The problem is this. I know guys who can rep 225 more times than me, but I all out bench more weight. Its all in training. If I work on doing 225x20, it’ll look like I can make 400 enough though most guys who work for ONLY endurance will not bench 405 or anything close.
There’s a guy I talk to on another forum who trains for triathlons. He has squatted 225x20, x4. That’s insane volume. He cannot squat 300, I think he can do 275x1.
The problem is you’re assuming that math is ALL you need to consider when estimating a 1RM.
If this is research, are you ONLY considering the mathematical portion or are you actually asking people what thier style of training is, how many singles, doubles, triples, they do in training and how often they bench 80%, 85%, 90% and higher?
I think leaving this out makes the research incomplete. Its a LOT more work, but its much more complete. I’ll be honest. I’d disregard any research like this b/c there’s just not enough info other than the 1RM and how many times someone can do a certain weight below the 1RM. Also, how many people can honestly bench 95% of his max x2.
I max about every 5 weeks (I don’t care if people don’t like this). You can look @ my log if you care to get some data. I just believe its way too individual and based on genetics, conditioning, the routine, rest, diet, etc. [/quote]
I definitely agree with the individuality thing here. A lot of this will have to do with your specific style of training as well as genetic make up.
However, I do like the idea of someone coming up with a better 1RM calculator, although I’m not sure that this is a real possibility for the general masses. I think there are far too many factors and variation between trainees. It might be possible to come up with an algorithm that is ideal for each individual based on their own results, but I’m all for the research, so if someone wants to give this a try, by all means go ahead.
I hate it when people read a post, and look for the one thing they disagree with, and that seems to be a common theme on this site, so don’t take it this way Synthetickiller, but I’d say 95% for a double is just about right for me. And I’d say that I could hit a triple at 90%, but not much more than that. Again, an individual thing, but that just goes to show that we are all different.