Running head: ARTICLE REVIEW: 1MR TEST RESULTS 1
ARTICLE REVIEW: 1MR TEST RESULTS IN LEG PRESS DONE WITHOUT OR WITH
PRIOR IRM TEST ON BLACK SQUAT
Name:
Institution affiliation:
Date:
ARTICLE REVIEW: 1MR TEST RESULTS 2
ARTICLE REVIEW: 1MR TEST RESULTS IN LEG PRESS DONE WITHOUT OR WITH
PRIOR IRM TEST ON BLACK SQUAT
Article Reasoning and Relationship with Exercise Physiology
This article compares the 1MR test results in Leg Press done without (LEG) or with prior
IRM test on Black Squat (BS/LEG). The 1RM is a maximal weight a person can lift for just one
repetition using the appropriate method. It is the standard for evaluating an individual’s strength
ability. This ability is determined by the body’s response toward exercise. Exercise physiology
deals with the professional study of the body's reaction to physical activity, including its adaption
to physical activity with time. Therefore, the article relates to exercise physiology since it
investigates one of the standards that determine a person’s strength, which is a body response.
Introduction
This study’s objective was to compare 1RM test results in the Leg Press exercise done in
the Back Squat, with or without a prior 1RM, and examine how it affects the volume load, MRS,
and RPE of the strength training. The 1RM is used in prescribing the intensity in strength
exercise. It is done continuously to the limit of a trainee's ability to perform an action while
entirely moving voluntarily. The 1RM test attains a maximum point when the individual can
perform an activity without getting exhausted.
The 1RM has produced desirable results in muscle strength, as well as hypertrophy.
However, achieving muscle hypertrophy requires prescription procedures that have several sets
of exercises to enhance accumulated fatigue. The 1RM percentage realized in the tests without
fatigue resulting from prior exercises may be insufficient for strength training involving multiple
sets of exercises. This is because the training volume can be adversely affected by the higher
intensity, potentially influencing the exercise outcomes. This outcome may arise from the
ARTICLE REVIEW: 1MR TEST RESULTS 3
inherent aspects of strength and training adaptations, including lower intensities that lead to
strength gains and lower volumes that result in low resistance. Hence, the changes in training
considerations – variations in volume and intensity can affect specific outcomes. For this reason,
it is vital to determine the differences of the successive undertaking of IRM tests in the same
session relative to separate sessions using over one exercise in the training procedure.
Methods
The researchers used ten trained individuals weighing between 70.85kg and 9075kg with a
strength training experience of between 1.26 and 6.94 years and a minimum regular training of three
times a week. The subjects also had experience in the research's training protocol. The participants
undertook six experimental sessions each seven days apart. The subjects were familiarized with the
research topic in the first sessions. Anthropometric measures and acquainting with the 1MR tests
were done in the second session. The subjects undertook the IRM test first with the Black Squat, and
then they undertook the BG/LEG, with a 10-minute interval. They undertook another 1RM test of
Leg Press exercise in the fourth session, but without prior LEG. They took a strength exercise
consisting of the Leg Press with the weight associated with the 1RM percentage attained in the
BS/LEG session test – PROT-A. The participants undertook the same strength exercise in the sixth
session, but using the Leg Press with the weight linked with the 1RM attained in the Leg session test
(PROT-B). The investigators recorded the weight lifted, RPE, and MRS in all experimental sessions
performed.
Strengths
This experimental design eradicated any conditions that could interfere with the
exercises. A session was set aside for familiarizing the subjects with the IRM tests and
exercises. Apart from the researchers instructing the participants not to use any supplements or
ARTICLE REVIEW: 1MR TEST RESULTS 4
ergogenic aids, or alter their training routines, a skilled nutritionist researcher did a nutritional
evaluation to ensure that the subjects followed the directions before each session.
The methodology complies with the ethics of research involving human subjects. Studies
with human subjects should have the participant’s consent (Tsay, 2015). The subjects provided
consent to engage in the study before the experiments began. The study followed the guidelines
of the relevant authority: the National Health Council. It was authorized by the Federal
University of Minas Gerais Research Ethics Committee. Studies involving human subjects must
also seek to maximize benefit and keep harm at a minimum (Tsay, 2015). The methodology
complied with this ethical requirement since the researchers administered the Physical Activity
Readiness Questionnaire. This questionnaire helped determine the safety or potential risk of
exercise for participants according to their health conditions.
Weakness
This experimental design's exclusion criterion is not clear. The researchers have indicated
that individuals with medical conditions that could impact the exercises' undertaking were excluded
from the study. They have not specified these conditions for readers to know and understand. It
would be difficult for prospective researchers to replicate the experiment without knowing the
medical conditions that the current study’s researchers were talking about.
Results
The 1RM was significantly lower on the BS/LEG session between 284.5 kg and 465.5 kg
than on the LEG session between 534.3 and 343.7 kg. The Leg Press MRS was significantly
higher in PROT-A compared to PROT-B, but PROT-B's volume load was considerably higher
between 15,591.8 kg and 27,630 kg than PROT-A between 12,307.3 kg and 23,646.3 kg. The
investigation did not show any significant variations between RPE means. Therefore, the
ARTICLE REVIEW: 1MR TEST RESULTS 5
successive undertaking of two 1RM tests in the same session may lower 1RM, effectively
reducing the strength training's volume load.
Discussion
Strengths
The discussion tests the researchers’ hypothesis. The researchers hypothesized that the
prior activity of the 1RM test has a negative effect on the 1RM in the successive training, and,
accordingly, result in different training session’s volume load and MRS. Findings show that the
1RM test's prior activity in the Back Squat substantially reduced the 1RM in the Leg Press
exercise. Besides, the intensity influenced by the 1RM percentage attained in PROT-B decreased
the MRS. However, it raised the training session's volume load without changing the RPE;
hence, the researchers confirmed their hypothesis.
The discussion also relates the findings to those of previous studies – those in agreement
and disagreement. For instance, the authors connect their results to those of Figueiredo et al., who
established a significant decrease in the 1RM when monoarticular tests were done before
multiarticular ones in one session. Contrary, the experiments of Carli et al. (2016) and Neto et al.
(2015) showed no notable variations in the 1RM in the tests done with varying execution orders
irrespective of being done in one session.
Weaknesses
This discussion's setback is that the researchers found no research on the 1RM tests done for
the same muscle group on one and separate test sessions; hence, limiting the discussion of this
study's findings.
Conclusion
This article has empirically demonstrated that a 1RM test's prior performance can
negatively influence a successive exercise's 1RM when done in the same session, resulting in
ARTICLE REVIEW: 1MR TEST RESULTS 6
reduced training intensity. However, in different sessions, doing a 1RM test can decrease the
MRS, but a rise in the absolute intensity can influence higher exercise volume load. The article’s
methodological design and exclusion criteria effectively removed conditions that could interfere
with the results. The 1RM is a standard for assessing an individual’s strength – a maximal an
individual can lift in a single repetition. Hence, this article significantly relates to exercise
physiology because it investigates an ability influenced by the body’s response toward exercise.
Future studies should bridge the gap in the 1RM tests done for similar muscle mass percentage on
single or separate test sessions, in which there are no studies.
ARTICLE REVIEW: 1MR TEST RESULTS 7
References
Carli, J., Figueira, T., Magosso, R., Neto, J., Souza, G., & Perez, S. (2016). Are there differences
between 1RM loads determined in isolated tests vs. in three different sequences? Journal
Of Exercise Physiology Online, 19(6), 104-111.
Figueiredo, T., Miranda, H., Willardson, & Pio, A. (2016). Influence of Exercise Order on One
and Ten Repetition Maximum Loads Determination. Journal Of Exercise Physiology
Online, 19(2), 85-90.
Fonseca, I., Cruz, V., Fonseca, M., Simões, C., Cossenzo, P., & Szmuchrowski, L. et al. (2020).
Subsequent Performance of Two 1RM Tests in the Same Session Reduces 1RM and,
Consequently, the Volume Load of Strength Training Session. Journal Of Exercise
Physiology Online, 23(5), 65-75.
Neto, J., Cedin, L., Dato, C., & Bertucci, D. (2015). A Single Session of Testing for One
Repetition Maximum (1RM) with Eight Exercises is Trustworthy. Journal Of Exercise
Physiology Online, 18(3), 74-80.
Tsay, C. (2015). Revisiting the Ethics of Research on Human Subjects. AMA Journal Of Ethics,
17(12), 1105-1107. https://doi.org/10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.12.fred1-1512
