BACKGROUND Optimal prescription of resistance exercise load (kg) is essential for the development of maximal strength. Two methods are commonly used in practice with no clear consensus on the most effective approach for the improvement of maximal strength. OBJECTIVE The primary aim of this review was to compare the effectiveness of percentage 1RM (% 1RM) and repetition maximum targets (RM) as load prescription methods for the development of maximal strength. METHODS Electronic database searches of MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and CINAHL Complete were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies were eligible for inclusion if a direct measure of maximal strength was used, a non-training control group was a comparator, the training intervention was > 4 weeks in duration and was replicable, and participants were defined as healthy and between the ages of 18-40. Methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using a modified Downs and Black checklist. Percentage change (%) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all strength-based training groups were calculated. Statistical significance (p < 0.05) was reported from each study. RESULTS Twenty-two studies comprising a total of 761 participants (585 males and 176 females) were found to meet the inclusion criteria. 12 studies were returned for % 1RM, with 10 for RM. All studies showed statistically significant improvements in maximal strength in the training groups (31.3 ± 21.9%; 95% CI 33.1-29.5%). The mean quality rating for all studies was 17.7 ± 2.3. Four studies achieved a good methodological rating, with the remainder classified as moderate. CONCLUSIONS Both % 1RM and RM are effective tools for improving maximal strength. % 1RM appears to be a better prescriptive method than RM potentially due to a more sophisticated management of residual fatigue. However, large heterogeneity was present within this data. Lower body and multi-joint exercises appear to be more appropriate for developing maximal strength. Greater consensus is required in defining optimal training prescriptions, physiological adaptations, and training status.

中文翻译：

---

两种规定负荷的方法对最大强度发展的有效性：系统评价。

背景技术抵抗运动负荷（kg）的最佳处方对于最大力量的发展是必不可少的。在实践中通常使用两种方法，但对于提高最大强度的最有效方法尚无明确共识。目的本综述的主要目的是比较百分比1RM（％1RM）和重复最大目标（RM）作为开发最大强度的负荷处方方法的有效性。方法按照PRISMA指南对MEDLINE，SPORTDiscus，Scopus和CINAHL Complete进行电子数据库搜索。如果使用直接测量最大强度的方法，未训练的对照组为比较者，训练干预的持续时间> 4周且具有可重复性，则可以纳入研究 参与者被定义为健康且年龄在18至40岁之间。研究的方法学质量使用改良的Downs and Black清单进行评估。计算了所有基于力量的训练组的百分比变化（％）和95％置信区间（CI）。每项研究均报告了统计学显着性（p <0.05）。结果发现22项研究共包括761名参与者（585名男性和176名女性）符合纳入标准。12％的研究以1RM％返回，其中10项是RM。所有研究均显示训练组的最大力量有统计学上的显着改善（31.3±21.9％； 95％CI 33.1-29.5％）。所有研究的平均质量等级为17.7±2.3。有四项研究获得了良好的方法论评级，其余的被归类为中度。结论％1RM和RM都是提高最大强度的有效工具。％1RM似乎比RM更好的说明性方法，这可能是由于残余疲劳的管理更加复杂。但是，此数据中存在很大的异质性。下半身运动和多关节运动似乎更适合于发挥最大力量。在定义最佳训练处方，生理适应性和训练状态时需要更大的共识。