A Comparison of Subjective Estimations and Objective Velocities at Quantifying Proximity to Failure for the Bench Press in Resistance-Trained Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Hickmott, LM, Butcher, SJ, and Chilibeck, PD. A comparison of subjective estimations and objective velocities at quantifying proximity to failure for the bench press in resistance-trained men and women. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): 1206-1212, 2024-The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of quantifying repetitions in reserve (RIR) in the bench press among 18 men and 18 women between 2 conditions: (a) subjective estimations and (b) objective velocities. Subjects performed 4 sessions over 10 days: (a) 1 repetition maximum (1RM) test; (b) repetition-to-failure test at 80% of 1RM; (c) 3 sets to failure at 80% of 1RM; and (d) 3 sets to failure at 75, 80, and 85% of 1RM. During sessions 2, 3, and 4, subjects verbally stated their perceived 4 and 2 RIR intraset, whereas average concentric velocity was recorded on all repetitions. The dependent variable for the subjective estimations condition was the difference between the actual number of RIR and the subject's subjective estimated number of RIR at the verbally stated 4 and 2 RIR. The dependent variable for the objective velocities condition was the difference between the actual number of RIR and the number of RIR calculated from the subject's baseline individualized last repetition average concentric velocity-RIR profile. Significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Sessions 3 and 4 had significant ( p < 0.001) condition × set and condition × load interactions, respectively, at both 4 and 2 RIR. Objective velocities were significantly more accurate than subjective estimations on set 1 and set 2 at both RIRs during session 3 and for 75 and 80% of 1RM at both RIRs during session 4. Objective velocities exhibit significantly greater accuracy than subjective estimations at quantifying RIR during initial sets and lower loads.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".