Feasibility of the 2-point method for determining the 1-repetition maximum in the bench press exercise

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Title

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance


Human Kinetics Publishers Inc.

Place of Publication

United States


Centre for Exercise and Sport Science Research




García-Ramos, A., Haff, G. G., Pestaña-Melero, F. L., Pérez-Castilla, A., Rojas, F. J., Balsalobre-Fernández, C., & Jaric, S. (2018). Feasibility of the 2-Point Method for Determining the 1-Repetition Maximum in the Bench Press Exercise. International journal of sports physiology and performance, 13(4), 474-481. Available here.


Purpose: This study compared the concurrent validity and reliability of previously proposed generalized group equations for estimating the bench press (BP) 1-repetition maximum (1RM) with the individualized load-velocity relationship modeled with a 2-point method. Methods: Thirty men (BP 1RM relative to body mass: 1.08 [0.18] kg kg-1) performed 2 incremental loading tests in the concentric-only BP exercise and another 2 in the eccentric-concentric BP exercise to assess their actual 1RM and load-velocity relationships. A high velocity (∼1 m s-1) and a low velocity (∼0.5 m s-1) were selected from their load-velocity relationships to estimate the 1RM from generalized group equations and through an individual linear model obtained from the 2 velocities. Results: The directly measured 1RM was highly correlated with all predicted 1RMs (r = .847-.977). The generalized group equations systematically underestimated the actual 1RM when predicted from the concentric-only BP (P < .001; effect size = 0.15-0.94) but overestimated it when predicted from the eccentric-concentric BP (P < .001; effect size = 0.36-0.98). Conversely, a low systematic bias (range:-2.3 to 0.5 kg) and random errors (range: 3.0-3.8 kg), no heteroscedasticity of errors (r2 = .053-.082), and trivial effect size (range:-0.17 to 0.04) were observed when the prediction was based on the 2-point method. Although all examined methods reported the 1RM with high reliability (coefficient of variation ≤ 5.1%; intraclass correlation coefficient ≥ .89), the direct method was the most reliable (coefficient of variation < 2.0%; intraclass correlation coefficient ≥ .98). Conclusions: The quick, fatigue-free, and practical 2-point method was able to predict the BP 1RM with high reliability and practically perfect validity, and therefore, the authors recommend its use over generalized group equations.



Access Rights

subscription content