Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
I was looking over some test for hypogonadal/HIV+ research papers, when I noticed their section on testing methods for calculating one rep max which will be used as a standard for measuring strength increase, etc....
It went something like below:
"Measurement of muscle strength.
5 min rest period, subjects began by performing one set of 5-10 reps of selected exercise using 40-60 percent of estimated max. The resistance was progressively increased until subjects could not complete lift; last successful was recorded as max."
Another study said that “resistance [was] progressively increased until the men could not complete the lift.”
Which is pretty much the same method as the first study, but worded differently.
So...I'm curious. Wouldn't fatigue and any learning effect skew the above? Isn't there a better way to measure one rep max? For example Matt Brzycki's formula?
Predicted one rep = weight lifted/ 1.0278 - .0278X
X being the number of reps (1-10) to fatigues.
With the accuracy decreasing as the number of reps go beyond 10
Or has the research paper's mediocre method become a necessity as some semblance of a standard is being created in the science community (less variables when comparing diff papers etc)
I will point out that both studies were developed by similar teams as I have a personal interest in one of the professors. So I will admit that I do not know if other researchers use different methods to calculate one rep maxs or if Brzycki's formula is another example of theory not coinciding with reality.
Can any strength trainers/expert bbs confirm if either method is accurate? Heck, they might end up giving the same answer.
It went something like below:
"Measurement of muscle strength.
5 min rest period, subjects began by performing one set of 5-10 reps of selected exercise using 40-60 percent of estimated max. The resistance was progressively increased until subjects could not complete lift; last successful was recorded as max."
Another study said that “resistance [was] progressively increased until the men could not complete the lift.”
Which is pretty much the same method as the first study, but worded differently.
So...I'm curious. Wouldn't fatigue and any learning effect skew the above? Isn't there a better way to measure one rep max? For example Matt Brzycki's formula?
Predicted one rep = weight lifted/ 1.0278 - .0278X
X being the number of reps (1-10) to fatigues.
With the accuracy decreasing as the number of reps go beyond 10
Or has the research paper's mediocre method become a necessity as some semblance of a standard is being created in the science community (less variables when comparing diff papers etc)
I will point out that both studies were developed by similar teams as I have a personal interest in one of the professors. So I will admit that I do not know if other researchers use different methods to calculate one rep maxs or if Brzycki's formula is another example of theory not coinciding with reality.
Can any strength trainers/expert bbs confirm if either method is accurate? Heck, they might end up giving the same answer.
