-point methods, respectively. Results: An acceptable and comparable accuracy in the estimation of the 1RM was observed for the T-Force, Chronojump, Speed4Lift, Velowin, and My Lift when using both the multiple- and 2-point methods (effect size <= 0.40; Pearson correlation coefficient [r] >= .94; standard error of the estimate [SEE] <= 4.46 kg), whereas the accuracy of the PUSH (effect size = 0.70-0.83; r = .93-.94; SEE = 4.45-4.80 kg), and especially the Beast Sensor (effect size = 0.36-0.84; r = .50-.68; SEE = 9.44-11.2 kg), was lower. Conclusions: These results highlight that the accuracy of 1RM prediction methods based on movement velocity is device dependent, with the inertial measurement units providing the least accurate estimate of the 1RM.

Access level