ArticleJournal of human kinetics2026
Objective Accuracy in Estimating Repetitions in Reserve in the Back Squat: An Analysis between Experienced vs. Novice Subjects.
Article in Journal of human kinetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Level of Effort: A Practical Approach for Resistance Training Monitoring and Prescription.Journal of human kinetics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to objectively compare the accuracy of estimating repetitions in reserve (RIR) in the back squat among subjects with different levels of experience in resistance training (RT). Sixteen healthy adults (24.31 ± 4.94 years, 4 women and 12 men) were divided into the experienced (N = 8; ≥ 18 months of experience) and the novice (N = 8; <18 months of experience) in RT. Each group performed one set to muscle failure (day 1), and one RIR3 and RIR1 (day 2) of Smith machine back squats with a load of 70% 1RM. In addition, mean propulsive velocity (MPV) and the rating of perceived exertion (RPE; 0-10 scale) were assessed to individually objectify the RIR. There were no differences in accuracy for estimating both RIR3 and RIR1 between groups (p > 0.05, d ≥ 0.03). Furthermore, there were no differences in MPV, velocity loss, the RPE, and total of repetitions to muscle failure, RIR3, and RIR1 sets (p > 0.05, d ≥ -0.07). Overall, our findings suggest that RT experience does not influence the accuracy of estimating RIRs in the back squat, which is objectively supported by individualized MPV and the RPE. Previous familiarity with high-level effort may play a key role in accuracy beyond RT experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.