PeerJ (Sep 2023)

Estimating the one-repetition maximum on the leg-press exercise in female breast cancer survivors

  • David M. Díez-Fernández,
  • Andrés Baena-Raya,
  • Amador García-Ramos,
  • Alba Esteban-Simón,
  • Manuel A. Rodríguez-Pérez,
  • Antonio J. Casimiro-Andújar,
  • Alberto Soriano-Maldonado

DOI
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.16175
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 11
p. e16175

Abstract

Read online Read online

We examined the accuracy of twelve different velocity-based methods for predicting the bilateral leg-press exercise one-repetition maximum (1RM) in breast cancer survivors. Twenty-one female breast cancer survivors (age 50.2 ± 10.8 years) performed an incremental loading test up to the 1RM. Individual load-velocity relationships were modeled by linear and quadratic polynomial regression models considering the mean velocity (MV) and peak velocity (PV) values recorded at five incremental loads (~45-55-65-75-85% of 1RM) (multiple-point methods) and by a linear regression model considering only the two distant loads (~45–85% of 1RM) (two-point method). The 1RM was always estimated through these load-velocity relationships as the load associated with a general (MV: 0.24 m/s; PV: 0.60 m/s) and an individual (MV and PV of the 1RM trial) minimal velocity threshold (MVT). Compared to the actual 1RM, the 1RMs estimated by all linear regression models showed trivial differences (Hedge’s g ranged from 0.08 to 0.17), very large to nearly perfect correlations (r ranged from 0.87 to 0.95), and no heteroscedasticity of the errors (coefficient of determination (r2) < 0.10 obtained from the relationship of the raw differences between the actual and predicted 1RMs with their average value). Given the acceptable and comparable accuracy for all 1RM linear prediction methods, the two-point method and a general MVT could be recommended to simplify the testing procedure of the bilateral leg-press 1RM in breast cancer survivors.

Keywords