Various protocols call for lifting some percentage of 1RM. However, many consider the risk of injury when attempting a 1RM to be equal to or higher than when performing multiple rep sets. In response to this, there have been various proposals for ways to calculate an approximation of the 1RM. FFitness's view is that yes, if a person does not regularly train with heavy loads, true 1RM testing is dangerous, however, given our propensity for incorporating static strength training into our DCs, veteran FFitness participants can reasonably be expected to safely do true 1RM testing.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdfs:label
| |
rdfs:comment
| - Various protocols call for lifting some percentage of 1RM. However, many consider the risk of injury when attempting a 1RM to be equal to or higher than when performing multiple rep sets. In response to this, there have been various proposals for ways to calculate an approximation of the 1RM. FFitness's view is that yes, if a person does not regularly train with heavy loads, true 1RM testing is dangerous, however, given our propensity for incorporating static strength training into our DCs, veteran FFitness participants can reasonably be expected to safely do true 1RM testing.
|
dcterms:subject
| |
dbkwik:athletics/p...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
abstract
| - Various protocols call for lifting some percentage of 1RM. However, many consider the risk of injury when attempting a 1RM to be equal to or higher than when performing multiple rep sets. In response to this, there have been various proposals for ways to calculate an approximation of the 1RM. FFitness's view is that yes, if a person does not regularly train with heavy loads, true 1RM testing is dangerous, however, given our propensity for incorporating static strength training into our DCs, veteran FFitness participants can reasonably be expected to safely do true 1RM testing.
|