Joumal ofStrength and Conditioning Researc;h, 1996, 10(3), 186-189

© 1996 National Strength & Conditioning Association

Use of Submaximal Repetition Tests for Predicting

1-RM Strength in Class Athletes
Jacobo Morales and Steve Sobonya
Department of Physical Education & Human Performance, California State University Fresno, Fresno, California 93611-0028.
Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3Nu6/x40YHMMoFgKaXNftaY3GhnEVekNfN6/OBqoM/a1H3j0zFMPqvg== on 05/24/2019

Reference Data cause it allows individuals to undertake maximal ef-

farts with weights they may never have attempted (11).
Morales, J., and S. Sobonya. Use of submaximal repeti- To determine predicted 1-RMs based on submaximal
tion tests far predicting 1-RM strength in class athletes. repetition test performance, 1-RM prediction charts are
J. Strength and Cond. Res. 10(3):186-189. 1996. commonly used (Table 1). According to Table 1, if an
individual is able to complete 1 set of 4 reps maximum
ABSTRACT (4-RM) at 270 lbs (e.g., bench press), the predicted 1-
Twenty-three male college athletes performed submaximal RM will be 300 lbs.
repetition tests (70, 75, 80, 85, 90, and 95% 1-RM) in the bench
press (BP), squat (S), and power clean (PC) lifts. For each lift
the best predictor of 1-RM strength was defined as the maxi- Table 1
mal number of repetitions performed ata given lifting inten- Maximum Lift Based on Repetitions
sity (i.e., %1-RM) which represented the highest prediction
coefficient (multiple R). ANOVA revealed that regardless of o/o of 1-RM and its respective no. of reps
lift, the number of repetitions significantly decreased (p < 100 95 90 85 80 75
O.OS) as lifting intensity increased. The best predictor for BP 2 4 6 8 10
was the number of repetitions performed at 95% 1-RM. For
S and PC lifts the best predictors corresponded to the num- 400 380 360 340 320 300
ber of repetitions at 80 and 90%, respectively. The S best pre- 395 375 355 335 315 295
dictor had the highest prediction power (R 2 accounted for 390 370 350 330 310 295
26.9% of the variance). The BP and PC best predictors ac- 385 365 345 325 3IO 290
counted for 11.6 and 19.1 % of the variance, respectively. Al- 380 360 340 325 305 285
though the corresponding best predictors (multiple R) for 375 355 340 320 300 280
each lift represented different percentages of 1-RM, their re- 370 350 335 315 295 280
spective predictive power (R2) was not significantly differ- 365 345 330 310 290 275
ent (p > O.OS). 360 340 325 305 290 270
355 335 320 300 285 265
Key Words: lifting intensities, predictive power 350 335 315 300 280 265
345 330 310 295 275 260
Introduction 340 325 305 290 270 255
335 320 300 285 270 250
Tests far maximum strength generally involve a one-rep- 330 315 295 280 265 250
etition maximum (1-RM) weight lifting exercise ora 295 275 260 245
325 310
submaximal repetition test. Toe farmer consists of de- 320 305 290 270 255 240
termining the maximum amount of weight an individual 315 300 285 270 250 235
can lift only once with proper form and technique. Maxi- 310 295 280 265 250 235
mum values far 1-RM are used as a basis far computing 305 290 275 260 245 230
workout weight during an upcoming strength training 300 285 270 255 240 225
cycle (8). These workout weights are computed as a per- 295 280 265 250 235 220
centage of the 1-RM value¡ they are gradually increased 290 275 260 245 230 220
during the training cycle in order to provide adequate 285 270 255 240 230 215
overload stimulation to the muscles (5). 280 265 250 240 225 210
Quite often the 1-RM far a given lift is predicted 275 260 250 235 220 205
based on submaximal repetition tests (e.g., 5-RM). The 270 255 245 230 215 200
reason is that 1-RM tests may induce fatigue and pre- Note. 1-RM range = 270-400 lbs. Weight lifted was rounded to nearest lb.
vent the individual from attaining a true maximum (11). Table used with permission from Gary Polson, Strength Tech Inc.,
Also, the 1-RM method has the potential far injury be- Stillwater, OK.

186

There is sorne debate as to the accuracy of these
prediction charts. Por example, Landers (9) suggested
that the 1-RM for any lift could be accurately predicted
by using the number of repetitions performed with a
given resistance. But Hoeger et al. (6, 7) found that pre­
díction of 1-RM may not always be accurate when based
on number of repetitions completed with a given resis­
tance.
If the charts are inaccurate, this could lead to in­
correct lifting load prescription. This may limit an
athlete's strength or power gains resulting from a resis­
tive training cycle and possibly his or her performance
on the field. W hether the discrepancy in the research (1,
2, 6, 7, 9) examining lifting performance at different ín­
tensities is significant or not remains unresolved, as no
study has measured the prediction power of submax­
imal repetitíon tests.
The purpose of this study was to determine the best
predíctors of 1-RM strength for the bench press, squat,
and power clean. Por each lift, the best predictor was
defined as the maxirnal nurnber of repetitíons per­
forrned at a given lifting intensity (i.e., % 1-RM) which
represented the highest prediction coefficient (rnultiple
R). More irnportant, this investigation established the
prediction power (R2) of the corresponding best predic­
tors and analyzed these for significant difference.
Methods
Subjects
Subjects (N = 23) were 16 varsity football players and 7
track and field throwers cornpeting in NCAA Div. I-A
college athletics. All had engaged in regular resistance
training 3 or 4 days a week for at least 1 year and had
exhibited proper technique in the bench press, squat,
and power clean lífts, as evaluated by qualified person­
nel. They signed informed consent expressing their will­
ingness to participate in the study. The study protocol
conformed to the American College of Sports Medicine
policy regarding the use of human subjects. The sub­
jects were 21.18 ± 1.30 yrs of age; 98.98 ± 15.01 kg in
weight; and 1.83 ± 0.065 m in height.
Experimental Protocol
Data collection took approximately 2 weeks. The vari­
ables measured were: (a) 1-RM fo:i; the squat, bench
press, and power clean lifts; and (b) maximal number
of repetitions the subjects could perform at 70, 75, 80,
85, 90, and 95% of 1-RM for each lift. The following
schedule was used for data collection:
• Week 1, Day 1: 1-RM bench press;
• Day 2: 1-RM power clean and squat;
• Day 3: two submaximal repetition tests for bench
press (random selection of percentages);
• Day 4: two submaximal repetition tests for both
the power clean and the squat (random selection
of percentages);
Predicting 1-RM Strength in Athletes 187
• Week 2, Day 5: two submaximal repetition tests for
the bench press (random selection of percentages);
• Day 6: two submaximal repetition tests for both
the power clean and the squat (random selection
of percentages);
• Day 7: two submaximal repetítion tests for the
bench press (random selection of percentages);
• Day 8: two subrnaximal repetition tests for both
the power clean and the squat (random selection
of percentages).
Procedures for Submaximal Repetition Tests
The procedures for these tests were standardized for all
lifts. Prior to each test, each subject was assigned a test­
ing percentage that was randornly selected from the 6
submaximal test percentages (70, 75, 80, 85, 90, and 95%
of 1-RM). During these tests a continua! cadence with
no resting between repetitions was used.
Bench Press. Por the bench press the subjects were
allowed a liftoff from the bench supports. The bar was
controlled by the lifter down to touch the chest befare
beginning the concentric phase. Each repetition was con­
sidered successful íf the lifter raised the bar back to full
arm extension. No bouncing or rising of the buttocks
off the bench was allowed.
Squat. Por the squat all subjects were instructed to
perforrn a top-of-the-thigh parallel squat. A repetition
was considered successful if the subject performed
proper depth and raised his body back into the erect
position. The use of knee wraps was allowed if re­
quested by the subjects.
Power Clean. Por the power clean the lift was initi­
ated frorn the hanging clean position. Each repetition
was counted if the bar was lifted and cleanly racked
across the front of the shoulders. Every subject used lift­
ing straps to aid with grip control.
Por all submaximal repetition tests the manner of
progression was dependent on the test percentages ran­
domly selected for each subject. The warrn-up repeti­
tions were based on the first submaxirnal percentage
used for testing. For exarnple, if the randomly chosen
test percentages were 90% first and 75% second, the
warm-up progression was based on the first test per­
centage, 90% 1-RM. After the first test the subject was
instructed to rest at least 3 min befare attempting the
second submaximal test (i.e., 75% 1-RM). On any given
testing day, if the first randomly chosen test percentage
was one of the following, the subsequent warm-up
progression was used:
• 70%: 1 set at 50% 1-RM for 10 reps and 1 set at 60%
1-RM for 8 reps;
• 75%: 1 set at 50% 1-RM for 10 reps and 1 set at 65%
1-RM for 8 reps;
• 80%: 1 set at 50% 1-RM for 10 reps, 1 set at 60%
1-RM for 8 reps, and 1 set at 70% 1-RM for 6 reps;
• 85%: 1 set at 50% 1-RM for 10 reps, 1 set at 65%
1-RM for 8 reps, and 1 set at 75% 1-RM for 6 reps;
188 Morales and Sobonya

• 90%: 1 set at 50% 1-RM for 10 reps, 1 set at 60% Table 2

1-RMfor8reps, 1 setat70% 1-RMfor6reps,and 1 Repetitions Performed at Selected % of 1-RM
set at 80% 1-RM for 4 reps; for Each Lift (N = 23)
• 95%: 1 set at 50% 1-RM for 10 reps, 1 set at 65%
1-RMfor8reps, 1 setat75% 1-RMfor6reps,and 1 Bench press Squat Powerclean
set at 85% 1-RM for 4 reps. % 1-RM M ± SD M ± SD M ± SD

Procedures for 1-RM Tests 70% 13.35 1.99 13.48 2.33 13.61 2.57
For all lifts, each subject was instructed to reach the 1- 75% 11.04 l.15 10.61 1.12 11.52 1.83
RM intensity according to the following progression: 80% 9.22 2.09 8.44 1.44 9.26 1.76
85% 6.00 1.28 6.48 1.31 7.04 1.66
• 1 set light warm-up (60% previous 1-RM from 90% 4.04 1.02 4.57 0.90 4.57 1.50
Spring '91) for 10 reps; 95% 2.17 0.89 2.39 0.72 2.57 1.16
• 1 set moderate warm-up (70% previous 1-RM) for
8 reps;
• 1 set moderate warm-up (80% previous 1-RM) for Table 3
4 reps; Multiple Regression Results (N = 23)
• 1 set moderate warm-up (85% previous 1-RM) for
2 reps; Bench press Squat Powerclean
• 1 to 5 sets of 1-RM until the maximum value was Best predictor 95% 1-RM 80% 1-RM 90% 1-RM
reached. Multiple R 0.34202 0.51884 0.43647
R2 0.11698 0.26920 0.19050
If an attempt was performed with relative ease, the sub-
Adjusted R2 0.09595 0.24400 0.15677
ject was instructed to raise the weight by 10 or 15 lbs. If SE 51.17722 38.06025 28.24999
the subject struggled with a successful attempt, only 5
lbs was added for the next attempt. Note. The dependent variable for each lift was its corresponding 1-RM.

Statístícal A.nalyses Table 4

In arder to establish the best predictor of 1-RM strength Differences Between Established Best Predictors
for the bench press, squat, and power clean lifts, mul-
tiple regression procedures (stepwise selection) were Significance vs. best
employed. Fisher's Z-transformation procedures were predictor of other lifts
used to test for significant differences among the estab- Best predictor of Fisher's Z- Bench Power
líshed best predictors (4, 10). In arder to test how the 1-RM strength transformation press Squat clean
various lifts and lifting percentages influenced the num-
Bench press 356 0.8943 0.4319
ber of repetitions performed, a 3 X 6 ANOVA (lift X %
(95% 1-RM)
1-RM) with repeated measures on both factors was used.
Squat 575 0.8943 0.1124
In cases where multiple mean comparisons were ap- (80% 1-RM)
propriate, Duncan post hoc procedures were used with Powerclean 467 0.4319 0.1124
significance set at 0.05. (90% 1-RM)

Results
Results for the number of repetitions performed at the
selected percentages of 1-RM are listed in Table 2. The
corresponding 1-RMs were as follows: bench press,
301.73 ± 53.82 lbs; squat, 397.66 ± 43.77; power clean,
273.15 ± 30.76. As indicated in Table 3, the best predic-
tor for the bench press was the number of repetitions
performed at 95% 1-RM. For the squat and power
clean, the best predictors corresponded to the number
of repetitions performed at 80 and 90%, respectively.
The squat best predictor had the highest prediction
power (Table 3); the R2 value accounted for 26.9% of
the variance. The bench press best predictor (95% 1-
RM) and power dean best predictor (90% 1-RM) ac-
counted for 11.6 and 19.1 % of the variance, respectively
(Table 4). Although the corresponding best predictors
(multiple R) for each lift represented different percent-
ages of 1-RM, their respective predictive power (R 2)
was not significantly different (Table 4).
As expected, ANOVA revealed that regardless of
lift, the number of repetitions significantly decreased
(p < 0.05) (70% > 75% > 80% > 85% > 90% > 95% of 1-
RM) with increments in % 1-RM (Table 2). Also,
ANOVA revealed that the type of lift did not have any
effect on number of repetitions at any of the selected
1-RM percentages. Statistical comparisons between the
prediction chart in Table 1 and the current data (Table
2) were not possible because the data used to yield the
prediction chart's means were not available through
the literature. Nevertheless, qualitative comparisons
indicate that the number of repetitions expected to be
completed at selected 1-RM percentages are similar to
those actually completed at the same 1-RM percent-
ages.

Discussion
Results indicate that the corresponding lifting intensi-
ties (% 1-RM) that represented the best predictors of 1-
RM strength díffered between the 3 lifts (Table 3). Thís
suggests that in order to get the most accurate predic-
tion of the bench press 1-RM, attempts with 95% should
be made. Por the squat and power clean, attempts
should be made with 80 and 90%, respectívely. There-
fore, if a constant % 1-RM (e.g., 85%) is employed to
estímate 1-RM strength across various lifts, the results
might be inconsistent. This agrees with Hoeger et al. (6,
7), Clarke and Herman (1), Clarke and Irving (2), and
personal communication with various strength coaches
(R. Gullickson, 8/29/91; B. Jacobson, 8/13/91; A.
Johnson, 8/13/91; R. Parker, 9/24/91). Contraryto pre-
vious work, however, the present study measured 1-
RM prediction power of the established best 1-RM pre-
dictors. Our results revealed that despite different best
predictors, their respective predictive power was not
signifícantly different (p > O.OS).
Factors such as muscle groups tested (1, 2, 6, 7),
exercise performed (1, 2, 6, 7), specifícity of the test (per-
sonal communication, R. Gullickson, 8/13/91, 8/29/
91; R. Parker, 9/24/91), gender (6), and the athlete's
training level (6) are believed to influence 1-RM pre-
diction accuracy of submaximal repetition tests. Con-
cerning the present investigation, different 1-RM pre-
diction intensities might be explained by muscle groups
tested and perhaps movement patterns. However, no
conclusion can be made at this point as to how the lat-
ter might affect 1-RM prediction.
The results of this study also indicate that the mean
number of repetitions performed at the selected % 1-
RMs did not differ considerably from those established
in the prediction chart in Table 1. Since in this study the
number of repetitions performed at any intensity was
similar for all lifts (Table 2), the chart in Table 1 may be
used to predict 1-RM for the current resistance exer-
cises: bench press, squat, and power clean. This would
agree with Pleck and Kraemer (3), who suggested that
prediction charts are most accurate for large muscle
group lifts such as the bench press, squat, and power
clean. Similarities in Tables 1 and 2 may be due to the
subjects being skilled performers of the lifts these charts
supposedly predict the best (3).
Conclusions
Within the limitations of this study the following con-
clusions can be drawn: (a) Por the bench press, squat,
and power clean, the lifting intensities (% 1-RM) that
Predicting 1-RM Strength in Athletes 189
represent the best predictors of 1-RM strength are dif-
ferent. (b) Por these lifts there is no significant differ-
ence in the prediction power of the corresponding best
predictors of 1-RM strength. (e) The types of lifts em-
ployed in this study do not seem to have an effect on
the number of repetitions completed at any of the se-
lected 1-RM percentages. (d) The combination of lift and
lifting intensity do not seem to have an effect beyond
the separa te effects of these two factors in terms of num-
ber of repetitions performed. (e) Regardless of lift,
whether bench press, squat, or power clean, the num-
ber of repetitions one can perform at intensities greater
than 70% 1-RM seems to be similar to those established
by the typical prediction charts.
Practical Applications
Accurate prediction of 1-RM strength is a must for
the strength and conditioning specialist who is re-
sponsible for proper prescription of resistance exer-
cise. Our results indicate that for different lifts, per-
haps different % 1-RM intensities should be used to
come up with the best prediction of 1-RM strength.
Strength and conditioning coaches should consider
thís ínformation for testing 1-RM strength during
particular training cycles.
References
l. Clarke, D., and E. Herman. Objective determination of resistance
load for ten repetitions maximum for quadriceps development.
Res. Quar. 26:385-390. 1955.
2. Clarke, D., and R. Irving. Objective determination of resistance
load for ten repetitions maximum for knee flexion exercise. Res.
Quar. 31:131-135. 1960.
3. Fleck, S., and W. Kraemer. Desígning Resistance Training Programs.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1987.
4. Glass, G., and K. Hopkins. Statístical Methods in Education and Psy-
chology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1975.
5. Hatfield, F., and M. Krotee. Personalized Weight Training for Fitness
and Athletics. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 1984.
6. Hoeger, W., S. Barette, D. Hale, and D. Hopkins. Relationship be-
tween repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition
maximum. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 1:11-13. 1987.
7. Hoeger, W., D. Hopkins, S. Barette, and D. Hale. Relationship be-
tween repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition
maximum: A comparison between untrained and trained males
and females. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 4:47-54. 1990.
8. James, D., and R. Huegli. Conditioning far Football: The University of
Washington Way. West Point, NY: Leisure Press, 1982.
9. Landers,J. Maximum based on reps. NSCAJournal 1:60-61. 1985.
10. Roscoe, J. Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.
New York: Holt Rinehart, & Winston, 1975.
11. Welday, J. Should you check for strength with periodic max lifts?
Scholas. Coach 57:49-68. 1988.