The Accuracy of Early Reproductive History and Physical Activity Participation Recall Across Multiple Age Ranges.

Background: The ability to accurately recall specific reproductive health events is an integral aspect of medical decision making and evaluating a female's overall health and wellness across their lifespan. The Health and Reproductive Survey (HeRS) was developed to recall reproductive events and environmental influences on reproductive characteristics throughout the lifespan of a female. This study aimed to determine how reliably women recall certain events during menarche and early reproductive years. It was hypothesized that age at menarche, hormonal contraceptive use, and physical activity would be recalled reliably among all age ranges, while the recall reliability for cycle regularity and length would be more inconsistent with advancing age. Materials and Methods: A total of 144 participants (age: 32.73 ± 11.92), completed the HeRS on two occasions spaced 4 months apart to investigate recall reliability. Cohen's kappa coefficient was used to assess the consistency of categorical responses and 95% limits of agreement were used for continuous data. Results: Although physical activity changes had greater variability than anticipated (0.79), the recall reliability among the youngest (1) and oldest (0.89) age groups was high, and females were able to consistently recall the age of menarche (0.83), physical activity level (0.9), cessation of period during early reproductive years (0.91), and birth control use following menarche (0.85) and during the early reproductive years (0.9). Conclusions: The HeRS is a useful tool for reliably recalling reproductive history and physical activity participation across multiple age ranges and can be utilized to gather crucial information throughout the reproductive lifespan.

Accuracy of Predicting One-Repetition Maximum from Submaximal Velocity in The Barbell Back Squat and Bench Press.

This study examined the accuracy of predicting a free-weight back squat and a bench press one-repetition maximum (1RM) using both 2- and 4-point submaximal average concentric velocity (ACV) methods. Seventeen resistance trained men performed a warm-up and a 1RM test on the squat and bench press with ACV assessed on all repetitions. The ACVs during the warm-up closest to 1.0 and 0.5m.s-1 were used in the 2-point linear regression forecast of the 1RM and the ACVs established at loads closest to 20, 50, 70, and 80% of the 1RM were used in the 4-point 1RM prediction. Repeated measures ANOVA and Bland-Altman and Mountain plots were used to analyze agreement between predicted and actual 1RMs. ANOVA indicated significant differences between the predicted and the actual 1RM for both the 2- and 4-point equations in both exercises (p<0.001). The 2-point squat prediction overestimated the 1RM by 29.12±0.07kg and the 4-point squat prediction overestimated the 1RM by 38.53±5.01kg. The bench press 1RM was overestimated by 9.32±4.68kg with the 2-point method and by 7.15±6.66kg using the 4-point method. Bland-Altman and Mountain plots confirmed the ANOVA findings as data were not tightly conformed to the respective zero difference lines and Bland-Altman plots showed wide limits of agreement. These data demonstrate that both 2- and 4-point velocity methods predicted the bench press 1RM more accurately than the squat 1RM. However, a lack of agreement between the predicted and the actual 1RM was observed for both exercises when volitional velocity was used.

Methods for Controlling and Reporting Resistance Training Proximity to Failure: Current Issues and Future Directions.

Resistance training variables such as volume, load, and frequency are well defined. However, the variable proximity to failure does not have a consistent quantification method, despite being defined as the number of repetitions in reserve (RIR) upon completion of a resistance training set. Further, there is between-study variability in the definition of failure itself. Studies have defined failure as momentary (inability to complete the concentric phase despite maximal effort), volitional (self-termination), or have provided no working definition. Methods to quantify proximity to failure include percentage-based prescription, repetition maximum zone training, velocity loss, and self-reported RIR; each with positives and negatives. Specifically, applying percentage-based prescriptions across a group may lead to a wide range of per-set RIR owing to interindividual differences in repetitions performed at specific percentages of 1 repetition maximum. Velocity loss is an objective method; however, the relationship between velocity loss and RIR varies set-to-set, across loading ranges, and between exercises. Self-reported RIR is inherently individualized; however, its subjectivity can lead to inaccuracy. Further, many studies, regardless of quantification method, do not report RIR. Consequently, it is difficult to make specific recommendations for per-set proximity to failure to maximize hypertrophy and strength. Therefore, this review aims to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the current proximity to failure quantification methods. Further, we propose future directions for researchers and practitioners to quantify proximity to failure, including implementation of absolute velocity stops using individual average concentric velocity/RIR relationships. Finally, we provide guidance for reporting self-reported RIR regardless of the quantification method.