You could be reading the full-text of this article now if you...

If you have access to this article through your institution,
you can view this article in

Impact of Testing Strategy on Expression of Upper-Body Work Capacity and One-Repetition Maximum Prediction after Resistance Training in College-Aged Men and Women

Mayhew, Jerry L1,2; Brechue, William F3; Smith, Abbie E4; Kemmler, Wolfgang5; Lauber, Dirk5; Koch, Alexander J1,6

Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research:
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31822dcea0
Original Research
Abstract

Mayhew, JL, Brechue, WF, Smith, AE, Kemmler, W, Lauber, D, and Koch, AJ. Impact of testing strategy on expression of upper-body work capacity and one repetition maximum prediction after resistance training in college-aged men and women. J Strength Cond Res 25(10): 2796–2807, 2011—The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of resistance training on upper-body muscular strength and the expression of work capacity and muscular endurance. In addition, a training-induced change in the relationship between muscular strength and endurance was assessed by testing changes in the accuracy of using endurance repetitions to predict 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bench press before and after training. College-aged men (n = 85) and women (n = 62) completed a 12-week linear periodization resistance training program. Before and after training, the subjects were assessed for 1RM and repetitions to fatigue (RTFs) with a submaximal load. After pretraining 1RM determination, the subjects were randomly assigned to perform RTFs at 65% 1RM (n = 74) or 90% 1RM (n = 73). Pretraining and posttraining RTFs were conducted at the same respective %1RM. Work capacity was determined from repetition weight × RTF. After training, there was a significant increase in 1RM in both men (∼14%) and women (∼23%). Posttraining RTF was not different from pretraining RTF at 65 %1RM (18.2 ± 5.1 and 19.0 ± 6.0, respectively) but was significantly reduced in the 90% 1RM group (6.1 ± 3.6 vs. 4.5 ± 2.7, respectively). Likewise, there was a differential effect of training on the expression of work capacity, which increased in the 65 %1RM group (123 ± 155 kg-reps) but decreased in the 90% 1RM group (−62 ± 208 kg-reps); the effect was independent of gender within each testing group. In conclusion, the changes in muscular strength associated with resistance training produced an increase in work capacity when tested with a 65 %1RM load without a change in endurance. In contrast, both work capacity and endurance decreased when tested with 90% 1RM. Thus, the impact of strength training on work capacity and muscle endurance is specific to the load at which endurance testing is performed.

Author Information

1Human Performance Laboratory, Truman State University, Kirksville, Missouri; 2Department of Physiology, A.T. Still University of Health Sciences, Kirksville, Missouri; 3Department of Physical Education, Center for Physical Development Excellence, United States Military Academy, West Point, New York; 4Department of Exercise and Sports Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; 5Institute of Medical Physics, University of Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany; and 6Health, Exercise and Sports Science Department, Lenoir-Rhyne University, Hickory, North Carolina

Address correspondence to Jerry L. Mayhew, jmayhew@truman.edu.

© 2011 National Strength and Conditioning Association