Reliability of 1-repetition maximum estimation for upper and lower body muscular strength measurement in untrained middle aged type 2 diabetic patients

Unaise Abdul-Hameed, Prateek Rangra, Mohd Yakub Shareef, Mohd Ejaz Hussain, Unaise Abdul-Hameed, Prateek Rangra, Mohd Yakub Shareef, Mohd Ejaz Hussain

Abstract

Purpose: The 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) test is the gold standard test for evaluating maximal dynamic strength of groups of muscles. However, safety of actual 1-RM testing is questionable in clinical situations such as type 2 diabetes (T2D), where an estimated 1-RM test is preferred. It is unclear if acceptable test retest reliability exists for the estimated 1-RM test in middle aged T2D patients. This study examined the reliability of the estimated 1-RM strength test in untrained middle aged T2D subjects.

Methods: Twenty five untrained diabetic males (n=19) and females (n=6) aged 40.7+0.4 years participated in the study. Participants undertook the first estimated 1-RM test for five exercises namely supine bench press, leg press, lateral pull, leg extension and seated biceps curls. A familiarisation session was provided three to five days before the first test. 1-RM was estimated for all participants by Brzycki 1-RM prediction equation. Another identical 1-RM estimation procedure occurred one week after first test. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), paired t-test, standard error of measurement (SEM), Bland-Altman plots, and estimation of 95% CI were used to assess reliability.

Results: Test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC(2,1)=0.98-0.99) for all measurements with the highest for leg extension (ICC(2,1)=0.99). The SEM was lowest for lateral pull and leg extension exercises. Paired t-tests showed non-significant differences between the means of 2 sessions across three of five exercises.

Conclusions: The study findings suggest that estimation of 1-RM is reliable for upper and lower body muscular strength measurement in untrained middle aged T2D patients.

Keywords: 1-Repetition Maximum; Exercise; Prediction; Reliability; Type 2 Diabetes.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Limits of Agreement Plots for three upper body exercises. The differences between estimated 1-RM test scores on test and retest are plotted against each individual's average for the two tests. The dotted lines represent the 95% limits of agreement (+1.96 standard deviations). Values along X and Y axis are given in kilograms.
Fig 2
Fig 2
Limits of Agreement Plots for two lower body exercises. The differences between estimated 1-RM test scores on test and retest are plotted against each individual's average for the two tests.

References

    1. Levinger I, Roger B, Cody DV, et al. Resistance training for chronic heart failure patients on beta blocker medications. Int J Cardiol. 2005;102:493–9.
    1. Fleck SJ, Kraemer WJ. Designing Resistance Training Programs. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2004.
    1. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA, Fry AC, et al. Strength training: development and evaluation of methodology. In: Maud PJ, Foster C, editors. Physiological Assessment of Human Fitness. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2006. pp. 119–150.
    1. Rhea MR, Ball SD, Phillips WT, et al. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2002;16:250–5.
    1. Braith RW, Graves JE, Leggett SH, et al. Effect of training on the relationship between maximal and submaximal strength. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993;25:132–8.
    1. Taylor JD, Bandy WD. Intrarater reliability of 1 repetition maximum estimation in determining shoulder internal rotation muscular strength performance. J Strength Cond. Res. 2005;19:163–8.
    1. Lesuer DA, Mccomick JH, Mayhew JL, et al. The accuracy of prediction equations for estimating 1-RM performance in the bench press, squat, and deadlift. J Strength Cond Res. 1997;11:211–3.
    1. Brzycki M. Strength testing – predicting a one-rep max from reps to fatigue. JOPERD. 1993;64:88–90.
    1. Mayhew JL, Prinster JL, Ware JS, et al. Muscular endurance repetitions to predict bench press strength in men of different training levels. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1995;35:108–13.
    1. Heinonen A, Sievanen H, Viitasalo J, et al. Reproducibility of computer measurement of maximal isometric strength and electromyography in sedentary middle-aged women. Eur J Appl Physiol. 1994;68:310–4.
    1. Andersen H, Nielsen S, Mogensen CE, Jakobsen J. Muscle strength in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes. 2004;53:1543–8.
    1. Marwick TH, Hordern MD, Miller T, et al. Exercise training for type 2 diabetes mellitus: impact on cardiovascular risk. A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2009;119:3244–62.
    1. Balady GJ, Berra KA, Golding LA, et al. ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2000.
    1. Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med. 1998;17:101–10.
    1. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall; 2009.
    1. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19:231–40.
    1. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.
    1. Levinger I, Goodman C, Hare Dl, et al. The Reliability of the 1RM strength test for untrained middle-aged individuals. J Sci Med Sport. 2009;12:310–6.
    1. Taylor JD, Fletcher JP. Reliability of the 8-repetition maximum test in men and women. J Sci Med Sport. 2012;15:69–73.
    1. Prince SA, Adamo KB, Hamel ME, et al. A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity inadults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008;5:56.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi