Exercise training is a cornerstone in the prevention and rehabilitation of cardiovascular disease. While research has primarily focused on endurance training, resistance training becomes more and more important. The gold standard to prescribe resistance training intensity or monitor longitudinal changes is the 1-Repetition-Maximum (1-RM) test. However, particularly for unexperienced individuals, this test may not be recommendable due to the high load and an increased risk of injuries. Alternatively, there are several published formulas to estimate the 1-RM based on a multiple-repetition-maximum (or repetition-to-failure) test. However, these formulas have been primarily tested in healthy individuals. Moreover, the reliability of the 1-RM estimation based on two tests with different submaximal weight is unknown. Therefore, the present study evaluates the agreement of the 1-RM estimation (based on different formulas) between two Multiple-RM tests with different weight in 50 patients with cardiovascular disease (heart failure, coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation) or cardiovascular risk factors (type 2 diabetes, arterial hypertension).
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Estimated 1-Repetition-Maximum
Timeframe: cross-sectional study (day 1)