Testing Strength Measures in People With Heart Conditions or Risk Factors
Compares two strength tests that estimate maximum lifting ability in people with heart disease.
Plain-language title generated from the registry record
Registry title: Reliability of Multiple-Repetition-Maximum Tests in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease or Risk Factors
Key facts
- Where
- München, GermanySee the site
Where in Germany
- Department for Preventive Sports Medicine and Sports Cardiology, TUM Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of MunichMünchen, GermanyTaking people
Questions to ask the study team
- How often do I need to come in, and for how long each time?
- Are travel costs paid?
- Can I keep my own doctor?
- What happens if I want to stop?
Trial details
- Who runs it
- Technical University of Munich
- Trial code
- NCT06796582
- Record updated
- 22 October 2026
- Original description
Exercise training is a cornerstone in the prevention and rehabilitation of cardiovascular disease. While research has primarily focused on endurance training, resistance training becomes more and more important. The gold standard to prescribe resistance training intensity or monitor longitudinal changes is the 1-Repetition-Maximum (1-RM) test. However, particularly for unexperienced individuals, this test may not be recommendable due to the high load and an increased risk of injuries. Alternatively, there are several published formulas to estimate the 1-RM based on a multiple-repetition-maximum (or repetition-to-failure) test. However, these formulas have been primarily tested in healthy individuals. Moreover, the reliability of the 1-RM estimation based on two tests with different submaximal weight is unknown. Therefore, the present study evaluates the agreement of the 1-RM estimation (based on different formulas) between two Multiple-RM tests with different weight in 50 patients with cardiovascular disease (heart failure, coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation) or cardiovascular risk factors (type 2 diabetes, arterial hypertension).Read full original descriptionShow less
Agreement of the Estimated 1-Repetition-Maximum Between Two Multiple-Repetition-Maximum Tests With Different Weight in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease or Risk Factors
Exercise training is a cornerstone in the prevention and rehabilitation of cardiovascular disease. While research has primarily focused on endurance training, resistance training becomes more and more important. The gold standard to prescribe resistance training intensity or monitor longitudinal changes is the 1-Repetition-Maximum (1-RM) test. However, particularly for unexperienced individuals, this test may not be recommendable due to the high load and an increased risk of injuries. Alternatively, there are several published formulas to estimate the 1-RM based on a multiple-repetition-maximum (or repetition-to-failure) test. However, these formulas have been primarily tested in healthy individuals. Moreover, the reliability of the 1-RM estimation based on two tests with different submaximal weight is unknown. Therefore, the present study evaluates the agreement of the 1-RM estimation (based on different formulas) between two Multiple-RM tests with different weight in 50 patients with cardiovascular disease (heart failure, coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation) or cardiovascular risk factors (type 2 diabetes, arterial hypertension).
Inclusion: Age ≥ 50 years; At least one of the following cardiovascular diseases / risk factors:; Heart failure; Coronary heart disease; Atrial fibrillation; Arterial hypertension; Type 2 diabetes mellitus; Clinically stable for ≥ 4 weeks; Medical clearance to perform resistance training / strength testing; Signed written informed consent.
Exclusion: Acute infection; Uncontrolled hypertension (≥160 mmHG systolic / ≥100 mmHG diastolic); Pregnancy; Chronic joint inflammation; Knee, hip, ankle, wrist, elbow or shoulder pain; Known osteoporosis (T-value ≤ -2.5); Known cerebral or thoracic aneurysm.