Analysis of factors that influence the maximum number of repetitions in two upper-body resistance exercises: curl biceps and bench press
Not available until 9999/99/99
View/ Open
Use this link to cite
http://hdl.handle.net/2183/36403Collections
- GI-PHG - Artigos [118]
Metadata
Show full item recordTitle
Analysis of factors that influence the maximum number of repetitions in two upper-body resistance exercises: curl biceps and bench pressDate
2010-06Citation
Iglesias, E., Boullosa, D. A., Dopico, X., & Carballeira, E. (2010). Analysis of factors that influence the maximum number of repetitions in two upper-body resistance exercises: curl biceps and bench press. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 24(6), 1566–1572. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d8eabe
Abstract
[Abstract]: Iglesias, E, Boullosa, DA, Dopico, X, and Carballeira, E. Análisis
of factors that influence the maximum number of repetitions in
two upper-body resistance exercises: curl biceps and bench
press. J Strength Cond Res 24(6): 1566–1572, 2010—The
purpose of this study was to analyze the influence of exercise
type, set configuration, and relative intensity load on relationship
between 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and maximum number of
repetitions (MNR). Thirteen male subjects, experienced in
resistance training, were tested in bench press and biceps curl
for 1RM, MNR at 90% of 1RM with cluster set configuration
(rest of 30s between repetitions) and MNR at 70% of 1RM with
traditional set configuration (no rest between repetitions). A
lineal encoder was used for measuring displacement of load.
Analysis of variance analysis revealed a significant effect of load
(p , 0.01) and a tendency in exercise factor (p = 0.096),
whereas the interaction effect was not significant. MNR at 70%
of 1RM was lower for biceps curl (16.31 6 2.59 vs. 8.77 6 3 in
bench press and biceps curl, respectively; p , 0.05) and at
90% of 1RM (21.85 611.06 vs. 18.54 612.84 in bench press
and biceps curl, respectively; p . 0.05). Correlation between
1RM and MNR was significant for medium-intensity in biceps
curl (r = 20.574; p , 0.05) and between MNR and 1RM/body
mass (r = 20.574; p , 0.05). Neither 1RM nor 1RM/body
mass correlated with velocity along set, so velocity seems to be
similar at a same relative intensity for subjects with differences
in maximum strength levels. From our results, we suggest the
employment of MNR rather than % of 1RM for training
monitoring. Furthermore, we suggest the introduction of cluster
set configuration for upper-body assessment of MNR and for
upper-body muscular endurance training at high-intensity loads,
as it seems an efficient approach in looking for sessions with
greater training volumes. This could be an interesting approach
for such sports as wrestling or weightlifting.
Keywords
Set configuration
Resistance training
Bench press
Biceps curl
Resistance training
Bench press
Biceps curl
Editor version
Rights
Copyright © Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
ISSN
1064-8011