Post on 12-Feb-2021
THE VALIDITY OF PREDICTION OF 1RM USING
RATINGS OF PERCEIVED EXERTION
BY
WONG CHUN KIT
07015704
AN HONOURS PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF ARTS
IN
PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND RECREATION MANAGEMENT (HONOURS)
HONG KONG BAPTIST UNIVERSITY
APRIL 2010
HONG KONG BAPTIST UNIVERSITY
23rd April, 2010
We hereby recommend that the Honours Project by Mr. Wong
Chun Kit entitled “The Validity of Prediction of 1RM Using
Ratings of Perceived Exertion” be accepted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Arts
Honours Degree in Physical Education And Recreation
Management.
_______________________________ _______________________________ Dr. Tong Kwok Keung, Tom Dr. Louie Hung Tak, Lobo
Chief Adviser Second Reader
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this honours project “The Validity
of Prediction of 1RM Using Ratings of Perceived Exertion”
represents my own work and had not been previously submitted
to this or other institution for a degree, diploma or other
qualification. Citations from the other authors were listed
in the references.
________________________ Wong Chun Kit
23rd April, 2010
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude
to my chief advisor, Dr. Tong Kwok Keung,Tom, for his valuable
advices and professional suggestions and guidance on the
study.
In addition, I would also like to express my gratitude to
my second reader, Dr. Louie Hung Tak, Lobo, to his effort on
this study.
Finally, special thanks must be given to all the subjects,
who are the students majoring in physical education and
recreation management from Hong Kong Baptist University, for
their participation in this study.
__________________________________
Wong Chun Kit
Department of Physical Education
Hong Kong Baptist University
Date: 23rd April, 2010
ABSTRACT
This study was designed to examine the validity of predicting
1RM using the Borg 6-20 ratings of perceived exertion (RPE)
scale from submaximal loads. Thirteen male and eleven female
participants who aged from 19 to 25 participate in this study.
Vertical chest press and leg press exercise were performed
for two times. Each participant was required to wear a
blindfold while lifting and all he RPE values were recorded.
Paired-Sample t test and Pearson Product Moment Coefficient
of Correlation were used and the significant level of 0.05
was set. The result indicated that there was a significant
positive relationship between the measured and predicted 1RM
loads for both upper(r=0.97, p0.05) were
insignificant. These results showed that submaxiaml ratings
of perceived exertion could be used to provide reasonably
accurate estimates of 1RM in young and active individuals.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
1 INTRODUCTION............................. 1
Statement of Problem..................... 3
Significance of the Study................ 4
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE...................... 6
Importance of Muscular Fitness........... 6
Factors Affecting Individual’s Muscular
Strength................................
8
Problems Associated with Direct Measure of
1RM Strength............................
9
Methods of Predicting 1RM Strength........ 12
Previous Studies on RPE and 1RM Strength... 14
Summary................................. 16
Research Hypotheses..................... 16
3 METHOD................................... 18
Subjects................................ 18
Research Design......................... 18
Testing Procedures...................... 21
Statistical Analysis................... 24
Definition of Terms.................... 27
Delimitations......................... 28
Limitation............................ 28
4 ANALYSIS OF DATA.......................... 30
Physical Characteristics................ 30
Background of Sports Participation....... 31
Vertical Chest Press..................... 32
Leg Press............................... 37
Discussions............................. 42
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS................... 49
Summary of Results....................... 49
Conclusion.............................. 51
Recommendations for Further Study........ 52
REFERENCES............................... 53
APPENDIX................................. 58
A. Consent Form to Students............... 58
B. Data Recording Form................... 59
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 The measured and predicted 1 RM loadings of each
subject for the vertical chest press
exercise(N=24)...............................
32
2 The sub-maximal loadings and related RPE scores
for the vertical chest press exercise(N=24)....
33
3 The group mean and standard deviation of
measured and predicted 1RM loading of vertical
chest press(N=24)............................
34
4 Pearson’s Correlation Test between the measured
and the predicted 1RM loading of vertical chest
press(N=24)..................................
35
5 The measured and predicted 1 RM loadings of each
subject for the leg press exercise(N=24).......
37
6 The sub-maximal loadings and related RPE scores
for the leg press exercise(N=24)...............
38
7 The group mean and standard deviation of measured
and predicted 1RM loading of leg press(N=24)....
39
8 Pearson’s Correlation Test between the measured
1RM and the predicted 1RM loading of leg press
(N=24).......................................
40
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1 The relationship between the measured and
predicted 1RM loading of vertical chest
press(N=24).................................
36
2 The relationship between the measured and
predicted 1RM loading of leg press............
41
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Muscular strength is one of the health-related fitness
components (ACSM, 2003). Moreover, it is also an important
factor which affecting the performance of athletes. A fitness
routine should always consist of resistance training. For
beginners, it was necessary for them to assess their muscular
strength before prescribing a strength training program
(Adadie, Altorfer & Schuler, 1999). Among different ways in
assessing muscular strength, the One-Repetition Maximum test
(1RM) was regarded as a popular one (Niewiadomski et al., 2008).
In fact, instructor, coaches and physicians often used the
percentage of an individual’s 1RM to calculate and prescribe
the resistance training intensity (Pereira & Gomes, 2003).
However, the safety of the 1RM test had been questioned.
High muscular, bone and ligament stress with the risk of
serious muscular injury might result especially for those
individuals who were new to maximal load-bearing activity
2
(Braith, Graves, Leggett & Pollock, 1993). Moreover, Eston
(2009) suggested that high stress with the risk of muscular
injury or cardiovascular event might incur to those new to
maximal load-bearing activity. Besides, test-induced muscle
soreness and possible muscular injury might be created in
lifting maximal weight for the previously untrained
individuals (Adadie et al., 1999). What is more, the time
needed to prepare for and perform the 1RM and the risk of
handling heavy weights could be concerns of weight training
instructors and practicing lifter when measuring the 1RM
(LeSuer, McCormick, Mayhew, Wasserstei & Arnold, 1997). In
addition, Eston and Evans (2009) suggested that the direct
assessment of a 1RM was time consuming and unsafe for beginners.
Therefore, it was necessary to explore a simple, safe and
accurate procedure for estimating the 1RM.
Cafarelli (1982) reported that the perception of effort
was highly correlated with the degree of muscular activation.
On the other hand, the ratings of perceived exertion (RPE)
3
had been shown to be a valid and reliable estimate to high-
and low-intensity exercise (Gearhart et al., 2002),
high-volume weight training (Pierce, Rozenek & Stone, 1993),
the intensity of contraction between men and women (Pincivero,
Coelho & Campy, 2004) as well as for describing differences
in neuromuscular activation (Pincivero & Gear, 2000). Thus,
it was expected that the RPE was an effective assessment tool
for predicting muscular strength. In fact, with the
consideration of the finding that the degree of muscular
activation was highly correlated with the perception of effort
(Cafarelli, 1982) as well as given the health and safety
advantages of using submaximal repetitions to predict 1RM,
a similar study had been done in foreign country previously
with the hope of exploring the utility of the ratings of
perceived exertion as a holistic assessment tool for
predicting muscular strength (Eston & Evans, 2009).
Statement of Problem
The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of
4
predicting 1RM using the Borg 6-20 ratings of perceived
exertion (RPE) scale from submaximal loads in University
physical education major students of Hong Kong. It was hope
that a reasonably accurate, safe and time saving way to predict
1RM muscular strength would be found.
Significance of the Study
A similar study in foreign country had successfully shown
the validity of submaximal ratings of perceived exertion to
predict one repetition maximum. However, there was a lack of
studies that focusing on the Hong Kong Chinese individuals.
This study provided data on the topic and helped to enhance
the generalization of this muscular strength assessment
protocol.
To calculate and prescribe intensity for weight training,
the percentage of an individual’s 1RM was commonly used
(LeSuer et al., 1997). Exploring a simple, safe and accurate
procedure for estimating the 1RM was undoubtedly necessary.
Thus, the result of this study would be beneficial to strength
5
and conditioning specialists, sports medicine physicians,
athletic trainers as well as weight trainers.
6
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The review of literature of the study was focused on five
aspects: (a) importance of muscular fitness; (b) factors
affecting individual’s muscular strength; (c) problems
associated with direct measure of 1RM strength; (d) methods
of predicting 1RM strength; (e) previous studies on RPE and
1RM strength; and (f) summary.
Importance of Muscular Fitness
Health-related fitness was important for staying healthy
(ACSM, 2003). Generally, health-related fitness consisted of
four components including muscular fitness, aerobic fitness,
flexibility and body composition according to ACSM (2003).
Muscular fitness referred to the strength and endurance of
muscles, which were the ability to of muscle to exert force
and to continue to perform successive exertions or many
repetitions (ACSM, 2006). In the daily life, we always needed
strength to manipulate and move our body and the object around
7
us. On the other hand, we would like to have enough endurance
to position or hold the items. Thus, we could see that muscular
fitness was important to us.
ACSM (2006) stated that good muscular strength had many
benefits such as improving or maintaining bone mass, glucose
tolerance, fat free mass and resting metabolic rate etc.
Moreover, in order to do more work, protecting the joints from
injury and helping us to make our bones stronger, stronger
muscles were needed (McCormack Brown, Thomas & Kotecki., 2002).
According to Hazeldine (1990), research and experience over
the years had shown that effective performance in many sports
was closely related to high level of strength. What is more,
elite professional players and those at lower level were
distinguished by the scores on strength and power measures
especially in collision sports (Gamble, 2010). As a result,
the value of different strength trainings was well accepted
by sportsmen and those who wished to improve their general
fitness (Hazeldine, 1990). Therefore, muscular strength was
8
important to health as well as sports.
Factors Affecting Individual’s Muscular Strength
There were many factors that affecting individual’s
muscular strength. Lexell (1995) suggested that age was one
of the factors that affecting muscular strength. Skeletal
muscle mass lost with increasing age, while aging atrophy was
accompanied by a decrease in muscular strength. According to
Hurley (1995), muscular strength tended to reach the peak
between the second and third decades and remained the same
until about 45 to 50 years old. After that, the losing rate
was about 12% to 15% per decade until eighth decade. Moreover,
individual difference in muscle fiber type was also
contributed to different muscular strength. Lexell (1995)
stated that there was an inherent variability in the fiber
composition, which referred to the proportion of type I
(slow-twitch) and II (fast-twitch) fiber, in the human muscle.
On the hand, it was also found that type II fiber size was
reduced with increasing rate while the decrease in type I fiber
9
was much less. Loss of a specific type of fiber would occur
with increasing age thus affect the fiber type proportion
(Lexell, 1995). In addition, Fahey (2010) stated that genetic
factor was a significant determinant of strength as the number
of muscle fibers and fiber types within each muscle, body size,
bone length etc. are determined by genes. What is more,
difference in gender will also affect the muscular strength
(Fahey, 2010) due to the larger muscle mass of men than women.
More than this, males were found to have more testosterone
that promotes the growth of muscle tissue than women. As a
result, larger muscles were tended to be found in men. In
addition, muscles were activated faster by the nervous system
in male, thus they were tended to have more power.
Problems Associated with Direct Measure of 1RM Strength
Assessment of dynamic muscular strength could be done by
measuring the weight for one-repetition maximum (1RM) effort
when doing a resistance exercise (Cummings & Finn, 1998).
Although direct measurement was a popular way to determine
10
the 1RM strength, there were many disadvantages for such
method. Regarding the safety concern of 1RM protocol, high
muscular stress with the risk of muscular injury or
cardiovascular event might incur for those new to maximal
load-bearing activity (Eston, 2009). Nascimento et al. (2007)
stated that high muscular, bone and ligament stress that
triggering important metabolic alterations might result
during the performance of exertions with maximal workloads.
More than this, Abadie et al.(1999) suggested that potential
for test-induced muscle soreness and possible muscular injury
might be created in previously untrained individuals thus
making this type of assessment become contraindicated to them.
Moreover, it was reported that the direct measurement of 1RM
was time consuming and impractical for large group (Eston &
Evans, 2009). LeSuer et al.(1997) also stated that the time
needed to prepare for and perform the 1RM became one of the
concerns to weight training instructor as well as practicing
lifter. Besides, Pereira and Gomes (2003) stated that the
11
value of 1RM was likely to be over or underestimated since
1RM was hardly performed. Underestimating of the actual
strength of inexperienced individuals might occur since the
apprehension of lifting such heavy loads would compromise
their performance (Kim, Mayhew & Peterson, 2002). Furthermore,
Morales and Sobonya (1996) also suggested that preventing
individual from attaining maximum might result since 1RM test
induce fatigue. Additionally, the requirement of highly
specialized skill that involved a great deal of technique
could also be a concern of a 1RM lift (Brzycki, 1993). Finally,
unaccustomed insecurity while handling heavy loads,
inadequate spotting assistance as well as fear of failure with
the lift might make the 1RM test difficult for novice lifter
(Kravitz, Akalan, Nowicki & Kinzey, 2003). As a result, there
was a need for developing the methods that was simpler and
less injury-prone but still capable for estimating maximal
strength accurately (Materko, Neves & Santos, 2007).
12
Methods of Predicting 1RM Strength
Safety had become a major concern in measuring the 1RM
strength directly (Brzycki, 1993), especially for beginner.
In fact, apart from direct measure, there were many methods
which could be used to predict 1RM strength. Traditionally,
submaxiaml repetitions test was often used as a predictor of
1RM strength. Brzycki (1993) had found that the number of
repetitions would decrease when the maximal weight increase
in an almost linear fashion. In another words, there was a
direct relationship between repetitions-to-fatigue
(reps-to-fatigue) and the percentage of maximal load. This
nearly linear relationship between reps-to-fatigue (within
10 repetitions) and percentage of maximal load provided a
reasonably accurate prediction of 1RM strength by using
different prediction equation. It was found that the equations
were most accurately predicting the 1RM bench press, squat
and deadlift respectively (LeSuer et al.,1997). Abadie and
Wentworth (2000) stated that the prediction of 1RM by using
13
regression equation would be more accurate if the submaximal
weight lifted was closer to the weight lifted during the 1RM
assessment. Moreover, the anthropometric dimensions could
also be used to predict 1RM strength. Scanlan, Ballmann,
Mayhew and Lantz (1999) stated that structural dimensions
might be related to muscular strength. They had found that
arm often had the highest correlation with 1RM bench press
in many previous studies. Mayhew, Piper and Ware (1993) stated
that the predictive accuracy from structural dimensions would
be greater when fewer joints and muscle groups were involved
in a lift. It had been found that strength was related to muscle
when force was measured either isometrically or
isokinetically as indicated by previous study (Mayhew et al.,
1993). However, the accuracy of using the anthropometric
dimensions to predict 1RM strength wa varied with gender and
level of training of individual (Scanlan et al., 1999).
Besides, the validity of using submaxiaml RPEs to predict 1RM
was assessed in recent decade. Eston and Evans (2009)
14
discovered that the Borg 6-20 RPE Scale is valid in estimating
the 1RM strength in active men and women as there was no
significant difference between the 1RM loading predicted from
RPE 20 and measured 1RM. In addition, Gearhart et al. (2001)
suggested that it was valid for the current scaling
instructions used with the Borg 15-category scale during
resistance exercise. Thus, the result of these findings
supported that a reasonably accurate, safe and time-saving
way of estimating 1RM in active men and women could be provided
by submaximal RPEs.
Previous Studies on RPE and 1RM strength
Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was closely related to
exercise. In fact, evaluating exercise tolerance and
prescribing exercise intensity had been done using the Borg
15-category scale of perceived exertion in clinical, sport
and wellness settings (Gearhart et al., 2001) in the past.
In recent years, the use the ratings of perceived exertion
(RPE) in resistance training had been assessed. Robertson et
15
al. (2003) expressed that the RPE for both male and female
performing concentric and eccentric resistance paradigms that
varied the total volume of weight lifted, percent of one
repetition maximum muscular action as well as rest periods
between separate sets and exercises had been assessed.
Recently, Eston (2009) had further confirmed the predictive
efficacy of the RPE. Eston and Evans (2009) had assessed the
validity if using submaxiaml RPEs to predict 1RM in young
adults by using the Borg 6 – 20 RPE Scale. It was found that
there was no significant difference between the 1RM predicted
from RPE 20 and measured 1RM. Thus, it was said that a
reasonably accurate, safe and time-saving way of estimating
1RM strength in young and active adults could be provided by
submaxiaml RPEs. On the other hand, Robertson et al. (2008)
had also found that the 1RM models were potentially applicable
when assessing large numbers of children in short time period
since the RPE predictors were practical and accurate measures.
16
Summary
As observed above, there was a need for discovering a simple,
time saving and accurate way to measure the 1RM strength.
Estimation of strength could be achieved by applying the
principle of using the relationship of submaximal RPE values
with the performance criterion of interest. From the studies
in foreign country, it had been proved that submaximal RPE
could be used to provide reasonably accurate prediction of
1RM in both active adults and children. Since no study in such
area had been done in Hong Kong yet, it was worthwhile for
us to do this study
Research Hypotheses
According to the above literatures reviewed, it was
hypothesized that:
1. There is a significant difference between the measured and
predicted 1RM loads for the vertical chess press exercise.
2. There is a significant difference between the
17
measured and predicted 1RM loads for the leg press exercise.
3. There is a significant correlation between the measured and
predicted 1RM for vertical chest press exercise.
4. There is a significant correlation between the measured and
predicted 1RM for leg press exercise.
18
Chapter 3
METHOD
The method of this study was divided into the following
sections: (a) subjects; (b) research design; (c) testing
procedures; and (d) statistical analysis.
Subjects
Thirteen male and eleven female undergraduate students
from Hong Kong Baptist University majoring in Physical
Education and Recreation management were invited to
participate in this study. Their age was between nineteen and
twenty five years old. They had active sport participation.
All the subjects were asked to sign on the consent forms after
knowing the purpose, benefits and risks of this study.
Research Design
To examine the validity of predicting 1RM load by using
the Borg 6-20 RPE scale, participants were required to
participate in two exercises (vertical chest press and leg
press) Totally, two trials were included for each exercise
19
in this investigation.
Orientation Trial
The aim of the orientation trial was to find out the 1RM
on two testing exercises, which were vertical chest press and
leg press, for each individual participant. All participants
received the coaching on safe, correct and experimentally
accepted weight lifting techniques required for this study
before the trial. The 1RM tests for both lifts were performed
according to guidelines from the National Strength and
Condition Association (NSCA certification commission, 2008).
Standardized instruction for the Borg 6 – 20 RPE scale (Borg,
1998) was given to the participants. They were asked to
verbally report the rating of perceived exertion from the Borg
6 – 20 Scale after each attempt until the maximal exertion
(a rating of 20) was reached.
Experimental Trial
Participants were required to perform the previous
exercises at sub-maximal intensities during the experimental
20
trial which occurred at least 48 hours after the orientation
trial. The order of exercises was counterbalanced with one
half of the group performing the leg press exercise before
the vertical chest press exercise, and vice versa. Four sets
of two repetitions on each exercise with each set performed
at an unknown pre-determined intensity (20, 40, 60 and 80
percent) were performed by the participants. The presenting
order of the four intensities was randomly chosen by the
investigator and not made apparent to the participant. Each
participant was required to wear a blindfold while lifting
in order to ensure there were blinded to the load and thus
unable to make a pre-determined judgment on perceived exertion
for that particular set.
The RPE was recorded after performing each set at the four
prescribed intensities. Participants were reminded to think
about the feelings of exertion in the active muscle group
during the concentric phase of the final repetition of each
set. The blindfold was removed immediately after the
21
participant relieved the weight. They were allowed to see and
verbally report the rating of perceived exertion from the Borg
6 – 20 Scale. Then, the participants were blindfolded again
and a different percentage of 1RM intensity was chosen by the
investigator randomly. The trials continued until four sets
were completed while the RPE values had been recorded for each
exercise.
Testing Procedures
In this study, all the subjects were invited to perform
vertical chest press and leg press in random sequences. Both
tests were conducted in the fitness room of Wai Hang Sports
Center in Hong Kong Baptist University. The following
guidelines with the reference of the National Strength and
Condition Association (NSCA certification commission, 2008)
would be used.
Vertical Chest Press
The participant performed this exercise sitting on the
seat of the machine and leaned back to place the body in a
22
five-point body-contact position. This included head,
shoulders, buttocks, left foot and right foot. It was made
clear to the participant that these points of contact must
remain throughout the lift in order to isolate the pectoris
major. The exercise utilized a closed and pronated grip with
both hands grasping the handles and it was performed in the
horizontal plane.
The movement began from pushing the handles forward to
full elbow extension. The participants first performed the
backward movement by allowing the handles to move toward the
body slowly and under control. Then, the participant
performed the forward movement by pushing the handles forward
while maintaining the same stationary five-point body-contact
position. The wrists were keeping stiff and continue to push
the handles until the elbows were fully extended but not
forcefully locked. The concentric phase last for two seconds
while the eccentric phase last for four seconds.
23
Leg Press
The leg press exercise was performed using the seated
leg press machine. First of all, sit inside the machine with
the head, back, hips and buttocks pressed evenly against their
respective pads. Adjust the back pad by moving it up and down
to allow the torso and legs to form approximately a 90-degree
angle at the hips when the feet were properly positioned in
the foot platform and the knees were fully extended. Placing
the feel with shoulder width on the foot platform with the
toes pointed slightly outward. Both feet must be positioned
in the same manner that same space should be seen between the
left foot and the left side of the platform as well as between
the right foot and the right side of the platform.
Grasped the handles throughout the test and
simultaneously extended the hips and knees to raise the foot
platform 1 to 2 inches (3 to 5 cm). Extend the hips and knees
to raise the foot platform to the starting position without
locking out the knees.
24
Begin the exercise with downward movement by flexing the
hips and knees slowly and under control while keeping the hips
and buttocks on the seat and the back flat against the back
pad. Continuous the downward movement phase until the heels
rise off the foot platform. Do not relax the legs and torso
at the bottom of the movement as well as bounce the foot
platform to spring it back up for the next repetition.
Then, perform the upward movement by extending the hips
and knees to push the foot platform up and under control while
the feet should remain flat on the platform. Continue to push
the foot platform up until the knees were fully extended but
not forcefully locked. Keep the hips and buttocks on the seat
and the back flat against the back pad. . The concentric phase
last for two seconds while the eccentric phase last for four
seconds.
Statistical Analysis
The purpose of the current study was to examine the
validity predicting 1RM load using the Borg 6-20 ratings of
25
perceived exertion (RPE) scale from submaximal loads. The
followings were the statistical (null) hypotheses of the
study:
1. There would be no significant difference between the
measured and predicted 1RM loads for the vertical chess
press exercise.
2. There would be no significant difference between the
measured and predicted 1RM loads for the leg press
exercise.
3. There would be no significant correlation between the
measured and predicted 1RM for the vertical chest press
exercise.
4. There would be no significant correlation between the
measured and predicted 1RM for the leg press exercise.
Analysis of data was done on subject who completed all
tests. Physical characteristics such as age, weight and height
of the subjects were recorded. Statistical data were analyzed
by Statistical Package for Social Science Version 15.0 (SPSS
26
15.0). Descriptive data, such as mean and standard deviation
were worked out and all data were described in mean ±SD. Pearson
Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation (r) was used to
examine the relationship between the measured and predict 1RM
strength by using RPEs. Moreover, the predicted and measured
1RM values for the vertical chest press and leg press were
compared for significant differences using Paired-Sample
t-tests. The 1RM predictions were calculated by entering
individual participant RPE values and load (kg) at each
intensity into a linear regression equation of
1RM = b x (RPE 20) + a and extrapolating to a theoretical 1RM
at RPE 20. The percentage of standard error of estimate (SEE)
was calculated as SEE% = SEE / mean 1RM x 100%. The predictive
accuracy was expressed as the percentage of measured 1RM that
could be predicted from measured RPE data for both muscle group:
(Predicted 1RM / Measured 1RM)x 100%. All above, an alpha level
of 0.05 was used for indicating statistical significance.
27
Definition of Terms
The following terms were operationally defined especially
for this study:
Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE)
According to Borg (1998), ratings of perceived exertion
refers to overall perceived exertion, which depends on many
factors including sensory cues and somatic symptoms,
emotional factors , rating behaviour etc. to integrated into
a kind of gestalt or configuration. Moreover, a measure of
perceived exertion is the degree of heaviness and strain
experienced in physical work as estimated according to a
specific rating method.
Muscular Strength
Muscular strength is defined as “the ability of muscle to
exert force” (ACSM, 2006, p.80).
One-Repetition Maximum (1RM)
According to ACSM (2006), one-repetition maximum is
referred to “the greatest resistance that can be moved through
28
the full range of motion in a controlled manner with good
posture” (ACSM, 2006, p.81).
Delimitations
The study was delimited to the followings:
1. The participants of this study were delimited to the
undergraduate students majoring in physical education and
recreation management.
2. 24 students were volunteered to participate in this study.
All of them were come from Hong Kong Baptist University.
3. This study consisted of one orientation and one
experimental sessions which were separated by at least 48
hours
4. The tests would be carried out in the fitness room of Wai
Hang Sports Center in Hong Kong Baptist University.
Limitations
1. The result of this study could not produce a good
generalization since the sample size is small (n=10).
2. The motivation of the subjects in performing the tests was
29
uncontrollable.
3. The physical activity pattern of the subjects between each
testing sessions could not be controlled.
4. The measures of this study were specific to the muscle group
and joint angle that involved in the two tests (one for each
upper and lower body) only. Thus, the utility of the result
in describing overall muscular strength was limited.
5. The physical lifestyle and the physical activity level of
the subjects might affect their performance
30
Chapter 4
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Thirteen male and eleven female students of Hong Kong
Baptist University were invited to participate in this study.
The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of
predicting 1RM using the Borg 6-20 ratings of perceived
exertion (RPE) scale from submaximal loads in University
physical education major students of Hong Kong. All subjects
engaged in one orientation trial and one experimental trial
in the study. This chapter was divided into two main sections,
the results and discussions
Results
Physical Characteristics
The physical characteristics including the age, body
height and weight of the subjects were recorded. The age of
the participants were ranged from 19 to 25 years old with the
mean of 22 ± 1.5 years. On the other hand, the mean body height
of the participants was 168.1 cm ± 9.2 cm with the range from
31
150 to 183 cm. For body weight, the range was from 44 to 71
kg with the mean of 57.3 kg ± 8.5 kg.
Sports Participation Background
The frequency of sport participation per week among the
participants marked. In this study, one sport participation
session was defined as participating in continuous physical
activities involving large muscle groups with the minimum of
30 minutes duration. In average, the subjects had 2.8 ± 1.7
sessions of sports participation each week with the range from
1 to 7 sessions.
32
Vertical Chest Press Exercise
The measured 1RM and predicted 1 RM loadings of each subject
for the vertical chest press exercise were shown in table 1.
Table 1
The measured and predicted 1 RM loadings of each subject for
the vertical chest press exercise (N=24)
Subject Measured 1RM (lbs) Predicted 1RM (lbs)
1 135 119
2 155 131
3 115 110
4 190 171
5 90 77
6 145 158
7 185 174
8 120 124
9 170 199
10 160 144
11 170 194
12 220 233
13 235 250
14 65 58
15 60 79
16 75 67
17 80 81
18 55 82
19 100 103
20 45 45
21 65 71
22 60 50
23 60 59
24 50 58
33
The sub-maximal loadings and related RPE scores for the
vertical chest press exercise were shown in table 2.
Table 2
The sub-maximal loadings and related RPE scores for the
vertical chest press exercise (N=24)
Subject 20%
of
1RM
load
RPE
of
20%
load
40%
of
1RM
load
RPE
of
40%
load
60%
of
1RM
load
RPE
of
60%
load
80%
of
1RM
load
RPE
of
80%
load
1 30 7 50 8 80 15 110 18
2 30 7 60 9 90 15 125 19
3 25 6 45 8 70 14 90 16
4 40 6 75 10 115 15 150 17
5 20 6 35 12 55 14 70 18
6 30 6 60 9 90 13 115 15
7 35 7 75 9 110 13 150 18
8 25 6 50 9 70 12 95 16
9 35 7 70 10 100 12 135 15
10 30 6 65 8 95 14 130 18
11 35 6 70 9 100 11 135 15
12 45 6 90 8 130 13 175 15
13 50 6 95 11 140 13 190 15
14 15 7 25 11 40 13 50 18
15 10 6 25 7 35 10 50 14
16 15 8 30 11 45 12 60 19
17 15 7 30 10 40 11 65 17
18 10 10 20 11 35 15 45 15
19 20 9 40 11 60 17 80 17
20 10 7 20 10 30 17 35 17
21 15 7 25 10 40 15 50 15
22 10 6 25 11 35 19 50 19
23 10 7 25 10 35 18 50 18
34
24 10 9 20 11 30 16 40 16
In this study, individual participant RPE values and load
(lbs) at each intensity were used to run the linear regression.
Then, the predicted 1RM would be calculated by entering the
result of the linear regression into a linear regression
equation of 1RM = (b x RPE 20)+a. For example, the predicted
1RM of subject 1 by using the equation above would be
(6.395 x 20) + (-9.244) = 118.656 lbs
The group mean and standard deviation of measured and
predicted 1RM of vertical chest press were shown in table 3.
Table 3
The group mean and standard deviation of measured and
predicted 1RM loading of vertical chest press (N=24)
Mean (lbs) SD mean (lbs)
Measured 1RM of Vertical
Chest Press
116.86 11.84
Predicted 1RM of Vertical
Chest Press
118.21 12.26
The result of the paired-sample t test of the measured and
predicted 1RM for vertical chest press indicated that the
35
difference between the measured and predicted 1RM of vertical
chest press was insignificant (t=-0.44, p>0.05).Therefore,
the null hypothesis of there would be no significant
difference between the measured and predicted 1RM for the
vertical chess press exercise was accepted.
The result of the Pearson product moment coefficient of
correlation (r) between the measured and predicted 1RM for
vertical chest press was shown as follow:
Table 4
Pearson’s Correlation Test between the measured and the
predicted 1RM loading of vertical chest press (N=24)
r r² p
Correlation between measured and
predicted 1RM loading of vertical
chest press
0.97** 0.94 0.000
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
The relationship between the measured 1RM and the predicted
1RM weight of vertical chest press was shown in Figure 1.
36
Figure 1
The relationship between the measured and predicted 1RM
loading of vertical chest press (N=24)
It was found that there was a significant positive
relationship between the measured and predicted 1RM of
vertical chest press (r=0.97, p
37
Leg Press Exercise
The measured 1RM and predicted 1 RM loadings of each subject
for the leg press exercise were shown in table 5.
Table 5
The measured and predicted 1 RM loadings of each subject for
the leg press exercise (N=24)
Subject Measured 1RM (lbs) Predicted 1RM (lbs)
1 355 304
2 345 277
3 260 260
4 340 314
5 205 194
6 365 317
7 365 391
8 385 434
9 390 321
10 305 370
11 350 276
12 400 427
13 370 392
14 220 187
15 235 228
16 185 158
17 240 254
18 160 295
19 260 248
20 190 173
21 200 199
22 180 170
23 220 209
24 165 231
38
The sub-maximal loadings and related RPE scores for the
leg press exercise were shown in table 6.
Table 6
The sub-maximal loadings and related RPE scores for the leg
press exercise (N=24)
Subject 20%
of
1RM
load
RPE
of
20%
load
40%
of
1RM
load
RPE
of
40%
load
60%
of
1RM
load
RPE
of
60%
load
80%
of
1RM
load
RPE
of
80%
load
1 70 6 140 7 210 15 285 18
2 70 6 140 7 210 17 275 18
3 50 6 105 10 155 12 210 17
4 70 6 135 10 205 12 270 18
5 40 6 80 9 125 11 165 18
6 75 6 145 9 220 15 290 18
7 75 7 145 8 220 10 290 16
8 75 6 155 8 230 12 310 15
9 80 7 155 11 235 16 310 19
10 60 6 120 8 185 12 245 14
11 70 6 140 8 210 17 280 19
12 80 6 160 8 240 11 320 16
13 75 6 150 8 220 11 295 16
14 45 7 90 8 130 15 175 19
15 50 6 95 10 140 13 190 17
16 35 6 75 10 110 16 150 18
17 50 6 95 9 145 11 190 16
18 30 9 65 11 95 12 130 13
19 50 7 105 9 155 11 210 18
20 40 6 75 9 115 13 150 18
21 40 7 80 8 120 12 160 17
22 35 7 70 10 110 15 145 17
23 45 6 90 8 130 13 175 17
39
24 35 6 65 8 100 9 130 13
By using the result of linear regression from individual
participant RPE values and load (lbs) at each intensity, the
predicted 1RM could be calculated by entering the result of
the linear regression into the linear regression equation of
1RM = (b x RPE 20)+a, which similar to vertical chests press
exercise. By using subject 1 as an example, the predicted 1RM
of leg press would be (14.976 x 20) + 4.024 = 303.544 lbs
The group mean and standard deviation of measured and
predicted 1RM of leg press were shown in table 7.
Table 7
The group mean and standard deviation of measured and
predicted 1RM loading of leg press (N=24)
Mean (lbs) SD mean (lbs)
Measured 1RM loading of
Leg Press
278.75 16.89
Predicted 1RM loading of
Leg Press
276.21 16.83
The result of the paired-sample t test of the measured and
predicted 1RM for leg press indicated that the difference
40
between the measured and predicted 1RM of vertical chest press
was insignificant (t=0.26, p>0.05).Therefore, the null
hypothesis of there would be no significant difference between
the measured and predicted 1RM for the leg press exercise was
accepted.
The result of the Pearson product moment coefficient of
correlation (r) between the measured and predicted 1RM for
leg press was shown as follow:
Table 8
Pearson’s Correlation Test between the measured 1RM and the
predicted 1RM loading of leg press (N=24)
r r² p
Correlation between the measured
and predicted 1RM loading of leg
press
0.83** 0.69 0.000
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
The relationship between the measured 1RM and the predicted
1RM weight of leg press was shown in Figure 2
41
Figure 2
The relationship between the measured and predicted 1RM
loading of leg press (N=24)
It was found that there was a significant positive
relationship between the measured and predicted 1RM of leg
press (r=0.83, p
42
Discussions
The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of
predicting 1RM using the ratings of perceived exertion (RPE)
from submaximal loads in University physical education major
students of Hong Kong. The discussion part was divided into
four sections: (a) concurrent validity of predicting 1RM load
by using the Borg 6-20 RPE scale, (b) relationship between
measured and predicted 1RM using the Borg 6-20 RPE scale, (c)
relationship between perceptions of effort and degree of
muscular activation, and (d) major factors affecting use of
the Borg 6-20 RPE scale.
Concurrent Validity of Predicting 1RM load by using the
Borg 6-20 RPE Scale
In the present study, it was found that there was a
significant correlation between the measured and predicted
1RM load by using the Borg 6-20 RPE scale. The relationship
was strong for both upper (r = 0.97, p
43
of the measured and predicted 1RM load for upper body exercise
was 94% (r² = 0.94). In another words, the coefficient of
nondetermination was only 6% which implied a strong
correlation in between. On the other hand, the common variance
of the measured and predicted 1RM load for lower body exercise
was only 69% (r² = 0.69). Thus the coefficient of
nondetermination was 31% which was attributed to the factors
other than the peripheral perception of effort such as
psychological effect and difference in muscular activation
etc.
According to current study, it was found that there was
an insignificant result showed between the measured and
predicted 1RM load by using the Borg 6-20 RPE scale in the
paired-sample t-test for both upper (t = -0.44, p>0.05) and
lower (t = 0.26, p>0.05) body exercise. In another words, there
was an insignificant mean difference between the measured and
predicted 1RM load by using the Borg 6-20 RPE scale with the
mean difference of 1.35 lbs and 2.54 lbs. Moreover, the high
44
predictive accuracy for both exercise (101.14% for upper and
99.09% for lower body exercise) and relatively lower
percentage of standard error of estimate (13% and 17% for both
upper and lower body exercise respectively) implied that the
1RM values derived from the regression equation by using the
data from the Borg 6-20 RPE scale was valid.
Relationship between the Measured and Predicted 1RM using
the Borg 6-20 RPE Scale
From the previous studies, it was found that there was a
strong association between maximal strength and repetitions
to fatigue (Eston & Evans, 2009). Such finding indicated that
maximal strength was related to peripheral perception of
effort. Since the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale
was related to peripheral perception of effort, it was
believed that there was a relationship between the measured
and the predicted maximal weight by using the Borg 6-20 RPE
scale.
Until present, limited study had been conducted in
45
examining the validity of sub-maximal perceived exertion
ratings from the Borg 6-20 scale for predicting 1RM for upper
and lower body exercise. Eston and Evans (2009) stated that
there was no significant difference in the measured and
predicted 1RM load by using the Borg 6-20 RPE scale for both
upper and lower body exercise in undergraduate students. The
result of the present study had given a support to this finding,
thus providing an encouraging support from the efficacy of
using sub-maximal RPE values to predict the 1RM in both upper
and lower body muscle groups.
Relationship between Perceptions of Effort and Degree of
muscular activation
Gearhart et al. (2002) stated that higher exertional
perceptions would be resulted when greater force was generated
during skeletal muscle contraction with greater resistance
load. In previous study, it was found that all participants
were able to distinguish between sub-maximal loads even though
they were blinded to the load lifted and the order by which
46
the load would be lifted. In the design of current study,
submaximal loads to relative percentages (20%, 40%, 60% and
80%) of individual 1RM was altered in order to achieve the
muscle activation and stimuli strength varied with intensity.
In result, same finding had been stated in the current study
in which the average RPE values of 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% of
1RM load were progressively increase (7, 10, 13 and 17 for
upper and 6, 9, 13, 17 for lower body exercise) in both
exercise.
Such linear relationship between perceptions of effort and
degree of muscular activation had been explained in many
studies previously. Eston and Evans (2009) stated that it was
best explained on the basis of “feel forward” hypothesis,
which stated that the corollary discharges from the motor
cortex were concurrently sent to the somatosensory cortex as
well as the recipient muscle during a resistance movement
(Cafarelli, 1982). As a result, greater tension development
and increased motor unit recruitment and firing frequency
47
would be resulted with higher load (Gearhart et al., 2001).
Muscle activation and thus the stimuli strength was varied
with intensity through altering the sumbmaximal load to the
relative percentage (20%, 40%, 60% and 80%) of 1RM load in
the present study.
Major Factors Affecting Use of Rating of Perceived exertion
According to previous study, rating of perceived exertion
(RPE) was mainly affected by two factors, which were the local
factor and the central factor (Pandolf, 1982). Local factor
was related to sensation or feelings of strain from the
exercise muscle and / or joints, while central factor related
primarily to cardiopulmonary sensations. Cafarelli (1982)
suggested that perceived exertion was contingent in the degree
of muscular activation, which indicated that it varied
according to the length of the muscle for a given load during
both concentric and eccentric contraction. As a result, the
RPE was in fact depending on the joint position throughout
the range of movement. In the present study, it seemed that
48
the local factor was the major factor that affecting the
participants in giving the RPE value since the exercises used
(vertical chest press and leg press) were related to muscular
fitness. As a result, the sensation of muscle and or joint
seemed share a greater part of the variance in giving the RPE
value.
49
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary of Results
This study was designed to examine the validity of
predicting 1RM using the Borg 6-20 ratings of perceived
exertion (RPE) scale from submaximal loads in University
physical education major students of Hong Kong.
Thirteen male and eleven female undergraduate students
from Hong Kong Baptist University majoring in Physical
Education and Recreation Management were invited to
participate in this study. They performed the vertical chest
press and leg press exercise for two times. The first trial
was the orientation trial that finding the 1RM load for both
exercise by direct measurement. The second trial was the
experimental trial, in which four sets of two repetitions on
each exercise with each set performed at an unknown
pre-determined intensity (20, 40, 60 and 80 percent) were
performed by the participants. Each participant was required
50
to wear a blindfold while lifting in order to ensure there
were blinded to the load and thus unable to make a
pre-determined judgment on perceived exertion for that
particular set. The RPE values at each intensity were recorded,
and the collected data were analyzed by the Statistical
Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 15.0 version
computer program. Paired-Sample t test, Pearson Product
Moment Coefficient of Correlation and Simpler Linear
Regression were used, and the significant level of 0.05 was
set.
The results of this study were summarized as follows:
1. There was an insignificant difference between the measured
and predicted 1RM loads for the vertical chess press
exercise (t=-0.44, p>0.05)
2. There was an insignificant difference between the measured
and predicted 1RM loads for the leg press exercise (t=0.26,
p>0.05).
3. There was a significant positive relationship between the
51
measured and predicted 1RM loads for the vertical chess
press exercise (r=0.97, p
52
by using the Borg 6-20 RPE scale is insignificant. Moreover,
there is a significant relationship between the measured and
predicted 1RM values by using the Borg 6-20 RPE. Since
statistic in the present study prove that the result of finding
1RM load by using different methods do not have a significant
difference and correlated, it is conclude that the submaxiaml
ratings of perceived exertion from the Borg 6-20 scale for
predicting 1RM is valid.
Recommendations for Further Study
1. The sample size should be enlarged in order to obtain more
representatives.
2. The variety of the exercises used in the test should be
increase with the hope of getting a comprehensive result
with different muscle group
3. Different age group apart from teenagers can be studied to
enlarge the external validity of the study
4. Fitness level of the participants should be considered.
53
REFERECES
Abadie, B. R., Altorfer, G. l. & Schuler, P. R. (1999). Does
a regression equation to predict maximal strength in
untrained lifters remain valid when the subjects are
technique trained? Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Resarch, 13, 259-263.
Abadie, B. R., & Wentworth, M. C. (2000). Prediction of one
repetition maximal strength from a 5-10 repetition
submaximal strength test in college-aged females. Journal
of Exercise Physiology Online, 3(3). Retrieved from
http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/JEPonlineABADIE.ht
ml.
American College of Sports Medicine. (3rd Ed.). (2003). ACSM
fitness book. Champaign, IL : Human Kinetics.
American College of Sports Medicine. (7th Ed.). (2006). ACSM’s
guidelines for exercise testing and prescription.
Philadelphia PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Borg, G. (1998). Borg's Perceived exertion and pain scales,
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Braith, R.W., Graves, J.E., Leggett, S. and Pollock, M.L.
(1993) Effect of training on the relationship between
maximal and submaximal strength. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise 25, 132-138.
Brzycki, M. (1993). Strength testing predicting a one-rep max
from reps-to-fatigue. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance 64, 88–90.
54
Cafarelli, E. (1982). Peripheral contributions to the
perception of effort.Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise 14, 382-389.
Cummings, B., & Finn, K. J. (1998). Estimation of a one
repetition maximum bench press for untrained women.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 12, 262–265.
Eston, R. G. (2009). Perceived exertion: recent advances and
novel applications in children and adult. Journal of
Exercise Science and Fitness 7(2), S11–S17
Eston, R. G., & Evans, H. (2009, in press). The validity of
submaximal ratings of perceived exertion to predict one
repetition maximum. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
8, 567-573.
Fahey, T. D. (2010). Basic weight training for men and women.
New York : McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Gamble, P. (2010). Strength and conditioning for team sports :
sport-specific physical preparation for high performance.
Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge.
Gearhart, R. F., Goss, F. L., Lagally, K. M., Jackicic, J.
M., Gallagher, J., & Robertson, R. J. (2001). Standardized
scaling procedures for rating of perceived exertion during
resistance exercise. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research 15, 320-325.
Gearhart, R. F., Goss, F. L., Lagally, K. M., Jackicic, J.
M., Gallagher, J., Gallagher, K. I., & Robertson, R. J.
(2002). Ratings of perceived exertion in active muscle
during high-intensity and low intensity resistance
exercise. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
16, 87-91.
55
Hazeldine, R. (1990). Strength training for sport. Ramsbury,
Marlborough, Wiltshire : Crowood Press.
Hurley, B. F. (1995). Age, gender and muscular strength. The
Journals of Gerontology: Series A: Biological sciences and
medical sciences 50A, 41-46.
Kim, P. S., Mayhew, J. L., & Peterson, D. F. (2002). A modified
YMCA bench press test as a predictor of 1 repetition maximal
bench press strength. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research 16, 440-445.
Kravitz, L., Akalan, C., Nowicki, K., & Kinzey, S. J. (2003).
Prediction of 1 repetition maximum in high-school power
lifters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 17,
167-172.
LeSuer, D.A., McCormick, J. H., Wasserstein, R. L., & Arnold,
M. D. (1997). Theaccuracy of prediction equations for
estimating 1- RM performance in the bench press, squat and
deadlift. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
11, 211-213.
Lexell, J. (1995). Human aging, muscle mass, and fiber type
composition. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A:
Biological sciences and medical sciences 50A, 11-16.
Materko, W., Neves, C. E. B., & Santos, E. L. (2007). Preiction
model of a maximal repetition (1RM) based on male and female
anthropometrical characteristics. Rev Bras Med Esporte,
13 (1), 22e-24e
Mayhew, J. L., Piper, F. C., & Ware, J. S. (1993).
Anthropometric correlates with strength performance among
resistance trained athletes. Journal of Sports Medicine
and Physiscal Fitness 33, 159-165.
56
McCormack Brown, K. M., Thomas, D. Q., & Kotecki, J. E. (2002).
Physical activity and health : an interactive approach.
Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett.
Morales, J., & Sobonya, S. (1996). Use of submaximal
repetition tests for predicting 1RM strength in class
athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
10, 186-189.
Nascimento, M. A., Cyrino, E. S., Nakamura, F. Y., Romanzini,
M., Pianca, H. J. C., & Queiroga, M. R. (2007) Validation
of the Brzycki equation for estimation of the 1RM in the
bench press. Revista Brasileira de Medicina Esporte 13,
40-42.
Niewiadomski, W., Laskowska, D., Gasiorowaska, A., Cybulski,
G., Strasz, A., & Langfort, J. (2008) Determination and
Prediction of One Repetition Maximum (1RM): Safety
Considerations. Journal of Human Kinetics 19, 109-120.
NSCA Certification Commission. (2nd Ed.). (2008). Exercise
technique manual for resistance training. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Pandolf, K. B. (1982). Differentiated ratings of perceived
exertion during physical exercise. Medicine and Science
in Sports and Exercise 14, 397-405
Pereira M. I. R., & Gomes P. S. C. (2003). Muscular strength
and endurance tests:reliability and prediction of one
repetition maximum—review and new evidence. Revista
Brasileira de Medicina Esporte 9, 336–346.
57
Pierce, K., Rozenek, R., & Stone, M. H. (1993) Effects of high
volume weight training on lactate, heart rate and perceived
exertion. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
7, 211-215.
Pincivero, D. M., & Gear, W. S. (2000). Quadriceps
activation and perceived exertion during a high intensity,
steady state contraction to failure. Muscle and Nerve 23,
514-520.
Pincivero, D. M., Coelho, A. J., & Campy, R. M. (2004). Gender
differences in perceived exertion during fatiguing knee
extensions. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
36, 109-117.
Robertson, R. J., Fredric, L. G., Aaron, D. J., Gairola, A.,
Kowallis, R. A., Liu, Y., Randall, C. R., Tessmer, K. A.,
Schnorr, T. L., Schroeder, A. E., & White, B. (2008). One
repetition maximum prediction models for children using
the OMNI RPE Scale. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research 22, 196–201.
Robertson, R. J., Goss, F. L., Rutkowski, J., Lenz, B., Dixon,
C., Trimmer, J., Frazee, K., Dube, J., & Andreacci, J. (2003)
Concurrent validation of the OMNI perceived exertion scale
for resistance exercise. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise 35, 333-341.
Scanlan, J. M., Ballmann, K. L., Mayhew, J. L., & Lantz, C.
D. (1999). Anthropometric dimensions to predict 1RM bench
press in untrained females. Journal of Sports Medicine and
Physical Fitness 39, 54-60.
58
APPENDIX A
Consent Form to Students
Explanation of the tests For muscle fitness testing, you lift weights for a number of repetitions using exercise machines. These tests assess the strength and endurance of the major muscle groups in the body. Moreover, maximum effort testing is needed.
Risks and discomforts There is a slight possibility of pulling a muscle or spraining a ligament during the muscle fitness and flexibility testing. In addition, you may experience muscle soreness 24 or 48 hours after testing. These risks can be minimized by performing warm-up exercises prior to taking the tests. If muscle soreness occurs, appropriate stretching exercises to relieve this soreness will be demonstrated.
Expected benefits from testing The test allows us to assess your physical working capacity and to appraise your physical fitness status. The results are used to prescribe a safe, sound exercise program for you. Records are kept strictly confidential unless you consent to release this information.
Inquiries Questions about the procedures used in the physical fitness test are encouraged. If you have any questions or need additional information, please ask us to explain further.
Freedom of Consent Your permission to perform these physical fitness tests is strictly voluntary. You are free to stop the tests at any point, if you so desire. _____________________________________________________________________ I have read this form carefully and I fully understand the test procedures that I will perform and the risks and discomforts. Knowing these risks and having had the opportunity to ask questions that have been answered to my satisfaction, I consent to participate in these tests. Date: _________________ Signature of patient: ____________________ Date: _________________ Signature of witness: ___________________ From Vivian H. Heyward, 2006. Advanced Fitness Assessment and Exercise Prescription, 5th ed.
(Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics).
59
APPENIDX B
Data Recording Form
One repetition maximum prediction models for university students
Data Recording Form Name: ___________________________________ Age: _____ Gender: _____ Height:______(cm) Weight:_____(kg) Frequency of sport participation per week: ____ (At least 30 minutes with continuous sport participation each session) Interest in sport: ____ (1 to 5 points in which 5 points indicate most interest)
60
Trial 1 (Accurate 1RM measure) Test 1 – Vertical Chest Press
No. of Attempt Result (lbs) RPE score 1 2 3 4 5 6
Test 2 – Leg Press
No. of Attempt Result (lbs) RPE score 1 2 3 4 5 6
Trial 2 (1RM prediction) Test 1 – Vertical Chest Press
No. of Attempt Percentage of 1RM Result (lbs) RPE score 1 2 3 4
Test 2– Leg Press
No. of Attempt Percentage of 1RM Result (lbs) RPE score 1 2 3 4