IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0294509.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is two-point method a valid and reliable method to predict 1RM? A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Zongwei Chen
  • Zheng Gong
  • Liwen Pan
  • Xiuli Zhang

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the two-point method in predicting 1RM compared to the direct method, as well as analyze the factors influencing its accuracy. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases was conducted. Out of the 88 initially identified studies, 16 were selected for full review, and their outcome measures were analyzed. The findings of this review indicated that the two-point method slightly overestimated 1RM (effect size = 0.203 [95%CI: 0.132, 0.275]; P

Suggested Citation

  • Zongwei Chen & Zheng Gong & Liwen Pan & Xiuli Zhang, 2023. "Is two-point method a valid and reliable method to predict 1RM? A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(11), pages 1-25, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0294509
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294509
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0294509
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0294509&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0294509?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0294509. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.