Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 1999, 13(3), 242–246
q 1999 National Strength & Conditioning Association
Validity of 1RM Prediction Equations for
Older Adults
KATHLEEN M. KNUTZEN, LORRAINE R. BRILLA,
Department of Physical Education, Health and Recreation, Western Washington University,
Bellingham, WA 98225-9067.
ABSTRACT
This study examined the validity of 6 1-repetition maximum
(1RM) repetitions-to-fatigue prediction equations on 11 ma-
chine lifts for 51 older adults (70.7 6 6.1 years). In the first
session, subjects selected a weight that they could lift for 7–
10 repetitions on each machine exercise, and a 1RM was pre-
dicted using 6 different equations. In session 2, subjects com-
pleted an actual 1RM by selecting the maximum load that
they could safely lift once (1–3 reps). Correlations between
the actual and the 6 predicted 1RM scores demonstrated a
moderate to strong relationship for all exercises (upper ex-
tremity: r 5 0.77–0.90; lower extremity: r 5 0.60–0.80). The
average predicted 1RM value was lower than the actual 1RM
for all exercises and all prediction equations (p # 0.001). The
use of a prediction equation for older adults appears to be a
valid measure of 1RM within a range of 1–10 kg, depending
on the machine lift. In all cases, the prediction equation un-
derestimated the actual 1RM.
Key Words: strength, seniors, weight training
Reference Data: Knutzen, K.M., L.R. Brilla, and D.
Caine. Validity of 1RM prediction equations for older
adults. J. Strength Cond. Res. 13(3):242–246. 1999.
Introduction
S trength training has become a popular form of ex-
ercise for older adults, particularly because of the
positive relationship that has been demonstrated be-
tween strength and daily function (8, 9, 14, 24, 30, 31).
More and more older adults are starting weight-train-
ing programs at the urging of their physicians or out
of a desire to increase or maintain strength in specific
areas of the body. A major motivating factor in the
strength-training area for older adults is the desire to
maintain strength so that daily activities do not be-
come unmanageable and eventually impossible. The
desire to be independent well into the later years has
brought many more seniors to the weight room.
The role of strength in activities of daily living has
been shown to be significant. For example, strength
impairment, particularly in the lower extremity, has
242
AND DENNIS CAINE
been identified as one of the factors related to in-
creased risk of falls (1, 12, 13, 27, 34, 35, 38). Strength
has also been determined to be an important factor in
efficient walking, stair climbing, rising out of a chair,
and other activities of daily living (30, 31, 33, 37).
Strength-training programs for older adults have
been very effective in increasing strength in targeted
muscle groups. Recent training programs and research
studies using older adults have incorporated high-re-
sistance training programs similar to those used with
the younger counterparts of the elderly. The results
have been very satisfactory, yielding substantial
strength gains across all fitness levels and proving to
be effective for even the frail elderly (1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16,
26, 28).
With the increased prescription of high-resistance
strength-training programs (as compared with the
lower resistance, 5–30-lb. protocols prescribed in the
past), the evaluation of the 1-repetition maximum
(1RM) has become very important. A strength pro-
gram might require that older adults progress very
quickly to a workload that is in the range of 75–80%
of 1RM in the training cycle (8, 9, 16), and accuracy of
measurement of the 1RM is important to determine
accuracy of the training load. Regular evaluation of the
1RM is also necessary in any strength-training pro-
gram in order to maintain a specific training intensity
in order to show appreciable strength gains (10).
Using a prediction equation for determining the
1RM may offer an alternative for the older adult who
is hesitant to lift a maximal weight or who is medically
restricted from a maximal exertion. Such use also al-
lows the 1RM to be determined from data collected in
an actual workout session and is a tool that can be
used to efficiently implement a prescription based on
a percentage of maximum effort.
There are a number of prediction equations avail-
able for determining 1RM (2, 4, 10, 17, 20–23, 25, 32).
Prediction equations for determining 1RM have been
shown be more or less accurate depending on the
loads and the repetitions used (22). Some researchers
suggest that the use of the equations may be more

accurate on free-weight or multiple-joint exercises (36),
whereas others have found very significant relation-
ships between free weights and machine lifts (32).
Some equations have been shown to overpredict,
whereas others underpredict the 1RM (2, 5). Still oth-
ers suggest that a prediction equation can be inter-
changed and used successfully with multiple exercises
(22). The present study examined the validity of 6 pre-
diction equations that use repetitions-to-fatigue re-
gression formulas.
Methods
Subjects
Fifty-one subjects volunteered and provided written
consent to participate in the study. All subjects were
enrolled in an 8-week high-resistance training pro-
gram (80% of 1RM), which was part of a longitudinal
study assessing the effect of strength training on func-
tion in older adults. All of the subjects were cleared
for high-resistance weight training by their physicians.
Subjects were excluded from participation if they had
any unstable cardiorespiratory, cardiovascular, meta-
bolic, musculoskeletal, or neurological disorders that
would interfere with their ability to complete the pro-
gram. The subjects had a history of many different
medical conditions, with the largest number of sub-
jects having a history of high blood pressure and high
cholesterol. On the activity questionnaires, the major-
ity of the subjects rated themselves as being mildly or
moderately active in terms of their general activity lev-
el, and the majority of the subjects reported being suc-
cessful in numerous daily living tasks. The majority of
the subjects were on medication and wore corrective
lenses.
The subject characteristics (M 1 SD) were as fol-
lows: gender—21 males, 30 females; age—females,
69.1 6 5.72 years; males, 73.1 6 6.04 years; total, 70.7
6 6.12 years; height—females, 164.2 6 6.8 cm; males,
172.3 6 7.5 cm; total. 167.6 6 8.1 cm; and weight—
females, 71.9 6 13.7 kg; males, 76.6 6 15.1 kg; total,
73.9 6 14.3 kg.
Participants completed 2 experimental sessions, 5
to 8 days apart, on 11 machine exercises. During test
session 1, the repetitions-to-fatigue data for the pre-
dicted 1RM equations were collected over 1 to 2 days.
In session 2, subjects completed an actual 1RM on each
exercise. Subjects were given verbal instructions on
both test routines, and actual testing took place after
a 10-minute warm-up routine. Testing took place at the
end of an 8-week high-resistance training program,
and all subjects were familiar with both equipment
and proper techniques for each machine lift. Partici-
pants were also familiar with both the actual and the
predicted measurement techniques. The equipment
used in the testing was manufactured by Badger Fit-
ness (Magnum II, Milwaukee, WI) and Elgin Exercise
Older Adult Predicted 1RM 243
Equipment Corporation (Des Plaines, IL). Test–retest
reliability for older adults performing on similar
equipment was found to be 0.95–0.98 for selected ex-
ercises (15). The order of testing was the same for both
the actual and predicted measurements. There were no
injuries reported as a result of testing for either the
actual or predicted measurements.
Procedures
Machine Lifts. Actual and predicted 1RM measure-
ments were made on 11 machine lifts: triceps press,
biceps curl, lateral row, bench press, supine leg press,
hip flexion, hip extension, hip abduction, hip adduc-
tion, plantarflexion, and dorsiflexion. Both triceps
press and biceps curl exercises were measured while
the individual was in a seated position. In the triceps
press, press action was initiated at the waist level and
completed at full extension. In the biceps curl, the arm
was stabilized on a pad at approximately 458. With the
forearm supinated, subjects flexed the forearm from
the extended position up through the full range of mo-
tion. Lateral row and bench press measurements were
also performed from a seated position, with the trunk
stabilized anteriorly (lateral row) or posteriorly (bench
press). Full range-of-motion measurements were eval-
uated. The supine leg press was evaluated from a
starting position, with both feet placed on the vertical
plate at shoulder width’s distance apart. With the knee
angle at 908, subjects extended until terminal range of
motion was achieved. The upper extremity was stabi-
lized with trunk support and hand contact with sta-
bilizing bars. All hip measurements were made on a
multihip machine and recorded in the standing posi-
tion, with subjects holding on to stabilizing bars to
keep the trunk vertically aligned. The machine was ad-
justed for the anthropometric characteristics of each
subject so that the contact was made at mid-thigh,
with the axis of the machine aligned with the anatom-
ical hip joint. Both plantarflexion and dorsiflexion
measurements were recorded on an Elgin Ankle Ex-
ercise Machine, which allowed plate loading on the an-
terior or posterior aspect of the foot. From the seated
position with the knee at 908, the foot was moved from
a 908 tibia orientation to the end of the active range of
motion.
Actual 1RM. A 3-trial protocol to reach the maxi-
mum weight was used. After a warm-up of 7–10 rep-
etitions, subjects estimated a weight based on their lift-
ing record for the previous 8 weeks. The subject per-
formed the lift, and if he/she perceived the lift to be
easy, the weight was increased by 10 lb. The 1RM val-
ue was recorded as the highest weight recorded in 3
trials (10).
Predicted 1RM. Subjects warmed up with light
weights and stretching. In consultation with the train-
er, subjects selected a weight that they could lift 7–10
times. Lifts were completed in a slow, controlled
244 Knutzen, Brilla, and Caine

Table 1. Actual and predicted 1RM scores (mean 6 SD kg).

Brzycki Epley Lander Mayhew O’Connor Wathan

Exercise Actual RM predicted RM Predicted RM predicted RM predicted RM predicted RM predicted RM

Triceps press 58.00 6 19.22 52.19 6 15.94* 52.94 6 15.76* 52.93 6 16.08* 52.40 6 15.56* 49.94 6 14.84* 53.38 6 15.90*
Biceps curl 27.34 6 13.02 24.96 6 11.57* 25.92 6 11.99 25.51 6 11.92* 25.20 6 11.37* 24.06 6 10.88* 26.63 6 14.12
Lateral row 43.55 6 13.96 41.49 6 12.56* 41.53 6 13.09* 41.66 6 12.81* 41.35 6 12.71* 39.38 6 12.11* 41.67 6 12.77*
Bench press 33.75 6 12.99 31.86 6 11.19* 32.75 6 10.95* 32.44 6 11.30* 32.27 6 10.85* 30.75 6 10.38* 32.87 6 11.40*
Supine leg press 58.87 6 19.20 53.32 6 17.85* 53.59 6 17.83* 53.53 6 18.23* 52.80 6 17.16* 50.35 6 16.52* 53.93 6 17.87*
Hip flexion 71.59 6 21.21 66.56 6 24.79* 65.09 6 23.69* 65.96 6 24.98* 64.03 6 23.16* 61.19 6 22.29* 65.60 6 23.89*
Hip extension 79.74 6 20.35 72.29 6 24.95* 70.70 6 24.03* 71.64 6 25.00* 69.56 6 23.60* 66.49 6 22.55* 71.30 6 24.22*
Hip abduction 64.75 6 23.68 62.54 6 24.95 61.46 6 24.76* 61.87 6 25.28* 60.58 6 24.31* 57.84 6 23.21* 61.99 6 24.97*
Hip adduction 67.84 6 24.70 65.10 6 24.95* 63.74 6 24.72* 64.16 6 25.22* 62.79 6 24.28* 60.00 6 23.20* 64.30 6 24.99*
Plantarflexion 17.67 6 7.03 17.25 6 6.36 17.33 6 6.13 17.64 6 6.64 17.03 6 5.97 16.29 6 5.71 17.45 6 6.18
Dorsiflexion 11.69 6 4.38 10.99 6 3.43* 10.94 6 3.27* 11.04 6 3.48* 10.81 6 3.11* 10.35 6 2.99* 11.07 6 3.31*

* p , 0.001.

movement. Subjects completed the trial sequence up
through 10 trials. Weight and trial data were entered
into the following 6 prediction equations: (a) Brzycki
(4): 1RM 5 rep weight (wt.)/(1.0278 2 2.78 3 reps);
(b) Epley (7): 1RM 5 (1 1 0.333 3 reps) 3 rep wt.; (c)
Lander (17): 1RM 5 100 3 rep wt./(101.3 2 2.67123
3 reps); (d) Mayhew et al. (22): 1RM 5 100 3 rep wt./
(52.2 1 41.9 3 exp[2.055 3 reps]); (e) O’Connor et al.
(29): 1RM 5 rep wt. (1 1 .025 3 reps); and (f) Wathan
(36): 1RM 5 100 3 rep wt./(48.8 1 53.8 3 exp[2.075
3 reps]). All of the equations were computed using
the 7–10-repetitions-to-failure scores. Many of these
equations have been shown to produce similar results
up through 10 repetitions (19, 23) and are highly cor-
related (.0.95) with actual 1RM measurements (18,
19).
Statistical Analyses
Means and standard deviations were computed for ac-
tual and predicted 1RM measurements for all 11 lifts.
A repeated measures analysis of variance was applied
to identify whether the predicted values were signifi-
cantly different from the actual 1RM measurement. A
Scheffe post-hoc analysis was applied to identify
where significant differences occurred. Significance
was determined at the 0.05 level of significance. A cor-
relation was applied to assess the validity of using the
predicted 1RM by generating coefficients between pre-
dicted and actual 1RM measurements for all 11 lifts.
Confidence in the use of the correlation was assessed
at the 0.05 level of significance.
Results
Means and standard deviations for actual and pre-
dicted 1RM measurements on all 1 lifts are presented
in Table 1. The older adults could generate the greatest
loads in the hip-joint measurements followed by leg
and triceps press exercises. The triceps press values
approximated the values generated in the leg press ac-
tions, which would run contrary to the muscle mass
contributing to each exercise. However, the strength
values in a triceps press in older adults have typically
been high because of the regular use of the press ac-
tion in rising out of chairs, the bath, or bed. Addition-
ally, the supine press movement was not a comfortable
or functionally efficient action for the older adults,
many of whom were not comfortable exerting in the
supine position. Finally, ankle-joint actions were the
weakest movements for the older adults.
The range of strength values was considerable
across the population, primarily because of gender dif-
ferences and overall functional variability within the
group. Ranges in the upper extremity were sometimes
more than 60 kg, whereas in the lower extremity, rang-
es were as high as 100 kg. The specific ranges for each
machine lift for the actual 1RM measurement were as
follows: triceps press, 19.1–96.8 kg; biceps curl, 4.5–
68.0 kg; lateral row, 9.1–79.1 kg; bench press, 11.4–61.4
kg; supine leg press, 18.2–104.5 kg; hip flexion, 36.4–
134.1 kg; hip extension, 36.4–134.1 kg; hip abduction,
22.7–134.1 kg; hip adduction, 22.7–134.1 kg; plantar-
flexion, 4.5–38.6 kg; and dorsiflexion, 3.2–27.3 kg.
Correlations between actual and predicted 1RM
scores demonstrated a moderate to strong relationship
for all exercises, with higher coefficients for upper-ex-
tremity exercises (0.77–0.90), as compared with lower-
extremity exercises (0.61–0.80) (Table 2). The Brzycki
(4) equation generated the highest correlation in 7 of
11 exercises, but all of the correlation coefficients be-
tween actual and predicted values were similar for
each exercise. All coefficients were significant and in
the range acceptable for the determination of predic-
tive validity. Values in the range of 0.50–0.60 have been
shown to be acceptable for predictive validity (3). The
lower coefficients for the hip and ankle measures may
be related to the uniqueness of both the ankle and the
 Older Adult Predicted 1RM 245

Table 2. Correlations between actual and predicted 1RM The values obtained for the maximum and pre-
scores.* dicted lifts were close enough to establish fairly high
confidence in the use of the prediction equation. If the
May- O’Con- Wa- predicted values were used to determine training in-
Exercise Brzycki Epley Lander hew nor than
tensity, the loads would be very similar to those gen-
erated from actual 1RM measurements. Since the pre-
Triceps press 0.798 0.782 0.790 0.774 0.778 0.779
Biceps curl 0.871 0.815 0.869 0.856 0.858 0.784 dicted values are slightly lower than the actual values,
Lateral row 0.855 0.862 0.871 0.852 0.857 0.828 there is an added safety factor in knowing that the
Bench press 0.896 0.881 0.901 0.901 0.900 0.898 intensity would not exceed the intended prescription.
Supine leg press 0.786 0.802 0.795 0.799 0.799 0.798 The results of the present study demonstrated high
Hip flexion 0.750 0.746 0.746 0.737 0.742 0.745 predictive validity on machine lifts such as triceps
Hip extension 0.709 0.614 0.620 0.604 0.609 0.543 press, biceps curl, lateral row, bench press, and supine
Hip abduction 0.749 0.757 0.748 0.756 0.757 0.758 leg press (.0.77). Acceptable validity coefficients cat-
Hip adduction 0.766 0.760 0.753 0.756 0.758 0.758 egorized in the moderate range were also obtained for
Plantarflexion 0.662 0.620 0.645 0.608 0.614 0.624
the hip machine lifts and for exercises on the ankle
Dorsiflexion 0.633 0.606 0.627 0.603 0.605 0.602
machine (0.60–0.75). In both cases, the uniqueness of
* All correlations significant at p # 0.05. the lifts may account for the low coefficients, since it
was difficult to produce maximum efforts on both ma-
chines. In the case of the hip machine, older adults
hip exercises and the difficulty in achieving actual were hesitant to load the hip joint maximally while
1RM measurements in these joint movements. standing on 1 leg. The adults also maintained consis-
In all of the exercises, the average predicted 1RM tent loads between agonist and antagonist exercises
value was lower than the actual 1RM (p # 0.001). and had a tendency to lift similar loads for flexion and
There were a few instances in which the predicted val- extension when the extensors would be capable of
ues were not significantly different from the actual higher loads. In the case of the ankle machine, the
1RM scores, specifically for 2 predicted values in the weights were loaded on anterior or posterior pegs of
biceps curl, for 1 predicted value in the hip abduction the machine, and participants were hesitant about gen-
exercise, and for all of the plantarflexion exercises. The erating high force values through the full range of mo-
prediction equations underestimated the 1RM by a tion from the seated position. It is predicted that the
range of 1–10 kg, depending on the lift, with the big- results of the plantarflexion exercise would be similar
gest differences apparent in the triceps press, hip flex- to the leg press results if a standing calf-raise exercise
ion, and hip extension exercises. In comparing the dif- was incorporated into the routine.
ferent prediction equations, the Wathan (36) equation
consistently predicted values closest to the actual 1RM
for all of the upper-extremity exercises, the leg press, Practical Applications
and the dorsiflexion exercise, whereas the Brzycki (4) The use of a prediction equation to determine a 1RM
equation predicted values closest to the actual 1RM for for older adults is a practical tool for trainers, thera-
all of the hip exercises. The O’Connor et al. (29) equa- pists, and other strength professionals who are en-
tion consistently predicted the lowest value of all of couraging weight-training participation in this age
the prediction equations across all of the exercises. group. A 7–10-repetition measurement for the predic-
tion equation could easily be incorporated into the
Discussion training routine of older adults and would be viewed
The actual 1RM values were consistently greater than as a tool for quickly calculating a training load when
the predicted values, varying 0.5–10.0 kg in magni- using a percentage of 1RM for prescription. Given the
tude, depending on the exercise. In exercises such as minimal variation between the values obtained in the
the biceps curl, lateral row, bench press, and the ankle- 2 tests, actual and predicted, the use of a prediction
joint measurements, the predicted values varied from equation seems warranted, even though the prediction
the actual values in the range of 0.5–3.0 kg. In the low- equations underestimated the actual 1RM perfor-
er-extremity exercises and in the triceps press, the mance. Programs prescribed using predicted 1RM val-
range of difference between actual and predicted val- ues appear to offer an appropriate training intensity
ues was as great as 10 kg. There was also considerable calculation, within a 1–10 kg range. No one prediction
variability in the performances, given the range of equation consistently outperformed the others in terms
strength of the participants in the study. The variabil- of accuracy or strength of prediction. It would be use-
ity was similar across the measurements, with stan- ful to conduct a follow-up study in order to determine
dard deviations being very similar between actual and specific equations for use with the older adult popu-
predicted measurements. lation.
246 Knutzen, Brilla, and Caine
References
1. ANIANSSON, A., C. ZETTERBERG, AND M. HEDBERG. Impaired
muscle function with aging: A background factor in the inci-
dence of fractures of the proximal end of the femur. Clin. Orthop.
191:192–210. 1984.
2. ARNOLD, M.D., J.L. MAYHEW, D. LESEUR, AND M. MCCORMICK.
Accuracy of predicting bench press and squat performance from
repetitions at low and high intensity. J. Strength Cond. Res. 9(3):
205. 1995.
3. BAUMGARTNER, T.A., AND A.S. JACKSON. Measurement for Evalu-
ation in Physical Education and Exercise Science. Dubuque, IA:
Brown and Benchmark, 1995.
4. BRZYCKI, M. Strength testing—Predicting a one-rep max from
reps-to fatigue. J. Health Phys. Educ. Rec. Dance 64:88–90. 1993.
5. CHANDLER, T.G., S.C. WEST, R.B. LARKIN, B.J. CRADY, AND J.L.
MAYHEW. Relationship of pullup and lat-pull performances to
1RM lat-pull performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 9(3):205. 1995.
6. CHARETTE, S.L., L. MCEVOY, G. PYKA, C. SNOW-HARTER, D. GUI-
DO, R.A. WISWELL, AND R. MARCUS. Muscle hypertrophy re-
sponse to resistance training in older women. J. Appl. Physiol.
70(5):1912–1916. 1991.
7. EPLEY, B. Poundage Chart. Boyd Epley Workout. Lincoln, NE: Uni-
versity of Nebraska Press, 1985.
8. FIATRONE, M.A., E.C. MARKS, N.D. RYAN, C.N. MERIDETH, L.A.
LIPSITZ, AND W.J. EVANS. High intensity strength training in
nonagenarians. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 263(22):3029–3034. 1990.
9. FIATRONE, M.A., E.F. O’NEILL, N.D. RYAN, K.M. CLEMENTS, G.R.
SOLARES, M.E. NELSON, S.B. ROBERTS, J.J. KEHAYIAS, L.A. LIPSITZ,
AND W.J. EVANS. Exercise training and nutritional supplemen-
tation for physical frailty in very elderly people. N. Engl. J. Med.
330:1769–1775. 1994.
10. FLECK, S.J., AND W.J. KRAEMER. Designing Resistance Training Pro-
grams. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1997.
11. FRONTERA, W.R., C.N. MEREDITH, K.P. O’REILLY, H.G. KNUTT-
GEN, AND W.J. EVANS. Strength conditioning in older men: Skel-
etal muscle hypertrophy and improved function. J. Appl. Physiol.
64(3):1038–1044. 1988.
12. GEHLSEN, G.M., AND M.H. WHALEY. Falls in the elderly: Part II,
Balance, strength, and flexibility. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 71(10):
739–741. 1990.
13. GRABINER, M.D., T.J. KOH, T.M. LUNDIN, AND D.W. JAHNIGEN.
Kinematics of recovery from a stumble. J. Gerontol. 48(3):M97–
M102. 1993.
14. IVERSON, B.D., M.R. GOSSMAN, S.A. SHADDEAU, AND M.E. TUR-
NER. Balance performance, force production, and activity pat-
terns in noninstitutionalized men 60 to 90 years of age. Phys.
Ther. 70(1):348–355. 1990.
15. JONES, C.J., R.E. RIKKLI, W.C. BEAM, S.J. DUNCAN, AND B. LA-
MAR. Determining 1RM test–retest reliability for older adults on
weight stack and pneumatic strength equipment. Res. Q. Exerc.
Sport 68(Suppl.):A-52. 1997.
16. KNUTZEN, K.M., L.R. BRILLA, AND D. CAINE. The effect of high
resistance training on the improvement of function in mature
adults. J. Phys. Activity Aging 3(4):429–430. 1995.
17. LANDER, J. Maximums based on reps. Nat. Strength Cond. Assoc.
J. 6:60–61. 1985.
18. LESUER, D.A., J.H. MCCORMICK, J.L. MAYHEW, AND M.D. AR-
NOLD. 1RM prediction from repetitions to fatigue using the
Brzycki formula. J. Sport Cond. Res. 9(3):203. 1995.
19. LESEUR, D.A., J.H. MCCORMICK, J.L. MAYHEW, AND R.L. WAS-
SERSTEIN. The accuracy of prediction equations for estimating
1RM performance in the bench press, squat, and deadlift. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 11(4):211–213. 1997.
20. LOMBARDI, V. Beginning Weight Training. Dubuque, IA: Brown,
198.
21. MAYHEW, J.L., T.E. BALL, M.D. ARNOLD, AND J.C. BOWEN. Rel-
ative muscular and endurance performance as a predictor of
bench press strength in college men and women. J. Appl. Sport
Sci. Res. 6:200–206. 1992.
22. MAYHEW, J.L., J. BARNETT, D. SCHUTTER, AND M.G. BEMBEN.
Repetitions to predict 1RM in three upper body exercises. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 9(4):283. 1995.
23. MAYHEW, J.L., J.R. WARE, AND J.L. PRINSTER. Using lift repeti-
tions to predict muscular strength in adolescent males. Nat.
Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 15(6):35–38. 1993.
24. MILLINGTON, P.J., B.M. MYKLEBUST, AND G.M. SHAMBES. Bio-
mechanical analysis of the sit-to-stand motion in elderly per-
sons. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 73:609–617. 1992.
25. MORALES, J., AND S. SOBONYA. Use of submaximal repetition
tests for predicting 1RM strength in class athletes. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 10(3):186–189. 1996.
26. MORGAN, A.L., J.D. ELLISON, M.P. CHANDLER, AND W.J. CHO-
DZKO-ZAJKO. The supplemental benefits of strength training for
aerobically active postmenopausal women. J. Aging Phys. Activity
3:332–339. 1995.
27. MUNNINGS, F. Strength training: Not only for the young. Phys.
Sports Med. 21(4):133–140. 1993.
28. NICHOLS, J.F., D.K. OMIZO, K.K. PETERSON, AND K.P. NELSON.
Efficacy of heavy resistance training for active women over six-
ty: Muscular strength, body composition, and program adher-
ence. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 41:205–210. 1993.
29. O’CONNOR, B., J. SIMMONS, AND P. O’SHEA. Weight Training To-
day. St. Paul, MN: West Publishers, 1989.
30. ROGERS, M.A., AND W.J. EVANS. Changes in skeletal muscle with
aging: Effects of exercise training. Exerc. Sports Sci. Rev. 21:67–
102. 1993.
31. SCHULTZ, A.B. Mobility impairment in the elderly: Challenges
for biomechanics research. J. Biomech. 25(5):519–528. 1992.
32. SIMPSON, S., M. ROZENEK, T. LACOURSE, T. STORER, AND J. GAR-
HAMMER. Prediction of 1RM from free weights and machines
using upper and lower body exercises. J. Strength Cond. Res. 9(3):
192. 1995.
33. STEINBERG, F.U. Gait disorders in the aged. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 20:
537–540. 1972.
34. TINETTI, M.E., AND M. SPEECHLEY. Prevention of falls among the
elderly. N. Engl. J. Med. 320:1055–1059. 1989.
35. TOBIS, J.S., R. FRIIS, AND S. REINSCH. Impaired strength leads to
falls in the community. Gerontologist 29:256A–257A. 1989.
36. WATHAN, D. Load assignment. In: Essentials of Strength Training
and Conditioning. T.R. Baechle, ed. Champaign, IL: Human Ki-
netics, 1994. pp. 435–446.
37. WEINER, D.K., R. LONG, M.A. HUGHES, J. CHANDLER, AND S.
STUDENSKI. When older adults face the chair-rise challenge: A
study of chair height availability and height-modified chair-rise
performance in the elderly. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 41:6–10. 1993.
38. WHIPPLE, R.H., L.I. WOLFSON, AND P.M. AMERMAN. The rela-
tionship of knee and ankle weakness to falls in nursing home
residents: An isokinetic study. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 35:13–20. 1987.