Effect of high hydrostatic pressure on chicken myosin subfragment-1.

T. Iwasaki,Kastuhiro Yamamoto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-8130(02)00037-5

IF: 8.2

2002-10-01

International Journal of Biological Macromolecules

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Validation of a commercially available mobile application for velocity-based resistance training

Danielle Anne Trowell,Angus G Carruthers Collins,Ashlee M Hendy,Eric James Drinkwater,Claire Kenneally-Dabrowski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.17789

IF: 3.061

2024-07-24

PeerJ

Abstract:Background: Velocity-based training (VBT) is commonly used for programming and autoregulation of resistance training. Velocity may also be measured during resistance training to estimate one repetition maximum and monitor fatigue. This study quantifies the validity of Metric VBT, a mobile application that uses camera-vision for measuring barbell range of motion (RoM) and mean velocity during resistance exercises. Methods: Twenty-four participants completed back squat and bench press repetitions across various loads. Five mobile devices were placed at varying angles (0, ±10, and ±20°) perpendicular to the participant. The validity of Metric VBT was assessed in comparison to Vicon motion analysis using precision and recall, Lin's concordance correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman plots. Proportional bias was assessed using linear regression. Results: Metric VBT accurately detected over 95% of repetitions. It showed moderate to substantial agreement with the Vicon system for measuring RoM in both exercises. The average Limits of Agreement (LoA) for RoM across all camera positions were -5.45 to 4.94 cm for squats and -5.80 to 3.55 cm for bench presses. Metric VBT exhibited poor to moderate agreement with the Vicon system for measuring mean velocity. The average LoA for mean velocity were 0.03 to 0.25 m/s for squats and -5.80 to 3.55 m/s for bench presses. A proportional bias was observed, with bias increasing as repetition velocity increased. Conclusions: Metric VBT's wide LoA for measuring RoM and mean velocity highlights significant accuracy concerns, exceeding acceptable levels for practical use. However, for users prioritizing repetition counts over precise RoM or mean velocity data, the application can still provide useful information for monitoring workout volume.
Training Monitoring for Resistance Exercise: Theory and Applications

Brendan R. Scott,Grant M. Duthie,Heidi R. Thornton,Ben J. Dascombe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0454-0

IF: 11.928

2016-01-16

Sports Medicine

Abstract:Resistance exercise is difficult to quantify owing to its inherent complexity with numerous training variables contributing to the training dose (type of exercise, load lifted, training volume, inter-set rest periods, and repetition velocity). In addition, the intensity of resistance training is often inadequately determined as the relative load lifted (% 1-repetition maximum), which does not account for the effects of inter-set recovery periods, repetition velocity, or the number of repetitions performed in each set at a given load. Methods to calculate the volume load associated with resistance training, as well as the perceived intensity of individual sets and entire training sessions have been shown to provide useful information regarding the actual training stimulus. In addition, questionnaires to subjectively assess how athletes are coping with the stressors of training and portable technologies to quantify performance variables such as concentric velocity may also be valuable. However, while several methods have been proposed to quantify resistance training, there is not yet a consensus regarding how these methods can be best implemented and integrated to complement each other. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to provide practical information for strength coaches to highlight effective methods to assess resistance training, and how they can be integrated into a comprehensive monitoring program.

sport sciences
Reliability of technologies to measure the barbell velocity: Implications for monitoring resistance training

Alejandro Martínez-Cava,Alejandro Hernández-Belmonte,Javier Courel-Ibáñez,Ricardo Morán-Navarro,Juan José González-Badillo,Jesús G. Pallarés

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232465

IF: 3.7

2020-06-10

PLoS ONE

Abstract:This study investigated the inter- and intra-device agreement of four new devices marketed for barbell velocity measurement. Mean, mean propulsive and peak velocity outcomes were obtained for bench press and full squat exercises along the whole load-velocity spectrum (from light to heavy loads). Measurements were simultaneously registered by two linear velocity transducers T-Force, two linear position transducers Speed4Lifts, two smartphone video-based systems My Lift, and one 3D motion analysis system STT. Calculations included infraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman Limits of Agreement (LoA), standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable change (SDC) and maximum errors (MaxError). Results were reported in absolute (m/s) and relative terms (%1RM). Three velocity segments were differentiated according to the velocity-load relationships for each exercise: heavy (≥ 80% 1RM), medium (50% < 1RM < 80%) and light loads (≤ 50% 1RM). Criteria for acceptable reliability were ICC > 0.990 and SDC < 0.07 m/s (~5% 1RM). The T-Force device shown the best intra-device agreement (SDC = 0.01–0.02 m/s, LoA <0.01m/s, MaxError = 1.3–2.2%1RM). The Speed4Lifts and STT were found as highly reliable, especially against lifting velocities ≤1.0 m/s (Speed4Lifts, SDC = 0.01–0.05 m/s; STT, SDC = 0.02–0.04 m/s), whereas the My Lift app showed the worst results with errors well above the acceptable levels (SDC = 0.26–0.34 m/s, MaxError = 18.9–24.8%1RM). T-Force stands as the preferable option to assess barbell velocity and to identify technical errors of measurement for emerging monitoring technologies. Both the Speed4Lifts and STT are fine alternatives to T-Force for measuring velocity against high-medium loads (velocities ≤ 1.0 m/s), while the excessive errors of the newly updated My Lift app advise against the use of this tool for velocity-based resistance training.

multidisciplinary sciences
Reliability and Validity of Commercially Available Wearable Devices for Measuring Steps, Energy Expenditure, and Heart Rate: Systematic Review

Daniel Fuller,Emily Colwell,Jonathan Low,Kassia Orychock,Melissa Ann Tobin,Bo Simango,Richard Buote,Desiree Van Heerden,Hui Luan,Kimberley Cullen,Logan Slade,Nathan G A Taylor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/18694

2020-09-08

JMIR mhealth and uhealth

Abstract:Background Consumer-wearable activity trackers are small electronic devices that record fitness and health-related measures. Objective The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the validity and reliability of commercial wearables in measuring step count, heart rate, and energy expenditure. Methods We identified devices to be included in the review. Database searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and SPORTDiscus, and only articles published in the English language up to May 2019 were considered. Studies were excluded if they did not identify the device used and if they did not examine the validity or reliability of the device. Studies involving the general population and all special populations were included. We operationalized validity as criterion validity (as compared with other measures) and construct validity (degree to which the device is measuring what it claims). Reliability measures focused on intradevice and interdevice reliability. Results We included 158 publications examining nine different commercial wearable device brands. Fitbit was by far the most studied brand. In laboratory-based settings, Fitbit, Apple Watch, and Samsung appeared to measure steps accurately. Heart rate measurement was more variable, with Apple Watch and Garmin being the most accurate and Fitbit tending toward underestimation. For energy expenditure, no brand was accurate. We also examined validity between devices within a specific brand. Conclusions Commercial wearable devices are accurate for measuring steps and heart rate in laboratory-based settings, but this varies by the manufacturer and device type. Devices are constantly being upgraded and redesigned to new models, suggesting the need for more current reviews and research.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Analysis of Wearable and Smartphone-Based Technologies for the Measurement of Barbell Velocity in Different Resistance Training Exercises

Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández,David Marchante,Eneko Baz-Valle,Iván Alonso-Molero,Sergio L Jiménez,Mario Muñóz-López

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.00649

2017-08-28

Abstract:The purpose of this study was to analyze the validity, reliability, and accuracy of new wearable and smartphone-based technology for the measurement of barbell velocity in resistance training exercises. To do this, 10 highly trained powerlifters (age = 26.1 ± 3.9 years) performed 11 repetitions with loads ranging 50-100% of the 1-Repetition maximum in the bench-press, full-squat, and hip-thrust exercises while barbell velocity was simultaneously measured using a linear transducer (LT), two Beast wearable devices (one placed on the subjects' wrist -BW-, and the other one directly attached to the barbell -BB-) and the iOS PowerLift app. Results showed a high correlation between the LT and BW (r = 0.94-0.98, SEE = 0.04-0.07 m•s-1), BB (r = 0.97-0.98, SEE = 0.04-0.05 m•s-1), and the PowerLift app (r = 0.97-0.98, SEE = 0.03-0.05 m•s-1) for the measurement of barbell velocity in the three exercises. Paired samples T-test revealed systematic biases between the LT and BW, BB and the app in the hip-thrust, between the LT and BW in the full-squat and between the LT and BB in the bench-press exercise (p < 0.001). Moreover, the analysis of the linear regression on the Bland-Altman plots showed that the differences between the LT and BW (R2 = 0.004-0.03), BB (R2 = 0.007-0.01), and the app (R2 = 0.001-0.03) were similar across the whole range of velocities analyzed. Finally, the reliability of the BW (ICC = 0.910-0.988), BB (ICC = 0.922-0.990), and the app (ICC = 0.928-0.989) for the measurement of the two repetitions performed with each load were almost the same than that observed with the LT (ICC = 0.937-0.990). Both the Beast wearable device and the PowerLift app were highly valid, reliable, and accurate for the measurement of barbell velocity in the bench-press, full-squat, and hip-thrust exercises. These results could have potential practical applications for strength and conditioning coaches who wish to measure barbell velocity during resistance training.
Implementing a velocity-based approach to resistance training: the reproducibility and sensitivity of different velocity monitoring technologies

Ivan Jukic,Andrew King,Colby A. Sousa,Katarina Prnjak,Michael R. McGuigan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34416-0

IF: 4.6

2023-05-02

Scientific Reports

Abstract:Abstract This study examined the reproducibility of GymAware, PUSH2 and Vmaxpro velocity monitoring devices during resistance training (RT). The sensitivity of these devices to detect the smallest changes in velocity that correspond to true changes in RT performance was also investigated. Fifty-one resistance-trained men and women performed an incremental loading (1RM) test, and two repetitions to failure tests with different loads, 72 h apart. During all repetitions, mean velocity (MV) and peak velocity (PV) were simultaneously recorded by two devices of each brand. Overall, GymAware was the most reliable and sensitive device for detecting the smallest changes in RT performance, regardless of the velocity metric used. Vmaxpro can be considered as an equivalent, cheaper alternative to GymAware for RT monitoring and prescription, but only if the MV metric is used. Caution should be exercised when using PUSH2 in practice due to their comparatively higher, unacceptable measurement error and generally low sensitivity to detect changes in RT performance. Collectively, these findings support the use of MV and PV from GymAware and MV from Vmaxpro devices for RT monitoring and prescription due to their low magnitudes of error; thus, allowing for the detection of meaningful changes in neuromuscular status and functional performance during RT.

multidisciplinary sciences
Validity and reliability of a linear positional transducer across commonly practised resistance training exercises

Harry F. Dorrell,Joseph M. Moore,Mark F. Smith,Thomas I. Gee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1482588

IF: 3.9428

2018-05-31

Journal of Sports Sciences

Abstract:This study investigated the validity and reliability of the GymAware PowerTool (GPT). Thirteen resistance trained participants completed three visits, consisting of three repetitions of free-weight back squat, bench press, deadlift (80% one repetition maximum), and countermovement jump. Bar displacement, peak and mean velocity, peak and mean force, and jump height were calculated using the GPT, a three-dimensional motion capture system (Motion Analysis Corporation; 150 Hz), and a force plate (Kistler; 1500 Hz). Least products regression were used to compare agreeability between devices. A within-trial one-way ANOVA, typical error (TE; %), and smallest worthwhile change (SWC) were used to assess reliability. Regression analysis resulted in R2 values of >0.85 for all variables excluding deadlift mean velocity (R2 = 0.54-0.69). Significant differences were observed between visits 3-2 for bench press bar displacement (0.395 ± 0.055 m; 0.383 ± 0.053 m), and deadlift bar displacement (0.557 ± 0.034 m; 0.568 ± 0.034 m). No other significant differences were found. Low to moderate TE (0.6-8.8%) were found for all variables, with SWC ranging 1.7-7.4%. The data provides evidence that the GPT can be used to measure kinetic and kinematic outputs, however, care should be taken when monitoring deadlift performance.

sport sciences
Methods for Regulating and Monitoring Resistance Training

Eric R Helms,Kedric Kwan,Colby A Sousa,John B Cronin,Adam G Storey,Michael C Zourdos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2020-0011

2020-08-31

Abstract:Individualisation can improve resistance training prescription. This is accomplished via monitoring or autoregulating training. Autoregulation adjusts variables at an individualised pace per performance, readiness, or recovery. Many autoregulation and monitoring methods exist; therefore, this review's objective was to examine approaches intended to optimise adaptation. Up to July 2019, PubMed, Medline, SPORTDiscus, Scopus and CINAHL were searched. Only studies on methods of athlete monitoring useful for resistance-training regulation, or autoregulated training methods were included. Eleven monitoring and regulation themes emerged across 90 studies. Some physiological, performance, and perceptual measures correlated strongly (r ≥ 0.68) with resistance training performance. Testosterone, cortisol, catecholamines, cell-free DNA, jump height, throwing distance, barbell velocity, isometric and dynamic peak force, maximal voluntary isometric contractions, and sessional, repetitions in reserve-(RIR) based, and post-set Borg-scale ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were strongly associated with training performance, respectively. Despite strong correlations, many physiological and performance methods are logistically restrictive or limited to lab-settings, such as blood markers, electromyography or kinetic measurements. Some practical performance tests such as jump height or throw distance may be useful, low-risk stand-ins for maximal strength tests. Performance-based individualisation of load progression, flexible training configurations, and intensity and volume modifications based on velocity and RIR-based RPE scores are practical, reliable and show preliminary utility for enhancing performance.
The Validity and Responsiveness of Isometric Lower Body Multi-Joint Tests of Muscular Strength: a Systematic Review

David Drake,Rodney Kennedy,Eric Wallace

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-017-0091-2

2017-06-19

Abstract:BackgroundResearchers and practitioners working in sports medicine and science require valid tests to determine the effectiveness of interventions and enhance understanding of mechanisms underpinning adaptation. Such decision making is influenced by the supportive evidence describing the validity of tests within current research. The objective of this study is to review the validity of lower body isometric multi-joint tests ability to assess muscular strength and determine the current level of supporting evidence.MethodsPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed in a systematic fashion to search, assess and synthesize existing literature on this topic. Electronic databases such as Web of Science, CINAHL and PubMed were searched up to 18 March 2015. Potential inclusions were screened against eligibility criteria relating to types of test, measurement instrument, properties of validity assessed and population group and were required to be published in English. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to assess methodological quality and measurement property rating of included studies. Studies rated as fair or better in methodological quality were included in the best evidence synthesis.ResultsFifty-nine studies met the eligibility criteria for quality appraisal. The ten studies that rated fair or better in methodological quality were included in the best evidence synthesis. The most frequently investigated lower body isometric multi-joint tests for validity were the isometric mid-thigh pull and isometric squat. The validity of each of these tests was strong in terms of reliability and construct validity. The evidence for responsiveness of tests was found to be moderate for the isometric squat test and unknown for the isometric mid-thigh pull. No tests using the isometric leg press met the criteria for inclusion in the best evidence synthesis.ConclusionsResearchers and practitioners can use the isometric squat and isometric mid-thigh pull with confidence in terms of reliability and construct validity. Further work to investigate other validity components such as criterion validity, smallest detectable change and responsiveness to resistance exercise interventions may be beneficial to the current level of evidence.
Concurrent validity of novel smartphone-based apps monitoring barbell velocity in powerlifting exercises

Alexander Renner,Benedikt Mitter,Arnold Baca

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313919

IF: 3.7

2024-11-24

PLoS ONE

Abstract:The aim of this study was to determine the validity of three smartphone applications measuring barbell movement velocity in resistance training and comparing them to a commercially available linear transducer. Twenty competitive powerlifters (14 male and 6 female) completed a progressive loading protocol in the squat, bench press and deadlift (sumo or conventional) until reaching 90% of the highest load they had achieved in a recent competition. Mean velocity was concurrently recorded with three smartphone applications: Qwik VBT (QW), Metric VBT (MT), MyLift (ML), and one linear transducer: RepOne (RO). 3D motion capturing (Vicon) was used to calculate specific gold standard trajectory references for the different systems. A total of 589 repetitions were recorded with a mean velocity of (mean ± standard deviation [min-max]) 0.44 ± 0.17 [0.11–1.04] m·s -1 , of which MT and ML failed to identify 52 and 175 repetitions, respectively. When compared to Vicon, RO and QW consistently delivered valid measurements (standardized mean bias [SMB] = 0 to 0.21, root mean squared error [RMSE] = 0.01 to 0.04m·s -1 ). MT and ML failed to deliver a level of validity comparable to RO (SMB = -0.28 to 0.14, RMSE = 0.04–0.14m·s -1 ), except for MT in the bench press (SMB = 0.07, RMSE = 0.04m·s -1 ). In conclusion, smartphone applications can be as valid as a linear transducer when assessing mean concentric barbell velocity. Out of the smartphone applications included in this investigation, QW delivered the best results.

multidisciplinary sciences
Reliability and validity of a low-cost, wireless sensor and smartphone app for measuring force during isometric and dynamic resistance exercises

Víctor Illera-Domínguez,Lluís Albesa-Albiol,Jorge Castizo-Olier,Adrián Garcia-Fresneda,Bernat Buscà,Carlos Ramirez-Lopez,Bruno Fernández-Valdés

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298859

IF: 3.7

2024-03-21

PLoS ONE

Abstract:The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of an affordable wireless force sensor in measuring mean and peak forces during resistance training.A Suiff Pro wireless force sensor (Suiff, Spain) and a MuscleLab force platform (Ergotest, Norway) were used concurrently to assess tensile load and the ground reaction force resulting from an upright row exercise. Thirteen participants (28.2 ± 5.7 years, 76.2 ± 9.6 kg, 178.2 ± 9.2 cm) performed the exercise under three velocity conditions and isometrically. Each condition involved three sets of exercise. Mean (F mean ) and peak (F peak ) force values from both sensors were collected and compared.Suiff Pro exhibited excellent reliability for F mean and F peak (ICCs = 0.99). When compared to the criterion measures, Suiff Pro showed trivial standardized bias for F mean (Mean = 0.00 [CI 95% = 0.00 to 0.01]) and F peak (-0.02 [-0.04 to 0.00]). The standardized typical error was also trivial for F mean (0.03 [0.02 to 0.03]) and F peak (0.07 [0.05 to 0.09]). Correlations with the MuscleLab force platform were nearly perfect: F mean (0.97 [0.94 to 0.98]; p<0.001); F peak (0.96 [0.92 to 0.97]; p<0.001).The findings demonstrate that the Suiff Pro sensor is reliable and valid device for measuring force during isometric and dynamic resistance training exercises. Therefore, practitioners can confidently use this device to monitor kinematic variables of resistance training exercises and to obtain real-time augmented feedback during a training session.

multidisciplinary sciences
Validity and test-retest reliability of a resistance training device for Smith machine back squat exercise

Hao-Ran Qu,De-Xing Qian,Shou-Sheng Xu,Yan-Fei Shen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.108582

IF: 5.8

2023-11-25

iScience

Abstract:This study evaluated the validity and test-retest reliability of a resistance training device Jueying (Beijing, China) for Smith machine back squat exercise. Twelve male participants completed two test sessions with an interval of one week. In each test session, participants completed 30%, 45%, 60%, and 75% of 1RM back squats on a Smith machine equipped with Jueying and a linear position transducer GymAware (Canberra, Australia), which measured the velocity and power during the movement simultaneously. Results showed that Jueying was both valid (Pearson correlation coefficient [r] = 0.896-0.999, effect size [ES] = 0.004-0.192) when compared with GymAware and consistent between two tests in terms of reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.79-0.95) to assess speed and power within all exercises. The device could be applied to provide athletes and coaches with effective and reliable data in actual application.
The accuracy of measuring velocity during weightlifting movements with five velocity-based training devices

Sergio A. Lemus,Mallory Volz,Avery Blasdale,Francisco Beron-Vera,Cheng-Bang Chen,Bryan J. Mann,Francesco Travascio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541241266248

2024-08-04

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

Abstract:International Journal of Sports Science &Coaching, Ahead of Print. The use of weightlifting exercises is prevalent in competitive and recreational environments, as well as sport-specific training. Traditionally, weightlifting coaches prescribe specific training loads based on an individual's maximal ability. Velocity-based training offers an alternative method that promises to quantify strength based on velocity and provides information that increases competitiveness through real-time feedback. Various velocity measurement devices are available on the market. Their precision is critical for the adequate implementation of velocity-based training. The aim of the present study was to compare the concentric peak velocity measurements of five of these devices during two weightlifting movements, the snatch and clean, to data collected with a 12-camera motion capture system, which was considered as gold standard. It was hypothesized that the velocity measurement devices used in this study would vary in accuracy based on their retail prices. Velocity readings associated with light and moderate (40% and 70% of one-repetition max) loads were measured for both the snatch and clean performed by 12 competitive weightlifters. A least products regression was used to assess validity by comparing five devices against a criterion measure. A general linear model showed statistical differences in the velocities measured with these five devices (p < 0.001). Specifically, the GymAware RS linear position transducer was the most accurate device, demonstrating no fixed or proportional bias when used to quantify velocity during the snatch and clean. The remaining four devices significantly underestimated peak velocity, which would directly impact the daily planning of lifters' training. Practitioners must consider the error and bias of each device before implementing velocity-based training.

hospitality, leisure, sport & tourism,psychology, applied
The Reliability and Validity of Current Technologies for Measuring Barbell Velocity in the Free-Weight Back Squat and Power Clean

Steve W. Thompson,David Rogerson,Harry F. Dorrell,Alan Ruddock,Andrew Barnes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/sports8070094

2020-06-30

Sports

Abstract:This study investigated the inter-day and intra-device reliability, and criterion validity of six devices for measuring barbell velocity in the free-weight back squat and power clean. In total, 10 competitive weightlifters completed an initial one repetition maximum (1RM) assessment followed by three load-velocity profiles (40–100% 1RM) in both exercises on four separate occasions. Mean and peak velocity was measured simultaneously on each device and compared to 3D motion capture for all repetitions. Reliability was assessed via coefficient of variation (CV) and typical error (TE). Least products regression (LPR) (R2) and limits of agreement (LOA) assessed the validity of the devices. The Gymaware was the most reliable for both exercises (CV < 10%; TE 0.42–0.99 LOA = −0.03–0.03 m·s−1). Comparable validity data was observed for MyLift in the back squat. Both PUSH devices produced some fixed and proportional bias, with Beast Sensor and Bar Sensei being the least valid devices across both exercises (R2 > 0.00–0.96, LOA = −0.36–0.46 m·s−1). Linear position transducers and smartphone applications could be used to obtain velocity-based data, with inertial measurement units demonstrating poorer reliability and validity.
Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Seven Commercially Available Devices for the Assessment of Movement Velocity at Different Intensities During the Bench Press

Alejandro Pérez-Castilla,Antonio Piepoli,Gabriel Delgado-García,Gabriel Garrido-Blanca,Amador García-Ramos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003118

Abstract:Pérez-Castilla, A, Piepoli, A, Delgado-García, G, Garrido-Blanca, G, and García-Ramos, A. Reliability and concurrent validity of seven commercially available devices for the assessment of movement velocity at different intensities during the bench press. J Strength Cond Res 33(5): 1258-1265, 2019-The aim of this study was to compare the reliability and validity of 7 commercially available devices to measure movement velocity during the bench press exercise. Fourteen men completed 2 testing sessions. One-repetition maximum (1RM) in the bench press exercise was determined in the first session. The second testing session consisted of performing 3 repetitions against 5 loads (45, 55, 65, 75, and 85% of 1RM). The mean velocity was simultaneously measured using an optical motion sensing system (Trio-OptiTrack; "gold-standard") and 7 commercially available devices: 1 linear velocity transducer (T-Force), 2 linear position transducers (Chronojump and Speed4Lift), 1 camera-based optoelectronic system (Velowin), 1 smartphone application (PowerLift), and 2 inertial measurement units (IMUs) (PUSH band and Beast sensor). The devices were ranked from the most to the least reliable as follows: (a) Speed4Lift (coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.61%); (b) Velowin (CV = 3.99%), PowerLift (3.97%), Trio-OptiTrack (CV = 4.04%), T-Force (CV = 4.35%), and Chronojump (CV = 4.53%); (c) PUSH band (CV = 9.34%); and (d) Beast sensor (CV = 35.0%). A practically perfect association between the Trio-OptiTrack system and the different devices was observed (Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient (r) range = 0.947-0.995; p < 0.001) with the only exception of the Beast sensor (r = 0.765; p < 0.001). These results suggest that linear velocity/position transducers, camera-based optoelectronic systems, and the smartphone application could be used to obtain accurate velocity measurements for restricted linear movements, whereas the IMUs used in this study were less reliable and valid.
The Predictive Validity of Individualised Load-Velocity Relationships for Predicting 1RM: A Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis

Leon Greig,Rodrigo R Aspe,Andy Hall,Paul Comfort,Kay Cooper,Paul A Swinton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-023-01854-9

Abstract:Background: Load-velocity relationships are commonly used to estimate one-repetition maximums (1RMs). Proponents suggest these estimates can be obtained at high frequencies and assist with manipulating loads according to session-by-session fluctuations. Given their increasing popularity and development of associated technologies, a range of load-velocity approaches have been investigated. Objective: This systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis sought to quantify the predictive validity of individualised load-velocity relationships for the purposes of 1RM prediction. Methods: In September 2022, a search of MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science and Scopus was conducted for published research, with Google Scholar, CORE and British Ethos also searched for unpublished research. Studies were eligible if they were written in English, and directly compared a measured and predicted 1RM using load-velocity relationships in the squat, bench press, deadlift, clean or snatch. IPD were obtained through requests to primary authors and through digitisation of in-text plots (e.g. Bland-Altman plots). Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) and the review conducted in accordance with PRISMA-IPD guidelines and an a priori protocol. Absolute and scaled standard error of the estimates (SEE/SEE%) were calculated for two-stage aggregate analyses, with bootstrapping performed for sampling variances. Estimates were pooled using three-level hierarchical models with robust 95% confidence intervals (CIs). One-stage analyses were conducted with random intercepts to account for systematic differences across studies and prediction residuals calculated in the absolute scale (kg) and as a percentage of the measured 1RM. Moderator analyses were conducted by including a priori defined categorical variables as fixed effects. Results: One hundred and thirty-seven models from 26 studies were included with each identified as having low, unclear or high risk of bias. Twenty studies comprising 434 participants provided sufficient data for meta-analyses, with raw data obtained for 8 (32%) studies. Two-stage analyses identified moderate predictive validity [SEE% 9.8, 95% CI 7.4% to 12.2%, with moderator analyses demonstrating limited differences based on the number of loads (β2Loads:>2Loads = 0.006, 95% CI - 1.6 to 1.6%) or the use of individual or group data to determine 1RM velocity thresholds (βGroup:Individualised = - 0.4, 95% CI - 1.9 to 1.0%)]. One-stage analyses identified that predictions tended to be overestimations (4.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 7.4 kg), which expressed as a percentage of measured 1RM was equal to 3.7 (95% CI 0.5 to 6.9% 1RM). Moderator analyses were consistent with those conducted for two-stage analyses. Conclusions: Load-velocity relationships tend to overestimate 1RMs irrespective of the modelling approach selected. On the basis of the findings from this review, practitioners should incorporate direct assessment of 1RM wherever possible. However, load-velocity relationships may still prove useful for general monitoring purposes (e.g. assessing trends across a training cycle), by providing high-frequency estimates of 1RM when direct assessment may not be logistically feasible. Given limited differences in predictions across popular load-velocity approaches, it is recommended that practitioners opting to incorporate this practice select the modelling approach that best suits their practical requirements. Registration: https://osf.io/agpfm/ .
Validation of Velocity Measuring Devices in Velocity Based Strength Training

Thorben Menrad,Jürgen Edelmann-Nusser

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ijcss-2021-0007

2021-01-01

International Journal of Computer Science in Sport

Abstract:Abstract To control and monitor strength training with a barbell various systems are on the consumer market. They provide the user with information regarding velocity, acceleration and trajectory of the barbell. Some systems additionally calculate the 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) of exercises and use it to suggest individual intensities for future training. Three systems were tested: GymAware, PUSH Band 2.0 and Vmaxpro. The GymAware system bases on linear position transducers, PUSH Band 2.0 and Vmaxpro base on inertial measurement units. The aim of this paper was to determine the accuracy of the three systems with regard to the determination of the average velocity of each repetition of three barbell strength exercises (squat, barbell rowing, deadlift). The velocity data of the three systems were compared to a Vicon system using linear regression analyses and Bland-Altman-diagrams. In the linear regression analyses the smallest coefficient of determination (R 2 .) in each exercise can be observed for PUSH Band 2.0. In the Bland-Altman diagrams the mean value of the differences in the average velocities is near zero for all systems and all exercises. PUSH Band 2.0 has the largest differences between the Limits of Agreement. For GymAware and Vmaxpro these differences are comparable.
Validity and reliability of velocity and power measures provided by the Vitruve linear position transducer

Santiago A Ruiz-Alias,Deniz Şentürk,Zeki Akyildiz,Onat Çetin,Selman Kaya,Alejandro Pérez-Castilla,Ivan Jukic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312348

IF: 3.7

2024-10-24

PLoS ONE

Abstract:This study aimed to determine the validity and between-day reliability of the mean velocity (MV), peak velocity (PV), mean power (MP), and peak power (PP) provided by the Vitruve linear position transducer at different submaximal loads in the free-weight and Smith machine back squat using GymAware as a reference point. Fourteen male sports science students (free-weight back squat one-repetition maximum [1RM]: 132.5 ± 28.5 kg, Smith machine back squat 1RM: 163.9 ± 30.4 kg) performed six experimental sessions, twice per week with 72 hours of rest. The first two included the assessment of the 1RM of both exercises. In the four remaining, both linear position transducers were simultaneously used to record MV, PV, MP, PP of each repetition during an incremental load test (i.e., 20, 40, 60, 80, 90% 1RM) with three minutes of rest between sets. Vitruve displayed both fixed and proportional bias for certain relative loads across all variables. Vitruve did not meet the validity criteria for all (MV, PP) or at least two (MP, PV) relative loads (Coefficient of variation [CV] > 10%; Pearson correlation < 0.70; Effect size > 0.60). MV, PV, MP, and PP recorded by Vitruve displayed acceptable reliability (CV < 10%) with superior reliability observed during a Smith Machine compared to free-weight back squat, and for velocity compared to power variables. Considering GymAware as a reference point, Vitruve was not valid for measuring velocity and power outcomes. Acceptable validity was observed only for PV in the Smith machine back squat, while the other variables-regardless of relative loads and exercise modes-were mostly inaccurate. All variables demonstrated acceptable reliability, with greater reliability noted in the Smith machine compared to the free-weight back squat exercise mode.
Validity and Reliability of a Wearable Inertial Sensor to Measure Velocity and Power in the Back Squat and Bench Press

Samuel T Orange,James W Metcalfe,Andreas Liefeith,Phil Marshall,Leigh A Madden,Connor R Fewster,Rebecca V Vince,Samuel T. Orange,James W. Metcalfe,Leigh A. Madden,Connor R. Fewster,Rebecca V. Vince

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000002574

2019-09-01

Abstract:Orange, ST, Metcalfe, JW, Liefeith, A, Marshall, P, Madden, LA, Fewster, CR, and Vince, RV. Validity and reliability of a wearable inertial sensor to measure velocity and power in the back squat and bench press. J Strength Cond Res 33(9): 2398-2408, 2019-This study examined the validity and reliability of a wearable inertial sensor to measure velocity and power in the free-weight back squat and bench press. Twenty-nine youth rugby league players (18 ± 1 years) completed 2 test-retest sessions for the back squat followed by 2 test-retest sessions for the bench press. Repetitions were performed at 20, 40, 60, 80, and 90% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) with mean velocity, peak velocity, mean power (MP), and peak power (PP) simultaneously measured using an inertial sensor (PUSH) and a linear position transducer (GymAware PowerTool). The PUSH demonstrated good validity (Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient [r]) and reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) only for measurements of MP (r = 0.91; ICC = 0.83) and PP (r = 0.90; ICC = 0.80) at 20% of 1RM in the back squat. However, it may be more appropriate for athletes to jump off the ground with this load to optimize power output. Further research should therefore evaluate the usability of inertial sensors in the jump squat exercise. In the bench press, good validity and reliability were evident only for the measurement of MP at 40% of 1RM (r = 0.89; ICC = 0.83). The PUSH was unable to provide a valid and reliable estimate of any other criterion variable in either exercise. Practitioners must be cognizant of the measurement error when using inertial sensor technology to quantify velocity and power during resistance training, particularly with loads other than 20% of 1RM in the back squat and 40% of 1RM in the bench press.

sport sciences
Keeping Pace with Wearables: A Living Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews Evaluating the Accuracy of Consumer Wearable Technologies in Health Measurement

Cailbhe Doherty,Maximus Baldwin,Alison Keogh,Brian Caulfield,Rob Argent

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02077-2

2024-07-30

Abstract:Background: Consumer wearable technologies have become ubiquitous, with clinical and non-clinical populations leveraging a variety of devices to quantify various aspects of health and wellness. However, the accuracy with which these devices measure biometric outcomes such as heart rate, sleep and physical activity remains unclear. Objective: To conduct a 'living' (i.e. ongoing) evaluation of the accuracy of consumer wearable technologies in measuring various physiological outcomes. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the following scientific databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and SPORTDiscus via EBSCO. The inclusion criteria required systematic reviews or meta-analyses that evaluated the validation of consumer wearable devices against accepted reference standards. In addition to publication details, review protocol, device specifics and a summary of the authors' results, we extracted data on mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), pooled absolute bias, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and mean absolute differences. Results: Of 904 identified studies through the initial search, 24 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria; these systematic reviews included 249 non-duplicate validation studies of consumer wearable devices involving 430,465 participants (43% female). Of the commercially available wearable devices released to date, approximately 11% have been validated for at least one biometric outcome. However, because a typical device can measure a multitude of biometric outcomes, the number of validation studies conducted represents just 3.5% of the total needed for a comprehensive evaluation of these devices. For heart rate, wearables showed a mean bias of ± 3%. In arrhythmia detection, wearables exhibited a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 95%, respectively. For aerobic capacity, wearables significantly overestimated VO2max by ± 15.24% during resting tests and ± 9.83% during exercise tests. Physical activity intensity measurements had a mean absolute error ranging from 29 to 80%, depending on the intensity of the activity being undertaken. Wearables mostly underestimated step counts (mean absolute percentage errors ranging from - 9 to 12%) and energy expenditure (mean bias = - 3 kcal per minute, or - 3%, with error ranging from - 21.27 to 14.76%). For blood oxygen saturation, wearables showed a mean absolute difference of up to 2.0%. Sleep measurement showed a tendency to overestimate total sleep time (mean absolute percentage error typically > 10%). Conclusions: While consumer wearables show promise in health monitoring, a conclusive assessment of their accuracy is impeded by pervasive heterogeneity in research outcomes and methodologies. There is a need for standardised validation protocols and collaborative industry partnerships to enhance the reliability and practical applicability of wearable technology assessments. Prospero id: CRD42023402703.

Effect of high hydrostatic pressure on chicken myosin subfragment-1.

Validation of a commercially available mobile application for velocity-based resistance training

Training Monitoring for Resistance Exercise: Theory and Applications

Reliability of technologies to measure the barbell velocity: Implications for monitoring resistance training

Reliability and Validity of Commercially Available Wearable Devices for Measuring Steps, Energy Expenditure, and Heart Rate: Systematic Review

Analysis of Wearable and Smartphone-Based Technologies for the Measurement of Barbell Velocity in Different Resistance Training Exercises

Implementing a velocity-based approach to resistance training: the reproducibility and sensitivity of different velocity monitoring technologies

Validity and reliability of a linear positional transducer across commonly practised resistance training exercises

Methods for Regulating and Monitoring Resistance Training

The Validity and Responsiveness of Isometric Lower Body Multi-Joint Tests of Muscular Strength: a Systematic Review

Concurrent validity of novel smartphone-based apps monitoring barbell velocity in powerlifting exercises

Reliability and validity of a low-cost, wireless sensor and smartphone app for measuring force during isometric and dynamic resistance exercises

Validity and test-retest reliability of a resistance training device for Smith machine back squat exercise

The accuracy of measuring velocity during weightlifting movements with five velocity-based training devices

The Reliability and Validity of Current Technologies for Measuring Barbell Velocity in the Free-Weight Back Squat and Power Clean

Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Seven Commercially Available Devices for the Assessment of Movement Velocity at Different Intensities During the Bench Press

The Predictive Validity of Individualised Load-Velocity Relationships for Predicting 1RM: A Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis

Validation of Velocity Measuring Devices in Velocity Based Strength Training

Validity and reliability of velocity and power measures provided by the Vitruve linear position transducer

Validity and Reliability of a Wearable Inertial Sensor to Measure Velocity and Power in the Back Squat and Bench Press

Keeping Pace with Wearables: A Living Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews Evaluating the Accuracy of Consumer Wearable Technologies in Health Measurement