Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37792272›Full record

ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2024

Maximal Number of Repetitions at Percentages of the One Repetition Maximum: A Meta-Regression and Moderator Analysis of Sex, Age, Training Status, and Exercise.

James L Nuzzo, Matheus D Pinto, Kazunori Nosaka, James Steele

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

James L NuzzoCentre for Human Performance, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA, 6027, Australia. j.nuzzo@ecu.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-9081-0522
Matheus D PintoCentre for Human Performance, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA, 6027, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2616-2492
Kazunori NosakaCentre for Human Performance, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA, 6027, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7373-4994
James SteeleSchool of Sport, Health, and Social Sciences, Solent University, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8003-0757

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The maximal number of repetitions that can be completed at various percentages of the one repetition maximum (1RM) [REPS ~ %1RM relationship] is foundational knowledge in resistance exercise programming. The current REPS ~ %1RM relationship is based on few studies and has not incorporated uncertainty into estimations or accounted for between-individuals variation. Therefore, we conducted a meta-regression to estimate the mean and between-individuals standard deviation of the number of repetitions that can be completed at various percentages of 1RM. We also explored if the REPS ~ %1RM relationship is moderated by sex, age, training status, and/or exercise. A total of 952 repetitions-to-failure tests, completed by 7289 individuals in 452 groups from 269 studies, were identified. Study groups were predominantly male (66%), healthy (97%), < 59 years of age (92%), and resistance trained (60%). The bench press (42%) and leg press (14%) were the most commonly studied exercises. The REPS ~ %1RM relationship for mean repetitions and standard deviation of repetitions were best described using natural cubic splines and a linear model, respectively, with mean and standard deviation for repetitions decreasing with increasing %1RM. More repetitions were evident in the leg press than bench press across the loading spectrum, thus separate REPS ~ %1RM tables were developed for these two exercises. Analysis of moderators suggested little influences of sex, age, or training status on the REPS ~ %1RM relationship, thus the general main model REPS ~ %1RM table can be applied to all individuals and to all exercises other than the bench press and leg press. More data are needed to develop REPS ~ %1RM tables for other exercises.

Indexed as

Muscle, SkeletalResistance TrainingExerciseExercise TherapyFemaleHumansLinear ModelsMaleMuscle StrengthWeight Lifting

Identifiers

PMID37792272
PMCPMC10933212

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.