Reassessing the Role of 1-Repetition Maximum Testing for Resistance-Training Prescription and Monitoring

PURPOSE: For decades, the 1-repetition maximum (1RM) test has served as a central reference for assessing and prescribing resistance-training (RT) intensity. Although historically important and still relevant in specific contexts, the traditional 1RM procedure is increasingly incompatible with the reality of modern sport. Its application is constrained by time demands, neuromuscular fatigue, potential injury risk, and the inherent impossibility of determining the "true" 1RM-value. Moreover, changes in maximal strength can be accurately detected through variations in movement velocity against any given load, while the velocity at 1RM remains relatively stable across athletes from different sports and strength levels. This commentary aims to examine these limitations and present time-efficient alternatives for monitoring and adjusting RT intensity in sport environments. CONCLUSION: The conceptual constraints of traditional 1RM-testing make its regular use both impractical and unnecessary for the vast majority of athletes. In addition, small errors in estimating the 1RM value are of little practical relevance in real-world settings, where daily fluctuations in neuromuscular status naturally exceed such differences. Modern RT prescription should prioritize practicality, safety, and real-time monitoring of force application-criteria that submaximal, velocity-guided, and perceptual methods fulfill far more effectively than 1RM testing.