(7) A Comparison of Three Protocols for Determining Bench Press Single Repetition Maximum in Resistance Trained Males and Females

An individual’s one repetition maximum (1RM) is a vital metric for most practitioners
and strength and conditioning professionals. 1RM has utility for aspects such as the
proper implementation of periodization principles throughout an athlete or client’s
training plan, along with commonly being utilized to assess the effectiveness of
various training and rehabilitation protocols. While a plethora of methods exist to
estimate 1RM through previously established prediction equations and repetition
maximums. The most accurate way is to directly assess 1RM for a given exercise.
However, a multitude of 1RM testing protocols exist throughout the literature and
little is known as to how the resultant 1RM from these protocols compare.
Additionally, the degree to which having a standardized protocol may impact a 1RM
as opposed to the well-trained athlete determining it themselves using methods they
may be more comfortable with and that better reflect their typical training practices.

Purpose: To assess the agreement, or lack thereof, between two previously
established and a novel method for determining bench press one repetition
maximum.

Methods: Twenty-three resistance-trained males (n=12, 22±6.1 yrs,
181±6 cm, 88.6±10.6 kgs) and females (n=11, 23±6 yrs, 163±7 cm, 74.8±16 kgs)
completed three laboratory visits in which bench press 1RM was assessed using one
of three protocols. During the first visit, body composition was assessed, after which
a 5-minute general warm-up utilizing a self-selected pace and intensity on a cycle
ergometer was completed, followed by a 5-minute self-selected warm-up period.
Upon the completion of the warm-up, the participant’s bench press 1RM was
determined utilizing one of three protocols, two standardized protocols found

throughout the literature (P1, P2) and a self-selected protocol in which the participant
was able to select the weight increases, rep ranges for each set, and rest time
between attempts themselves (P3). On visits two and three, the participants
completed the same previously described warm-up but then completed one of the
remaining 1RM protocols. The order in which the protocols were completed was
randomized. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was utilized to determine if the
resultant 1RM differed between protocols.

Results: No significant differences
were seen between protocols (p=0.638, P1: 84.5±33.4kgs, P2: 84.9±33.7kgs, P3:
84.3±32.7kgs).

Conclusions: These data suggest that the resultant bench
press 1RM did not differ whether a standardized protocol was used or the participant
was able to utilize their own method. Additionally, the type of standardized protocol
did not impact the final 1RM in a laboratory setting. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS:
Since no statistically significant differences were detected in the 1RM determined by
the three methods, the practitioner can feel comfortable utilizing various protocols for
1RM testing that best suit the needs of the athlete and the setting. Special
considerations can be made for aspects such as time constraints such as choosing a
protocol with standardized rest times and percentages to streamline efficiency with
larger participant groups. In situations where the assessment is with a smaller group,
selecting a protocol that makes the athlete more comfortable could be just as
beneficial.

Acknowledgements: None