Reliability and validity of the multi-point method and the 2-point method's variations of estimating the one-repetition maximum for deadlift and back squat exercises

Onat Çetin; Zeki Akyildiz; Barbaros Demirtaş; Yılmaz Sungur; Filipe Manuel Clemente; Florin Cazan; Luca Paolo Ardigò

doi:10.7717/peerj.13013

Reliability and validity of the multi-point method and the 2-point method's variations of estimating the one-repetition maximum for deadlift and back squat exercises

PeerJ. 2022 Mar 2:10:e13013. doi: 10.7717/peerj.13013. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Onat Çetin¹, Zeki Akyildiz², Barbaros Demirtaş³, Yılmaz Sungur^{4

5}, Filipe Manuel Clemente^{6

7

8}, Florin Cazan⁹, Luca Paolo Ardigò¹⁰

Affiliations

¹ Faculty of Sports Sciences, Department of Coaching Education, Yalova University, Yalova, Turkey.
² Faculty of Sports Sciences, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
³ Movement and Training Sciences Department, Sports Sciences Faculty, Sakarya Applied Sciences University, Sakarya, Turkey.
⁴ Department of Movement and Training Science, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey.
⁵ Sports Medicine and Athletic Performance Department, Gloria Sports Arena, Antalya, Turkey.
⁶ Escola Superior Desporto e Lazer, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Viana do Castelo, Portugal.
⁷ Research Center in Sports Performance, Recreation, Innovation and Technology (SPRINT), Melgaço, Portugal.
⁸ Instituto de Telecomunicações, Delegação da Covilhã, Lisboa, Portugal.
⁹ Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Ovidius University of Constanta, Constanta, Romania.
¹⁰ Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, School of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.

Abstract

This study aimed at examining the concurrent validity and reliability of the multi-point method and the two-point method's variations for estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the deadlift and squat exercises and to determine the accuracy of which optimal two loads can be used for the two-point method protocol. Thirteen resistance-trained men performed six sessions that consisted of two incremental loading tests (multi-point method: 20-40-60-80-90% and two-point method variations: 40-60%, 40-80%, 40-90%,60-80%, 60-90%) followed by 1RM tests. Both the multi-point method and the two-point method load variations showed reliable results for 1RM estimation (CV < 10%) squat and deadlift exercises. Session-session reliability was found to be low in deadlift (ICC: 0.171-0.335) and squat exercises (ICC: 0.235-0.479) of 40-60% and 60-80% in two-point methods. Deadlift (ICC: 0.815-0.996) and squat (ICC: 0.817-0.988) had high session-to-session reliability in all other methods. Regarding the validity of deadlift exercise, the multipoint method (R² = 0.864) and two variations of the two-point method (R² = 0.816 for 40-80%, R² = 0.732 for 60-80%) showed very large correlations, whereas other two variations of the two-point method (R² = 0.945 for 40-90%, R² = 0.914 for 60-90%) showed almost perfect correlations with the actual 1RM. Regarding the validity of squat exercise, the multi-point method (R² = 0.773) and two variations of the two-point method (R² = 0.0847 for 60-80%, R² = 0.705 for 40-90%) showed very large correlations, whereas 40-60% variation showed almost perfect correlation (R² = 0.962) with the actual 1RM. In conclusion, whereas both the multi-point method and the two-point method load variations showed reliable results, the multiple-point method and most of the two-point methods' load variations examined in this research provided an accurate (from large-moderate to perfect) estimate of the 1RM. Therefore, we recommend using the multi-point method and especially the two-point methods variations including higher relative loads to estimate 1RM.

Keywords: Load-velocity relationship; Multipoint method; Two-point method; Velocity-based training.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Exercise
Exercise Therapy
Humans
Male
Muscle Strength*
Reproducibility of Results
Weight Lifting*

Grants and funding

FMC was funded by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia/Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior through national funds and co-funded with EU funds under the project UIDB/50008/2020. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.