ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

This aim of this study was to compare the reliability and validity of seven commercially available devices to measure movement velocity during the bench press exercise. Fourteen men completed two testing sessions. The bench press one-repetition maximum (1RM) was determined in the first session. The second testing session consisted of performing three repetitions against five loads (45-55-65-75-85% of 1RM). The mean velocity was simultaneously measured using an optical motion sensing system (Trio-OptiTrack™; “gold-standard”) and seven 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 (PUSH™ band and Beast™ sensor). The devices were ranked from the most to the least reliable as follows: (I) Speed4Lift™ (coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.61%), (II) Velowin™ (CV = 3.99%), PowerLift™ (3.97%), Trio-OptiTrack™ (CV = 4.04%), T-Force™ (CV = 4.35%), Chronojump™ (CV = 4.53%), (III) PUSH™ band (CV = 9.34%), and (IV) 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, while the inertial measurement units used in this study were less reliable and valid.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Original Research
Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Seven
Commercially Available Devices for the
Assessment of Movement Velocity at Different
Intensities During the Bench Press
Alejandro erez-Castilla,
1
Antonio Piepoli,
2
Gabriel Delgado-Garc´
ıa,
1
Gabriel Garrido-Blanca,
2
and
Amador Garc´
ıa-Ramos
1,3
1
Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain;
2
Department of
Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Jaen, Jaen, Spain; and
3
Department of Sports Sciences and Physical
Conditioning, Faculty of Education, CIEDE, Catholic University of the Most Holy Concepci ´on, Concepci ´on, Chile
Abstract
erez-Castilla, A, Piepoli, A, Delgado-Garc´
ıa, G, Garrido-Blanca, G, and Garc´
ıa-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 XX(X): 000–000, 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] 52.61%); (b) Velowin
(CV 53.99%), PowerLift (3.97%), Trio-OptiTrack (CV 54.04%), T-Force (CV 54.35%), and Chronojump (CV 54.53%); (c) PUSH
band (CV 59.34%); and (d) Beast sensor (CV 535.0%). A practically perfect association between the Trio-OptiTrack system and
the different devices was observed (Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient (r) range 50.947–0.995; p,0.001) with the
only exception of the Beast sensor (r50.765; 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.
Key Words: linear position transducer, linear velocity transducer, smartphone application, inertial measurement units, velocity-
based training, testing
Introduction
Velocity-based resistance training has gained in popularity over
recent years because of the proliferation of different commercially
available devices (e.g., linear position transducers, inertial mea-
surement units [IMUs], smartphone applications, etc.) that are
supposed to accurately measure movement velocity (3,5). It has
been proposed that the monitoring of barbell velocity could be an
appropriate alternative to prescribe the training load as compared
to the traditional approach that requires the determination of the
1 repetition maximum (1RM) (17,32). The use of movement
velocity to prescribe the training load is justified by the strong and
linear relationship that has been reported for multiple exercises
between movement velocity and the %1RM (13,26,31). In this
regard, instead of determining the 1RM through a single maximal
lift or by a set of repetitions to failure, the load can be prescribed
to match the desired velocity (17,34). Despite the encouraging
applications of velocity-based resistance training (6), little
research is available comparing the reliability and validity of
different commercially available devices used in training and re-
search to monitor movement velocity.
From a scientific standpoint, the three-dimensional (3D) mo-
tion capture has been recognized as the gold-standardin-
strument to measure movement velocity (22,36). However,
because this technology is not practical or affordable for strength
and conditioning professionals, other devices are typically used in
practice when implementing the velocity-based resistance training
approach. The linear position transducer has been the most used
device in scientific research (2,5,10,14). The linear position
transducer consists of an isoinertial dynamometer with a cable
that is typically attached to the barbell, and it derives velocity
from the recorded displacement-time data using the inverse dy-
namic approach (18). More recently, a linear velocity transducer
named T-Force(T-Force system; Ergotech, Murcia, Spain) has
been made commercially available, which directly provides ve-
locity measurements through the recording of electrical signals
that are proportional to the cables extension velocity (33). It is
reasonable to speculate that the linear velocity transducer could
be more precise than linear position transducers because it is
Address correspondence to Amador Garc ´
ıa-Ramos, amagr@ugr.es.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 00(00)/1–8
ª2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association
1
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
known that the successive manipulation of raw data increases
measurement errors (25,30). However, it remains unexplored
whether the reliability of velocity outputs significantly differs
between linear position and linear velocity transducers, as well as
their concurrent validity with respect to the gold-standard3D
motion capture.
It should be acknowledged that linear position/velocity trans-
ducers are not always practical or affordable. The need to attach
the cable to the barbell restricts exercise selection to the ones
predominantly performed in a vertical direction (5). Another
common drawback of linear position/velocity transducers is their
high price (2,000 US dollars), which may limit their use to
laboratory-based or professional sport settings (7,23,24). How-
ever, it should be noted that a new linear position transducer
named Speed4Lift(Speed4Lift
AU1 ; Madrid, Spain) has appeared
on the market with a considerably lower price (340 US dollars),
although there are no available data regarding its reliability and
validity. As an alternative to linear position/velocity transducers,
wearable technologies are increasingly gaining popularity in the
field of strength training and conditioning (3,5,12,28).
One of the wearable devices that have recently appeared on the
market is named Velowin(Velowin; DeporTeC, Murcia,
Spain). Velowin is a camera-based optoelectronic system
designed to measure movement velocity by the tracking of an
infrared reflective marker placed in the barbell. A high reliability
and concurrent validity of the Velowin to measure movement
velocity has been reported during the free-weight back squat ex-
ercise (12,21). The main advantage of Velowin as compared to
linear position/velocity transducers is that it does not require to be
attached to the barbell through a cable and, therefore, this would
eliminate the risk of cable rupture (21). However, the Velowin
cost (625 US dollars) and limited portability (e.g., a PC software
is needed) could limit its use for many strength and conditioning
professionals. Many practitioners can only afford more practical
devices such as smartphone applications or IMUs (2,28).
A smartphone application named PowerLifthas been
designed to monitor movement velocity by the manual inspection
of a slow motion video recording by the smartphone high-speed
camera (4). The high reliability and validity of PowerLift to
monitor mean velocity has been confirmed in exercises such as the
bench press, full-squat, and hip-thrust (3,4). However, the main
limitation of PowerLift is that it does not provide real-time ve-
locity feedback because coaches are required to indicate manually
the start and end of the concentric phase. The PUSH band (PUSH
band, PUSH, Inc., Toronto, Canada) and Beast sensor (Beast
sensor, Beast Technologies Srl., Brescia, Italy), which are com-
posed by the combination of 3-axis accelerometers and 3-axis
gyroscopes, are 2 of the IMUs most commonly used in research
and practice (3,5). An advantage of IMUs is that they are able to
account for the anteroposterior displacement that is frequent
during free-weight exercises (28), whereas linear position/velocity
transducer cannot distinguish the direction of the cable dis-
placement. However, owing to the discrepancies found between
the studies that have evaluated the validity of the PUSH band
(3,5,36) and owing to the scarce number of studies that have
examined the reliability and validity of the Beast sensor (3), more
research is needed to explore the feasibility of both IMU devices.
To address the existing gaps in the literature, this study was
designed to provide a comprehensive analysis of different devices
(i.e., linear velocity transducer, linear position transducers,
camera-based optoelectronic system, smartphone application,
and IMUs) that are being used in practice for the measurement of
movement velocity during resistance training. Specifically, the
objective of this study was to compare the reliability and validity
of 7 commercially available devices to measure movement ve-
locity during the bench press exercise. We hypothesized that the
devices would be ranked from the most to the least reliable and
valid as follows: (a) linear velocity transducer; (b) linear position
transducers; (c) camera-based optoelectronic device; (d) smart-
phone application; and (e) IMUs. The results of this study should
provide practical information for strength and conditioning
coaches regarding the reliability and concurrent validity of dif-
ferent devices that can be used in practice for the assessment of
movement velocity.
Methods
Experimental Approach AU2to the Problem
This study was designed to explore the reliability and concurrent
validity of 7 commercially available devices for the measurement
of movement velocity. Subjects completed 2 testing sessions sep-
arated by 4872 hours. The 1RM in the bench press exercise was
determined in the first testing session. The second testing session
consisted of performing 3 repetitions against 5 different loads (45,
55, 65, 75, and 85% of 1RM). The mean velocity of the barbell
was measured using an optical motion sensing system (V120:
Trio, OptiTrack; NaturalPoint, Inc. AU3, USA) that was considered
the gold standard in this study (27,38). In addition, the mean
velocity was also measured by 7 commercially available devices: 1
linear velocity transducer (T-Force system, Ergotech), 2 linear
position transducers (Chronojump; Boscosystem, Barcelona,
Spain; and Speed4Lift), 1 camera-based optoelectronic system
(Velowin, DeporTeC), 1 smartphone application (PowerLift),
and 2 IMUs (PUSH band; PUSH, Inc., and Beast sensor; Beast
Technologies Srl.). The 2 repetitions with higher mean velocity
recorded by the Trio-OptiTrack at each load were used for cal-
culating intrasession reliability (3,21), whereas only the repetition
with the highest mean velocity recorded at each load by the Trio-
OptiTrack was used for validity analyses.
Subjects
Fourteen physically AU4active men (age: 22.9 61.6 years; body
height: 1.76 60.06 m; body mass: 76.9 67.8 kg; bench AU5press
1RM: 86.1 611.9 kg) volunteered to participate in this study.
Subjects were recruited from a fitness center, and all of them AU6were
familiarized with the bench press exercise before the beginning of
the study. None of them suffered from physical limitations, health
problems, or musculoskeletal injuries that could compromise
tested performance. Subjects were instructed to avoid any stren-
uous exercise 2 days before each testing session. They were in-
formed of the study procedures and signed a written informed
consent form before initiating the study. The study protocol ad-
hered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and was ap-
proved by the institutional review board.
Testing Procedures AU7.The first testing session was used for an-
thropometric measures and to determine the 1RM during the
concentric-only bench press exercise following an incremental
loading test (11). The standardized warm-up consisted of jogging,
self-selected dynamic stretching and joint mobilization exercises,
and 1 set of 5 repetitions performed against external load of 17 kg
(mass of the unloaded Smith machine barbell) during the bench
press exercise. Thereafter, the external load was incremented
from 10 AU8to 1 kg until the 1RM load was reached. The average
Feasibility of Seven Devices to Measure Velocity (2019) 00:00
2
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
number of loads tested was 8.9 61.3. The interset rest was set to 4
minutes, and 12 repetitions were performed with each load.
The second testing session beganwiththesamewarm-up
described for session 1. Afterward, subjects performed the
concentric-only bench press exercise against 5 relative loads
(45, 55, 65, 75, and 85% of 1RM) that were implemented in an
incremental order. Lower loads (i.e., ,45%of1RM)werenot
tested because they are generally not used in training with the
bench press exercise, whereas higher loads (i.e., .85% of
1RM) were excluded to avoid high fatigue that could com-
promise reliability analyses. Three repetitions were executed
with each load. Interrepetition rest was set to 15 seconds, and
interset rest was fixed to 4 minutes. The barbell was held by the
safety stops of the Smith machine during the recovery periods.
Subjects were encouraged to lift the barbell at the maximum
possible velocity.
The standard 5-point body contact position technique (head,
upper back, and buttocks firmly on the bench with both feet flat
on the floor) was followed in the 2 testing sessions. Subjects self-
selected the grip width, which was measured and kept constant on
every lift. The barbell was held by the safety stops of the Smith
machine 12 cm above the subjectschest at the level of the
sternum. From that position, subjects were instructed to perform
a concentric-only movement as fast as possible until their elbows
reached full extension. Two spotters were responsible for low-
ering the barbell after each repetition.
Measurement Equipment and Data Acquisition. The measure-
ment devices were not synchronized, and they separately collected
the mean velocity of the same repetitions (
½F1Figure 1). The specific
characteristics of each device are provided below:
Trio-OptiTrack. Trio-OptiTrack (V120:Trio; OptiTrack, Natu-
ralPoint, Inc.) is an optical motion sensing system, which included
3 infrared and precalibrated cameras fixed on a rectangular frame
that gives 3D position data of a reflective marker at a sampling
rate of 120 Hz. Raw data of marker position in space were ac-
quired using the software Motive v.1.5.0 (OptiTrack, Natural-
Point, Inc.) and then analyzed in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft,
Seattle, WA, USA). Instantaneous velocity was calculated by the
differentiation of the displacement data with respect to time. The
reflective marker was placed on the left side of the barbell, and the
Trio-OptiTrack was positioned at a distance of 2.5 m from the
marker.
T-Force. T-Force (T-Force system, Ergotech) is an isoinertial dy-
namometer that consists of a cable-extension linear velocity
transducer interfaced with a personal computer by means of a 14-
bit resolution analog-to-digital data acquisition board. In-
stantaneous velocity was automatically calculated at a sampling
rate of 1,000 Hz by the custom software v.2.28. The cable was
vertically attached to the right side of the barbell using a Velcro
strap.
Chronojump. Chronojump (Chronojump Boscosystem, Barce-
lona, Spain) is an isoinertial dynamometer that consists of a cable-
extension linear position transducer attached to the barbell
interfaced with a personal computer at a sampling rate of 1,000
Hz. Raw data were exported from the custom software v.1.6.2
and then analyzed in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft). Instantaneous
velocity was calculated by the differentiation of the displacement
data with respect to time. The cable was vertically attached to the
right side of the barbell using a Velcro strap.
Speed4Lift. Speed4Lift (Speed4Lift) is an isoinertial dynamome-
ter that consists of a cable-extension linear position transducer
attached to the barbell. Data were directly recorded by the dif-
ferentiation of the displacement data with respect to time at
a sampling rate of 1,000 Hz through Wi-Fi connection with an
Android smartphone using Speed4Lift application v.4.1. The
cable was vertically attached to the left side of the barbell using
a Velcro strap.
Velowin. Velowin (Velowin; DeporTeC) is an optoelectronic
system, which included an infrared camera interfaced with
a personal computer that measured displacement of a reflector
fixed to the barbell. Data were directly recorded from the custom
software v.1.6.314 by the differentiation of the displacement data
with respect to time at a sampling rate of 500 Hz. The Velowin
was placed at a distance of 1.7 m from the infrared reflector, and it
was calibrated according to the manufacturers instructions.
PowerLift. PowerLift is a smartphone v.6.0.1 application that
involves a frame-by-frame manual inspection of a slow motion
video recording by the smartphone high-speed camera at a fre-
quency of 240 frames per second and a quality of 720 pixels. The
mean velocity was computed as the individual range of motion
(i.e., vertical displacement of the barbell from the initial [1cm
above the subjects chest] to the final [elbows at full extension]
position) divided by the lifting time (i.e., time between 2 frames
selected by the user). The smartphone (iPhone; Apple, Inc., CA,
USA) was held by a researcher in a portrait position and
recorded each lift from the front of the subject at approxi-
mately 1.5 m.
PUSH Band. PUSH band (PUSH band, PUSH, Inc.) is a wearable
wireless IMUs that consist of a 3-axis accelerometer and a gyro-
scope that provided 6 degrees of freedom in its coordinate system
(2). Data were directly recorded by the integration of the accel-
eration data with respect to time at a sampling rate of 200 Hz
through Bluetooth 4.0 LE connection with a smartphone (iPhone,
Apple, Inc.) using PUSH application v.1.1.26. The PUSH band
Figure 1. Distribution of the measurement devices during the
testing protocol: (1) Trio-OptiTrack, (2) T-Force, (3) Chro-
nojump, (4) Speed4Lift, (5) Velowin, (6) PowerLift, (7) PUSH
band, and (8) Beast sensor.
Feasibility of Seven Devices to Measure Velocity (2019) 00:00 |www.nsca.com
3
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
was worn on the subjects dominant forearm immediately inferior
to the elbow crease with the main button located proximally (2,5).
Beast Sensor. Beast sensor (Beast sensor, Beast Technologies Srl.)
is a wearable wireless IMUs that included a 3-axis accelerometer,
gyroscope, and magnetometer. Data were directly recorded by the
integration of the vertical acceleration with respect to time at
a sampling rate of 50 Hz through Bluetooth 4.0 LE connection
with a smartphone (iPhone, Apple, Inc.) using Beast application
v.2.3.7. The Beast sensor was placed on the barbell using a built-
in magnet (3).
Statistical Analyses
Descriptive data are presented as means and SDs, whereas the
coefficient of variation (CV) of the 5 loads is presented through
their median value. Reliability was assessed for each individual
load by the CV and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC
model 3,1). Acceptable reliability was determined as a CV ,10%
and an ICC .0.70 (8). The median CV value of the 5 loads was
calculated to compare the reliability between the 8 devices ex-
amined in this study. To interpret the magnitude of differences
observed between 2 CVs, a criterion for the smallest important
ratio was established as higher than 1.15 (37). Bland-Altman
plots were constructed to explore the concurrent validity of the 7
commercially available devices with respect to the Trio-
OptiTrack system. Because we observed proportional bias in 6
of 7 comparisons (r
2
.0.1) (1), the data were log transformed
before calculating the Pearsons product-moment correlation
coefficients (r) (19). The criteria to interpret the strength of the r
coefficients were as follows: trivial (,0.1), small (0.10.3),
moderate (0.30.5), high (0.50.7), very high (0.70.9), or
practically perfect (.0.9) (19). Statistical significance was ac-
cepted at the p,0.05 level, and confidence limits were set at
95%. All reliability assessments were performed by means of
a custom spreadsheet (20), whereas other statistical analyses were
performed using the software package SPSS (IBM SPSS version
22.0, Chicago, IL, USA).
Results
Mean velocity values only reached an acceptable reliability at all
loads for the Trio-OptiTrack system, the linear velocity/position
transducers, and the smartphone application (CV ,6.24% and
ICC .0.73) (
½T1Table 1). Based on the comparison of the median
CVs of the 5 loads, the devices were ranked from the most to the
least reliable as follows: (a) Speed4Lift (CV 52.61%); (b) Velo-
win (CV 53.99%), PowerLift (3.97%), Trio-OptiTrack (CV 5
4.04%), T-Force (CV 54.35%), and Chronojump (CV 5
4.53%); (c) PUSH band (CV 59.34%); and (d) Beast sensor (CV
535.0%).
Bland-Altman plots revealed low systematic bias and random
errors (#0.05 m·s
21
) for the T-Force, Chronojump, Speed4Lift,
Velowin, and PowerLift as compared to the Trio-OptiTrack
system (
½F2Figure 2). Both IMUs showed larger random errors
(PUSH band 50.06 m·s
21
and Beast sensor 50.21 m·s
21
).
Heteroscedasticity of the errors was observed for all devices with
the only exception of the Speed4Lift (r
2
50.007). A practically
perfect association between the Trio-OptiTrack system and the
different devices was observed (rrange 50.9470.995; p,
0.001) with the only exception of the Beast sensor (r50.765; p,
0.001) (
½F3Figure 3).
Discussion
This study compared the reliability and concurrent validity of 7
commercially available devices for the measurement of movement
velocity during the bench press exercise performed in a Smith
machine. The different devices were ranked from the most to the
least reliable as follows: (a) Speed4Lift; (b) Velowin, PowerLift, T-
Force, and Chronojump; (c) PUSH band; and (d) Beast sensor.
The concurrent validity of the T-Force, Chronojump, Speed4Lift,
Velowin, and PowerLift with respect to the Trio-OptiTrack sys-
tem was practically perfect. The 2 IMUs, especially the Beast
sensor, showed the lowest concurrent validity (i.e., lower rcoef-
ficients and larger random errors) as compared to the Trio-
OptiTrack system. The Speed4Lift was the only device that did
not report heteroscedasticity of errors. The results of this study
speak in favor of the Speed4Lift as the most reliable and valid
device for the measurement of movement velocity during the
Table 1
Reliability of mean velocity values obtained from the Trio-
OptiTrack method and 7 commercially available devices at
different loads during the bench press exercise.*
Device
Load
(%1RM)
Mean velocity
(m·s
21
) CV (95% CI) ICC (95% CI)
Trio-OptiTrack 45 0.84 60.05 3.47 (2.52–5.59) 0.73 (0.35–0.90)
55 0.71 60.05 2.22 (1.57–3.76) 0.93 (0.79–0.98)
65 0.58 60.05 4.04 (2.93–6.50) 0.84 (0.57–0.95)
75 0.46 60.05 4.15 (2.98–6.85) 0.83 (0.54–0.95)
85 0.35 60.05 4.64 (3.37–7.48) 0.88 (0.67–0.96)
T-Force 45 0.83 60.06 2.48 (1.78–4.09) 0.90 (0.70–0.97)
55 0.70 60.05 1.82 (1.32–2.93) 0.95 (0.84–0.98)
65 0.59 60.05 4.35 (3.15–7.01) 0.78 (0.45–0.93)
75 0.49 60.05 4.78 (3.43–7.89) 0.77 (0.40–0.92)
85 0.37 60.05 4.90 (3.55–7.90) 0.87 (0.64–0.96)
Chronojump 45 0.90 60.05 2.31 (1.67–3.72) 0.87 (0.64–0.96)
55 0.76 60.05 2.09 (1.51–3.36) 0.90 (0.71–0.97)
65 0.60 60.07 6.24 (4.47–10.3) 0.72 (0.31–0.90)
75 0.47 60.06 4.53 (3.25–7.48) 0.85 (0.58–0.95)
85 0.34 60.05 5.65 (4.05–9.32) 0.86 (0.60–0.95)
Speed4Lift 45 0.88 60.06 2.61 (1.80–4.77) 0.87 (0.55–0.96)
55 0.75 60.04 2.39 (1.73–3.85) 0.84 (0.57–0.94)
65 0.63 60.05 2.42 (1.69–4.25) 0.93 (0.78–0.98)
75 0.51 60.05 3.92 (2.81–6.47) 0.81 (0.49–0.94)
85 0.38 60.05 3.41 (2.38–5.98) 0.94 (0.78–0.98)
PowerLift 45 0.79 60.04 2.85 (2.02–4.83) 0.84 (0.55–0.95)
55 0.70 60.06 3.97 (2.81.6.74) 0.85 (0.57–0.96)
65 0.58 60.05 4.91 (3.48–8.33) 0.74 (0.32–0.92)
75 0.51 60.05 3.69 (2.58–6.48) 0.87 (0.58–0.96)
85 0.40 60.04 4.97 (3.47–8.71) 0.85 (0.54–0.96)
Velowin 45 0.91 60.06 2.89 (2.09–4.65) 0.83 (0.56–0.94)
55 0.77 60.05 3.27 (2.35–5.40) 0.79 (0.45–0.93)
65 0.64 60.06 3.99 (2.86–6.59) 0.83 (0.53–0.94)
75 0.51 60.05 6.01 (4.36–9.69) 0.68 (0.26–0.89)
85 0.38 60.06 7.64 (5.54–12.3) 0.69 (0.27–0.89)
PUSH band 45 0.79 60.07 5.02 (3.56–8.52) 0.69 (0.22–0.89)
55 0.63 60.07 7.84 (5.39–14.3) 0.46 (20.27–0.81)
65 0.46 60.08 9.34 (6.77–15.0) 0.78 (0.45–0.92)
75 0.31 60.06 14.6 (10.0–26.6) 0.50 (20.21–0.82)
85 0.24 60.06 19.1 (13.7–31.5) 0.47 (20.09–0.80)
Beast sensor 45 0.82 60.32 33.4 (23.5–58.9) 0.29 (20.42–0.72)
55 0.70 60.27 24.2 (15.6–53.2) 0.64 (20.28–0.89)
65 0.51 60.21 35.0 (22.6–77.1) 0.30 (20.91–0.77)
75 0.34 60.16 40.2 (28.1–70.5) 0.31 (20.40–0.73)
85 0.23 60.15 54.9 (38.9–93.2) 0.27 (20.38–0.70)
*1RM 51 repetition maximum; CV 5coefficient of variation; 95% CI 595% confidence interval;
ICC 5intraclass correlation coefficient.
Feasibility of Seven Devices to Measure Velocity (2019) 00:00
4
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
bench press exercise performed in a Smith machine. Collectively,
the results of this study suggest that all devices, with the exception
of the IMUs (especially the Beast sensor), could be used to obtain
accurate velocity measurements for restricted linear movements.
However, strength and conditioning professionals should be
aware of the presence of heteroscedasticity between these devices,
which could limit the interchangeable use of different devices.
Linear position/velocity transducers have been routinely used
for training and testing purposes (5,16,29). These devices have
been considered the gold-standardto measure barbell velocity
Figure 2. Bland-Altman plots for the measurement of mean velocity between the Trio-OptiTrack system and
the 7 commercially available devices: T-Force (upper-left panel), Chronojump (upper-right panel), Speed4Lift
(upper middle-left panel), Velowin (upper middle-right panel), PowerLift (lower middle-left panel), PUSH band
(lower middle-right panel), and Beast sensor (lower panel). Each plot depicts the averaged difference and
95% limits of agreement (dashed lines), along with the regression line (solid line).
Feasibility of Seven Devices to Measure Velocity (2019) 00:00 |www.nsca.com
5
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
in many studies (2,3,5). Specifically, the linear velocity transducer
used in this study (T-Force) has been frequently used to validate
other devices that were designed to measure movement velocity
(2,14,15). The preferential use of linear velocity transducers as
compared to linear position transducers could be justified because
the direct measurement of movement velocity is expected to
provide more accurate velocity outputs (30). However, there is
scarce information regarding the comparison of the reliability of
velocity outputs between linear velocity and linear position
transducers. Contrary to our hypothesis, the linear velocity
Figure 3. Relationship of mean velocity values between the Trio-OptiTrack system and the 7 com-
mercially available devices: T-Force (upper-left panel), Chronojump (upper-right panel), Speed4Lift
(upper middle-left panel), Velowin (upper middle-right panel), PowerLift (lower middle-left panel), PUSH
band (lower middle-right panel), and Beast sensor (lower panel). The Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r)
was calculated using the log transformation because the assumption of homoscedasticity was violated.
Feasibility of Seven Devices to Measure Velocity (2019) 00:00
6
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
transducer (i.e., T-Force) was not more reliable than the 2 linear
position transducers used in this study (i.e., Chronojump and
Speed4Lift). In addition, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first
scientific article that has provided data regarding the validity of the
Chronojump and Speed4Lift. It should be noted that the Speed4Lift
was the most reliable device and the only device that did not report
heteroscedasticity of errors with respect to the Trio-OptiTrack sys-
tem. These results together with its lower price (340 US dollars)
and excellent portability (the software is installed in a smartphone
app that is wirelessly connected with the hardware) place the
Speed4Lift as an accurate, cost-effective, and practical device for
the measurement of movement velocity. It is worth noting that the
heteroscedasticity of errors observed for the other devices com-
promises their interchangeability. The T-Force and PowerLift
showed progressively larger values than the Trio-OptiTrack with
increasing velocities, whereas opposite results were observed for the
Chronojump, Velowin, PUSH band, and Beast sensor.
The Velowin has been recently developed as a more affordable
and practical device to measure movement velocity during re-
sistance training exercises. However, to date, only 2 studies have
examined its reliability and concurrent validity to measure move-
ment velocity. Garc´
ıa-Ramos et al. (12) found a comparable re-
liability (CV 54.294.60%) and high validity (r50.970.98)
between the T-Force and Velowin systems during the free-weight
back-squat exercise. Laza-Cagigas et al (21). also observed a high
validity (concordant correlation coefficient 50.96) and reliability
(CV 57.3% and ICC 50.97)oftheVelowinsystemtomeasure
mean velocity during the free-weight back-squat exercise with re-
spect to a 3D system. In line with these findings, our results showed
a high and comparable reliability and validity of the Velowin system
as compared to the data provided by linear position/velocity
transducers during the bench press exercise performed in a Smith
machine. More recently, an affordable (11 US dollars) smart-
phone application named PowerLift has been made commercially
available to measure movement velocity. The results of this study
corroborate the findings of Balsalobre-Fern ´
andez et al. who showed
a comparable reliability (ICC 50.930.99) and high validity (r5
0.940.98) of PowerLift with respect to the data provided by a lin-
ear position transducer (SmartCoach Europe, Stockholm, Sweden)
during free-weight exercises (3,4). Although it should be acknowl-
edged that it is possible to obtain accurate measurements of mean
velocity with PowerLift, the necessity of individually selecting the
start and end points of each repetition may be unpractical when
many athletes need to be assessed. In addition, the no provision of
real-time velocity feedback should also be considered a limitation
compared with the other devices analyzed in this study (39).
Wearable technologies such as the PUSH band and Beast sensor
are being increasingly used in the strength and conditioning field.
These 2 IMUs have been recently validated to measure movement
velocity during a variety of resistance training exercises (2,3,5,36). In
line with our results, the PUSH band provided highly valid meas-
urements of mean velocity when the data of several loads were
combined for the analysis during the bench press performed in
a Smith machine and during the free-weight shoulder press and
biceps/arm curl exercises (r.0.86) (2,36). However, the validity of
the PUSH band seems to be compromised when the data of in-
dividual loads are analyzed separately (specially for loads $80% of
1RM) (5). The PUSH band device should be therefore considered
with some caution given the controversial results and the lower re-
liability reported in this study. Regarding the Beast sensor, to the best
of our knowledge, only 1 study has investigated the reliability and
validity of this device with respect to the data provided by a linear
position transducer (SmartCoach Europe), reporting both a very
high reliability (ICC .0.95) and validity (r.0.98) during the bench
press, full-squat, and hip-thrust exercises (3). On the contrary, our
results suggest that the Beast sensor is the least reliable and valid
device among all the commercially available devices analyzed in this
study. It is plausible that the lower sampling frequencies of the IMUs
or the need to integrate acceleration-time data to obtain velocity
values could have caused their lower reliability (5,28). Therefore,
more evidence about the feasibility of wearable technology in the
field of velocity-based resistance training is needed.
Several limitations and directions for future research should be
considered. First, it should be noted that the mean velocity is not
the only velocity variable used in practice. The mean propulsive
velocity (i.e., average velocity from the start of the concentric
phase until the acceleration of the bar is lower than gravity) and
maximum velocity (i.e., maximum instantaneous velocity value
reached during the concentric phase) have been commonly rec-
ommended for training and testing (9,35). Therefore, future
studies should consider expanding the analysis of the reliability
and validity of different devices to these variables. It should be
noted that the mean velocity was the only variable analyzed in this
study because it was the only common variable for the 8 devices
analyzed. Second, the PUSH band was placed on the subjects
forearm, whereas the other devices were attached to the barbell.
Therefore, although the measurement of the PUSH could be af-
fected by anteroposterior movements, the displacement of the
other devices was restricted to the vertical direction. Another
factor that could have promoted the lower reliability and validity
of the IMUs is their lower sampling frequency. In this regard, it is
plausible that the reliability and validity of the PUSH could be
improved with the current 2.0 version, which has a higher sam-
pling frequency (1,000 Hz), and it can be directly attached to the
barbell. Future studies should examine whether our findings
could be applicable to free-weight exercises in which the dis-
placement of the barbell is not restricted to the vertical direction.
Finally, because one of the main applications of the use of velocity
during resistance training is the prediction of the 1RM
(13,26,31), future studies should examine the precision of dif-
ferent commercially available devices for predicting the 1RM
during basic resistance training exercises.
Practical Applications
The devices were ranked from the most to the least reliable as
follows: (a) Speed4Lift; (b) Velowin, PowerLift, T-Force, and
Chronojump; (c) PUSH band; and (d) Beast sensor. All devices
presented a high concurrent validity with respect to the Trio-
OptiTrack system with the only exception of the Beast sensor,
whereas the Speed4Lift was the only device that did not report
heteroscedasticity of errors. Taken together, these results
suggest that the Speed4Lift is the most appropriate device for
the measurement of movement velocity during the bench press
exercise performed in a Smith machine. Note that linear ve-
locity transducers, linear position transducers, camera-based
optoelectronic systems, and smartphone application could all
be used to obtain accurate measurements of mean velocity
during the bench press exercise performed in a Smith machine,
although the presence of heteroscedasticity of errors should be
in mind. The 2 IMUs present a lower reliability and validity
and, consequently, more caution should be taken when using
PUSH band and Beast sensor devices for implementing
velocity-based resistance training programs.
Feasibility of Seven Devices to Measure Velocity (2019) 00:00 |www.nsca.com
7
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank all the participants who selflessly participated in the
study. This study was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education,
Culture and Sport under a predoctoral grant (FPU15/03649) awarded
to A.P.C. and by the University of Granada under a postdoctoral grant
(perfeccionamiento de doctores) awarded to A.G.R.
References
1. Atkinson G and Nevill AM. Statistical methods for asses sing measurement
error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med 26:
217238, 1998.
2. Balsalobre-Fern ´
andez C, Kuzdub M, Poveda-Ortiz P, and Campo-Vecino
JD. Validity and reliability of the push wearable device to measure
movement velocity during the back squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res
30: 19681974, 2016.
3. Balsalobre-Fernandez C, Marchante D, Baz-Valle E, Alonso-Molero I,
Jimenez SL, and Munoz-Lopez M. Analysis of wearable and smartphone-
based technologies for the measurement of barbell velocity in different
resistance training exercises. Front Physiol 8: 649, 2017.
4. Balsalobre-Fern´
andez C, Marchante D, Muñoz-L ´
opez M, and Jim´
enez SL.
Validity and reliability of a novel iPhone app for themeasurement of barbell
velocity and 1RM on the bench-press exercise.J Sports Sci 36: 6470, 2018.
5. Banyard HG, Nosaka K, Sato K, and Haff GG. Validity of various
methods for determining velocity, force, and power in the back squat. Int J
Sports Physiol Perform 12: 11701176, 2017.
6. Bryan JM, Patrick AI, Stephen PS, Mann J, Ivey P, and Sayers S. Velocity-
based training in football. Strength Cond J 37: 5257, 2015.
7. Conceição F, Fernandes J, Lewis M, Gonzal ´
ez-Badillo JJ, and Jimen´
ez-
Reyes P. Movement velocity as a measure of exercise intensity in three
lower limb exercises. J Sports Sci 34: 10991106, 2016.
8. Cormack SJ, Newton RU, McGuigan MR, and Doyle TLA. Reliability of
measures obtained during single and repeated countermovement jumps.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform 3: 131144, 2008.
9. Garc´
ıa-Ramos A, Haff G, Padial P, and Feriche B. Reliability of power and
velocity variables collected during the traditional and ballistic bench press
exercise. Sport Biomech 17: 117130, 2018.
10. Garc´
ıa-Ramos A, Jaric S, P´
erez-Castilla A, Padial P, and Feriche B. Re-
liability and magnitude of mechanical variables assessed from un-
constrained and constrained loaded countermovement jumps. Sport
Biomech 16: 414526, 2017.
11. Garc´
ıa-Ramos A, Padial P, Haff GG, Arg ¨uelles-Cienfuegos J, Garc´
ıa-
Ramos M, Conde-Pip ´
o J, et al. Effect of different interrepetition rest
periods on barbell velocity loss during the ballistic bench press exercise.
J Strength Cond Res 29: 23882396, 2015.
12. Garc´
ıa-Ramos A, P´
erez-Castilla A, and Mart´
ın F. Reliability and con-
current validity of the Velowin optoelectronic system to measure move-
ment velocity during the free-weight back squat. Int J Sports Sci Coach 13:
737742, 2018.
13. Garc´
ıa-Ramos A, Pestaña-Melero F, P´
erez-Castilla A, Rojas F, and Haff
G. Differences in the load-velocity profile between 4 bench press variants.
Int J Sport Physiol Perform 13: 326331, 2018.
14. Garnacho-Castano MV, Lopez-Lastra S, and Mate-Munoz JL. Reliability
and validity assessment of a linear position transducer. J Sports Sci Med
14: 128136, 2015.
15. Gomez-Piriz PT, Sanchez ET, Manrique DC, and Gonzalez EP. Reliability
and comparability of the accelerometer and the linear position measuring
device in resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 27: 16641670, 2013.
16. Gonz´
alez-Badillo JJ, Rodr´
ıguez-Rosell D, S´
anchez-Medina L, Gorostiaga
EM, and Pareja-Blanco F. Maximal intended velocity training induces
greater gains in bench press performance than deliberately slower half-
velocity training. Eur J Sport Sci 14: 772781, 2014.
17. Gonz´
alez-Badillo JJ and S ´
anchez-Medina L. Movement velocity as
a measure of loading intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports Med 31:
347352, 2010.
18. Harris NK, Cronin J, Taylor KL, Boris J, and Sheppard J. Understanding
position transducer technology for strength and conditioning practi-
tioners. Strength Cond J 32: 6679, 2010.
19. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, and Hanin J. Progressive
statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 41: 313, 2009. AU9
20. Hopkins W. Calculations for Reliability (Excel Spreedsheet): A New View
of Statistics, 2000. Available at: http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/
relycalc.html#excel. AU10
21. Laza-Cagigas R, Goss-Sampson M, Larumbe-Zabala E, Termkolli L, and
Naclerio F. Validity and reliability of a novel optoelectronic device to
measure movement velocity, force and power during the back squat ex-
ercise. J Sports Sci 37: 795, 2019. AU11
22. Lorenzetti S, Lamparter T, and L ¨
uthy F. Validity and reliability of simple
measurement device to assess the velocity of the barbell during squats.
BMC Res Notes 10: 707, 2017.
23. Loturco I, Kobal R, Moraes JE, Kitamura K, Cal Abad CC, Pereira LA,
et al. Predicting the maximum dynamic strength in bench press: The high
precision of the bar velocity approach. J Strength Cond Res 31:
11271131, 2017.
24. Loturco I, Pereira LA, Winckler C, Santos WL, Kobal R, and McGuigan
M. Load-velocity relationship in national paralympic powerlifters: A case
study. Int J Sports Physiol Perform:11271131, 2019. AU12
25. McMaster DT, Gill N, Cronin J, and McGuigan M. A brief review of
strength and ballistic assessment methodologies in sport. Sports Med 44:
603623, 2014.
26. Munoz-Lopez M, Marchante D, Cano-Ruiz MA, Chicharro JL, and
Balsalobre-Fernandez C. Load-, force-, and power-velocity relationships
in the prone pull-up exercise. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 12: 12491255,
2017.
27. Nagym´
at´
e G and Kiss RM. Application of OptiTrack motion capture
systems in human movement analysis: A systematic literature review.
Recent Innov Mechatronics 5, 2018.
28. Orange ST, Metcalfe JW, Liefeith A, Marshall P, Madden LA, Fewster
CR, et al. Validity and reliability of a wearable inertial sensor to measure
velocity and power in the back squat and bench press. J Strength Cond
Res, 2018. Epub ahead of print.
29. Pareja-Blanco F, Rodr´
ıguez-Rosell D, S´
anchez-Medina L, Sanchis-Moysi
J, Dorado C, Mora-Custodio R, et al. Effects of velocity loss during re-
sistance training on athletic performance, strength gains and muscle
adaptations. Scand J Med Sci Sports 27: 724735, 2017.
30. P´
erez-Castilla A, Feriche B, Jaric S, Padial P, and Garc´
ıa-Ramos A. Val-
idity of a linear velocity transducer for testing maximum vertical jumps.
J Appl Biomech 33: 388392, 2017.
31. P´
erez-Castilla A, Garc´
ıa-Ramos A, Padial P, Morales-Artacho A, and
Feriche B. Load-velocity relationship in variations of the half-squat ex-
ercise: Influence of execution technique. J Strength Cond Res, 2018. Epub
ahead of print.
32. Sakamoto A, Sinclair PJ, and Naito H. Strategies for maximizing power
and strength gains in isoinertial resistance training: Implications for
competitive athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 5: 153166, 2016.
33. S´
anchez-Medina L and Gonz ´
alez-Badillo JJ. Velocity loss as an indicator
of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc
43: 17251734, 2011.
34. S´
anchez-Medina L, Gonz ´
alez-Badillo JJ, P´
erez CE, and Pallar´
es JG. Ve-
locity- and power-load relationships of the bench pull vs bench press
exercises. Int J Sports Med 35: 209216, 2014.
35. Sanchez-Medina L, Perez CE, and Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Importance of the
propulsive phase in strength assessment. Int J Sports Med 31: 123129,
2010.
36. Sato K, Beckham GK, Carroll K, Bazyler C, Sha Z, and Haff GG. Validity
of wireless device measuring velocity of resistance exercises. J Trainology
4: 1518, 2015.
37. Stewart AM and Hopkins WG. Consistency of swimming performance
within and between competitions. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 9971001,
2000.
38. Vasconcelos F, Peebles D, Ourselin S, and Stoyanov D. Spatial calibration
of a 2D/3D ultrasound using a tracked needle. Int J Comput Assist Radiol
Surg 11: 10911099, 2016.
39. Weakley JJ, Wilson KM, Till K, Read DB, Darrall-Jones J, Roe G,
et al. Visual feedback attenuates mean concentric barbell velocity
loss, and improves motivation, competitiveness, and perceived
workload in male adolescent athletes. JStrengthCondRes, 2017.
Epub ahead of print.
Feasibility of Seven Devices to Measure Velocity (2019) 00:00
8
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
... In practice, strength and conditioning coaches should consider that using the velocitybased approach might also present some shortcomings. For example, autoregulation of the intraset VL requires VBT-specific devices such as linear position transducers or accelerometers (1,24). ...
... According to the device specifications, this system measures the cable displacement in response to changes in the bar 10 position at a sampling rate of 100 Hz. The Speed4Lifts® system has shown to be valid and reliable in recording movement velocity with the absolute error below the acceptable maximum error criteria (< 5% 1RM) (24). ...
... Velocity loss thresholds ranging from 15% to 30% imply a low to moderate level of effort, neuromuscular fatigue, and metabolic stress (28). Training autoregulated by a percentage of VL (i.e., 15% to 30%) induces optimal adaptive responses, even with a volume of intra-set repetitions relatively low (3,21,24,27). The good test-retest reliability that we found indicates that PVL accuracy can be consistent and replicable in different training sessions, which likely makes it feasible to implement this subjective method of autoregulation in training programs. ...
... During each lift, the displacement of the bar and the time between data points were recorded using a linear position transducer sampling cable up to 50 Hz (Force Measurement System Speed4Lift SL ® ; Mostoles, Madrid, Spain) [47]. From these data, the concentric phase of each repetition was automatically identified by the linear position transducer and the average concentric velocity was calculated for that part of the lift. ...
... The average concentric velocity and concentric force of each repetition were quantified using a previously validated linear position transducer (Force Measurement System Speed4Lift SL ® ; Mostoles, Madrid, Spain) [47]. Individual load-velocity relationships specific to each exercise were developed for each participant. ...
... Thus, the strong and approximately linear relation to F-V has been used to predict % 1RM [33], emphasizing that the load-velocity relationship tends to be specific for each exercise [33]. The linearity of the force-velocity and loadvelocity relationships tend to allow a viable prediction to be obtained through two loads [47,52] using a linear regression modelling [17,58]. It is likely that the two-point method is more timeefficient, as it can be performed in conjunction with the warm-up and is even suitable for assessing injuries, as differences were observed between injured and uninjured players [21]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Due to the absence of evidence in the literature on Paralympic Powerlifting the present study investigated various methods to assess bench press maximum repetition and the way each method influences the measurement of minimum velocity limit (MVT), load at zero velocity (LD0), and force–velocity (FV). Objective To evaluate the precision of the multi-point method using proximal loads (40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of one repetition maximum; 1RM) compared to the four-point method (50, 60, 70, and 80% of 1RM) and the two-point method using distant loads (40 and 80% and 50 and 80% of 1RM) in in the MVT, LD0, and FV, in bench press performed by Paralympic Powerlifters (PP). Methods To accomplish this, 15 male elite PP athletes participated in the study (age: 27.7 ± 5.7 years; BM: 74.0 ± 19.5 kg). All participants performed an adapted bench press test (free weight) with 6 loads (40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% 1RM), 4 loads (50, 60, 70, and 80% 1RM), and 2 loads (40–80% and 50–80% 1RM). The 1RM predictions were made by MVT, LD0, and FV. Results The main results indicated that the multiple (4 and 6) pointsmethod provides good results in the MVT (R ² = 0.482), the LD0 (R ² = 0.614), and the FV (R ² = 0.508). The two-point method (50–80%) showed a higher mean in MVT [1268.2 ± 502.0 N; ICC95% 0.76 (0.31–0.92)], in LD0 [1504.1 ± 597.3 N; 0.63 (0.17–0.86)], and in FV [1479.2 ± 636.0 N; 0.60 (0.10–0.86)]. Conclusion The multiple-point method (4 and 6 points) and the two-point method (40–80%) using the MVT, LD0, and FV all showed a good ability to predict bench press 1RM in PP.
... accelerometers, linear position transducers [LPT]) used, and procedures followed to determine the load-velocity relationships. [11][12][13][14] The load-velocity relationship has previously been used to predict the 1RM performance in various exercises with the back squat and bench press being two of the exercises that have received the most scientific attention. 10,15,16 For example, Banyard et al. 10 compared the free weight back squat 1RM with a predicted 1RM using linear regression equations derived from the load-velocity relationship of 5 (20, 40, 60, 80, 90% 1RM), 4 (20, 40, 60, 80% 1RM) and 3 (20, 40, 60% 1RM) loads in resistance trained men. ...
... The mean velocity of the barbell was measured and registered using a validated LPT (Chronojump; Boscosystem, Barcelona, Spain). 13 Three methods, which only differed in the loads used to determine the individualized load-velocity relationships, were employed to estimate the overhead press 1RM: (I) multiple-point -five loads (i.e. 30, 45, 60, 75, 90%), (II) two-point 45−75two loads (45 and 75% 1RM), and (III) two-point 45−90two loads (45 and 90%1RM). The mean velocity value of 0.24 m·s −1 for the overhead press 9 was used for all subjects and prediction methods to simplify the testing procedure based on previous recommendations. ...
... In this study, the inter-repetition reliability of mean velocity was acceptable (CV < 15%) across the loads and suitable for modelling the load-velocity relationship with the three methods employed (Table 2), which may be indicative of a consistent technique of the participants, assuming the technological consistency of the kinematic device, previously reported. 13 The acceptable reliability of velocity data suggests that the errors of the 1RM prediction methods should not be caused by a low reliability of the mean velocity values used to construct the load-velocity relationships. Note that more variation and less consistency is found in the barbell velocity across the loads, compared with studies which have evaluated the reliability of the direct 1RM testing. ...
Article
This study aimed to evaluate whether lifting velocity can be used to estimate the overhead press one repetition maximum (1RM) and to explore the differences in the accuracy of the 1RM between three velocity-based methods. Twenty-seven weightlifters (16 men and 11 women) participated. The first session was used to test the overhead press 1RM. The second session consisted of an incremental loading test during the overhead press. The mean velocity was registered using a transducer attached to the barbell. A 1-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni post hoc corrections was applied to the absolute differences between the actual and predicted 1RMs. Raw differences with 95% limits of agreement and ordinary least-products regressions were used to test the concurrent validity of the 1RM prediction methods with respect to the actual 1RM. The ANOVA did not reveal significant differences for the absolute differences respect to the actual 1RM between the three 1RM prediction methods ( F = 3.2, p = .073). The absolute errors were moderate for the Multiple-Point (6.1 ± 3.7%), Two-Point 45−75 (8.6 ± 6.2%), and Two-Point 45−90 methods (5.7 ± 4.0%). The validity analysis showed that all the 1RM prediction methods underestimated the actual 1RM (1.0–2.2 kg), but ordinary least-products regressions failed to show fixed or proportional bias. These results suggest that the Multiple-Point and Two-Point 45−90 velocity-based methods might be viable tools to predict the overhead press 1RM in weightlifters, but practitioners are encouraged to use the direct 1RM for a more accurate prescription of the training loads.
... Participants completed a 24 h dietary recall, on the day prior to the first visit, as a tool for athletes to replicate their diet [17]. Moreover, they also received nutritional guidelines based on the exchange of food groups to guarantee that 48 h before each visit, they followed a similar diet composed of 60% carbohydrates, 30% lipids and 10% proteins [14,[56][57][58], and a list of foods rich in NO 3 − (e.g., beetroot, celery, or spinach) or rich in caffeine that they could not consume. ...
Article
Full-text available
Beetroot juice (BJ) has been used as a sport supplement, improving performance in resistance training (RT). However, its effect on the modulation of the autonomic nervous system has not yet been widely studied. Therefore, the objective of this randomized double-blind crossover study was to assess the effect of acute BJ supplementation compared to placebo in blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), heart rate variability (HRV) and internal load during RT measure as Root Mean Square of the Successive Differences between adjacent RR intervals Slope (RMSSD and RMSSD-Slope, respectively). Eleven men performed an incremental RT test (three sets at 60%, 70% and 80% of their repetition maximum) composed by back squat and bench press with. HR, HRV and RMSSD-Slope were measured during and post exercise. As the main results, RMSSD during exercise decrease in the BJ group compared to placebo (p = 0.023; ES = 0.999), there were no differences in RMSSD post-exercise, and there were differences in RMSSD-Slope between groups in favor of the BJ group (p = 0.025; ES = 1.104) with a lower internal load. In conclusion, BJ supplementation seems to be a valuable tool for the reduction in the internal load of exercise during RT measured as RMSSD-Slope while enhancing performance.
... linear encoders or optical motion sensing systems) and force (e.g. force plates or strain gauges) during isoinertial exercises [8][9][10][11][12]. However, since some of the aforementioned tools are expensive laboratory-based pieces of equipment, these are not viable options for most practitioners. ...
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to investigate the validity of a low-cost friction encoder against a criterion measure (strain gauge combined with a linear encoder) for assessing velocity, force and power in flywheel exercise devices. Ten young and physically active volunteers performed two sets of 14 maximal squats on a flywheel inertial device (YoYo Technology, Stockholm, Sweden) with five minutes rest between each set. Two different resistances were used (0.075 kg · m2 for the first set; 0.025 kg · m2 for the second). Mean velocity (Vrep), force (Frep) and power (Prep) for each repetition were assessed simultaneously via a friction encoder (Chronojump, Barcelona, Spain), and with a strain gauge combined with a linear encoder (MuscleLab 6000, Ergotest Technology, Porsgrunn, Norway). Results are displayed as (Mean [CI 90%]). Compared to criterion measures, mean bias for the practical measures of Vrep, Frep and Prep were moderate (-0.95 [-0.99 to -0.92]), small (0.53 [0.50 to 0.56]) and moderate (-0.68 [-0.71 to -0.65]) respectively. The typical error of estimate (TEE) was small for all three parameters; Vrep (0.23 [0.20 to 0.25]), Frep (0.20 [0.18 to 0.22]) and Prep (0.18 [0.16 to 0.20]). Correlations with MuscleLab were nearly perfect for all measures in all load configurations. Based on these findings, the friction encoder provides valid measures of velocity, force and power in flywheel exercise devices. However, as error did exist between measures, the same testing protocol should be used when assessing changes in these parameters over time, or when aiming to perform inter-individual comparisons.
... The variables of (1) maximum power, (2) mean power, (3) maximum speed, and (4) mean propulsive speed were analyzed in the push-up exercise, using a linear position transducer (Speed4lifts©, Madrid, Spain), used and validated by different studies [46] ( Figure 2a). For the programming of the strength training load and evaluation of performance as a function of velocity, it is necessary to consider the "propulsive" phase in the concentric action. ...
Article
Full-text available
(I) Training in unstable conditions, with different elements, platforms, or situations, has been used because there is a significant increase in muscle activation, balance, proprioception, and even sports performance. However, it is not known how the devices used are classified according to performance variables, nor the differences according to instability experience. (II) This study aims to analyze the differences in power and speed in push-ups with different situations of instability in trained and untrained male subjects. Power and speed in push-up exercises were analyzed in26 untrained and 25 trained participants in 6 different situations (one stable and five unstable)(1) stable (PS), (2) monopodal (PM), (3) rings (PR), (4) TRX®(PT), (5) hands-on Bosu®(PH) (6) feet on Bosu®(PF). The variables were analyzed using a linear position transducer. (III) The best data were evidenced with PS, followed by PR, PM, PT, PH and PF. The trained subjects obtained better results in all the conditions analyzed in mean and maximum power and speed values (p< 0.001). The decrease in these variables was significantly greater in the untrained subjects than in the trained subjects in the PR situation (8% and 18% respectively). In PF there were differences between groups(p< 0.001), reaching between 32–46% in all variables. The difference between the two groups was notable, varying between 12–58%. (IV) The results showed a negative and progressive influence of instability on power and speed in push-ups. This suggests that instability should be adapted to the subject’s experience and is not advisable in untrained subjects who wish to improve power.
... Based on previous studies (Maté-Muñoz et al., 2018), 2 repetitions interspersed with a period of 2 seconds between repetitions at a maximum velocity of displacement was initiated with a load corresponding to 20 kg. During all tests, movement velocity and power were measured with a linear position transducer (v.4.1, Speed4Lift, Madrid, Spain) that has been validated (Pérez-Castilla et al., 2019). When participants displaced the bar with a mean velocity above 0.8 m/s the load was increased 10 kg and the recovery between sets was of 3 minutes. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Patellar tendinopathy (PT) is an injury with a high prevalence in athletes that causes pain, loss of strength and sport performance levels. Purpose: to analyse the effects of 8 weeks of a conservative physical rehabilitation program that combine eccentric exercise (EE), stretching, extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT), and manual therapy on tendon tissue, perceived pain, and muscle power and strength in athletes diagnosed with PT. Material and methods: Eight athletes diagnosed with PT, performed 8 weeks of EE, stretching, and ESWT. At the beginning (PRE), at 4-weeks (INT), and at the end of the 8-week intervention (POST), participants performed a countermovement jump test (CMJ), and a gradual back squat (BS) test to determine peak power (PP), mean velocity in PP (PPMV), and load lifted (PPKG). Furthermore, a maximum test of 5-repetition (5-RM) was evaluated in leg extension exercise, perceived pain using the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Patella scale (VISA-P), and thickness in the injured and uninjured knee. Results: It was reported a lower tendon thickness POST vs. PRE in the injured knee (p=0.045), and lower values compared to the uninjured knee at PRE (p=0.004), and INT (p=0.025), but not POST (p=0.123). The CMJ and 5-RM tests showed statistical differences POST vs. PRE, and INT (p<0.05). Regarding BS, differences were reported in PPKG POST vs PRE (p=0.033), and INT (p = 0.007), while in PP differences were found in POST vs PRE (p=0.037). Conclusions: 8 weeks of EE, stretching, ESWT, and manual therapy induce positive effects on tendon tissue healing, lower limbs muscle power and strength performance in athletes with PT.
... In this context, inertial measurement units (IMUs) are considered a valid and reliable tool to measure barbell linear trajectories while performing different exercises, including bench press [3]. When compared to different gold standard measurement systems (e.g., motion capture or linear transducer) several commercially available IMU models showed good accuracy and precision in providing estimates not only of the barbell velocity, but also of the power at different intensities of the bench press exercise [4]- [8]. Noteworthy, in most of these models, the estimates are provided via a smartphone interface (i.e., mobile app) released by the manufacturer, which makes them an easy-to-use tool for training load monitoring. ...
Conference Paper
Maximal bench press exercise represents the main competition in Paralympic powerlifting. Several events can be defined during the barbell lifting movement that are of interest for sport performance. To date, inertial measurement units (IMUs) are considered a valid and reliable tool for obtaining parametric values of the barbell linear velocity. Although the identification of the different phases of the bench press movement is of interest for sports performance monitoring and optimization, algorithms for time event identification are still lacking. The present study proposes a single sensor-based method for the identification of key performance time events during the Paralympic bench press. The timing of events was identified from linear acceleration and velocity signals and validated against video recordings. The proposed algorithm showed an average event detection error rate of 2.8%. Average differences between measurement systems ranged between 0.02 and 0.12 s. Inter-subject variability proved to be the major constraint towards an accurate IMU-based event detection (maximum absolute error = 0.50 s). Intraclass correlation coefficients indicated excellent to moderate test-retest reliability for most of the events. Overall, the proposed method represents a promising approach for monitoring specific aspects of the Paralympic bench press technique from which coaches and athletes could benefit to improve training protocols and sports performance.
... To measure mechanical parameters (i.e., MPO and PV), a linear position transducer (Vitruve ® Madrid, Spain) was attached to the barbell. This device was previously validated for MPO and PV measurements [22]. All athletes were familiarized with the testing procedures prior to testing due to their continuous assessments in their respective training routines. ...
Article
Full-text available
The present study investigated whether acute capsaicin (CAP) supplementation improves mean power output (MPO) and peak velocity (PV) during the performance of the free bench press exercise (FBP). Twelve (n = 12) male Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ) athletes (age: 24.3 ± 1.5 years, height: 1.74 ± 0.1 m, body mass: 75.7 ± 10.1 kg) participated in this randomized, placebo (PLA)-controlled, double-blind, crossover trial. For each condition, 45 min after CAP (12 mg purified) or PLA (12 mg of Celulomax E) consumption, the participants performed four sets of five repetitions of FBP at a load of 60% of body mass with five-min rest intervals. The MPO (t = 5.6, df = 11, p = 0.001, EF = 0.3, IC 95% = −0.55 to 1.05) and PV (t = 5.4, df = 11, p = 0.001, EF = 0.5, IC 95% = −0.32 to 1.30) were significantly higher with CAP supplementation versus PLA. Acute CAP supplementation appears to improve MPO and PV during FBP in male BJJ athletes.
Article
In this study, we examined the load-velocity relationship in the hexagonal bar deadlift exercise in women. Twenty-seven resistance-trained women were recruited. Participants performed a progressive load test up to the one-repetition maximum (1RM) load for determining the individual load-velocity relationship in the hexagonal bar deadlift exercise. Bar velocity was measured in every repetition through a linear encoder. A very strong and negative relationship was found between the %1RM and bar velocity for the linear (R 2 = .94; standard error of the estimation = 5.43% 1RM) and second-order polynomial (R 2 = .95) regression models. The individual load-velocity relationship provided even better adjustments (R 2 = .98; coefficient of variation = 1.77%) than the general equation. High agreement level and low bias were found between actual and predicted 1RM for the general load-velocity relationship (intraclass correlation coefficient = .97 and 95% confidence interval [0.90, 0.99]; bias = −2.59 kg). In conclusion, bar velocity can be used to predict 1RM with high accuracy during hexagonal bar deadlift exercise in resistance-trained women.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose: This study examined the relationships between different loading intensities and movement velocities in the bench-press exercise (BP) in Paralympic powerlifters. Methods: Seventeen National Paralympic powerlifters performed maximum dynamic strength tests to determine their BP one-repetition maximum (1RM) in a Smith-machine device. A linear position transducer was used to measure the movement velocity over a comprehensive range of loads. Linear regression analysis was performed to establish the relationships between the different bar-velocities and the distinct percentages of 1RM (%1RM). Results: Overall, the correlations between bar-velocities and %1RM were strong over the entire range of loads (R² values ranged from 0.80 to 0.91), but the precision of the predictive equations (expressed as mean differences [%] between actual and predicted 1RM values) were higher at heavier loading intensities (~20% for loads ≤ 70% 1RM, and ~5% for loads ≥ 70%1RM). In addition, it seems that these very strong athletes (e.g., 1RM relative in the BP = 2.22 ± 0.36 kg.kg-1, for male participants) perform BP 1RM assessments at lower velocities than those previously reported in the literature. Conclusions: The load-velocity relationship was strong and consistent in Paralympic powerlifters, especially at higher loads (≥ 70% 1RM). Therefore, Paralympic coaches can use the predictive equations and the reference values provided here to determine and monitor the BP loading intensity in National Paralympic powerlifters.
Article
Full-text available
The objective of this study was to explore the reliability and concurrent validity of the Velowin optoelectronic system to measure movement velocity during the free-weight back squat exercise. Thirty-one men (age = 27.5 ± 3.2 years; body height = 1.76 ± 0.15 m; body mass: 78.3 ± 7.6 kg) were evaluated in a single session against five different loads (20, 40, 50, 60 and 70 kg) and three velocity variables (mean velocity [MV], mean propulsive velocity [MPV] and maximum velocity [Vmax]) were recorded simultaneously by a linear velocity transducer (T-Force; gold-standard) and a camera-based optoelectronic system (Velowin). The main findings revealed that (1) the three velocity variables were determined with a high and comparable reliability by both the T-Force and Velowin systems (median coefficient of variation of the five loads: T-Force: MV = 4.25%, MPV = 4.49% and Vmax = 3.45%; Velowin: MV = 4.29%, MPV = 4.60% and Vmax = 4.44%), (2) the Vmax was the most reliable variable when obtained by the T-force (p < 0.05), but no significant differences in the reliability of the variables were observed for the Velowin (p > 0.05), and (3) high correlations were observed for the values of MV (r = 0.976), MPV (r = 0.965) and Vmax (r = 0.977) between the T-Force and Velowin systems. Collectively, these results support the Velowin as a reliable and valid system for the measurement of movement velocity during the free-weight back squat exercise.
Article
Full-text available
With the spreading of motion analysis decisions to invest into a new system demand scientific reference applications. The aim of the present systematic review is to reveal the biomechanical scientific applications of OptiTrack motion capture systems and to overview documented usage conditions and purposes. Six major scientific literature databases were used (PubMed, PubMed Central, ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore, PLOS and Web Of Science). An OptiTrack camera system had to be used for human or biologically related motion capture. A total of 85 articles were included, 4 out of which dealt with the validation of OptiTrack systems and 81 utilized the system for biomechanical analyses. The data analysed and extracted from the system validation studies included: description of the validated and the reference system, measured features and observed errors. The data extracted from the utilizing studies also included: OptiTrack application, camera type and frequency, marker size, camera number, data processing software and the motion studied. The review offers a broad collection of biomechanical applications of OptiTrack motion capture systems as scientific references for certain motion studies. The review also summarizes findings on the accuracy of the systems. It concludes that the method descriptions of system usage are often underspecified.
Article
Full-text available
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.
Article
Full-text available
Objectives The velocity of a barbell can provide important insights on the performance of athletes during strength training. The aim of this work was to assess the validity and reliably of four simple measurement devices that were compared to 3D motion capture measurements during squatting. Nine participants were assessed when performing 2 × 5 traditional squats with a weight of 70% of the 1 repetition maximum and ballistic squats with a weight of 25 kg. Simultaneously, data was recorded from three linear position transducers (T-FORCE, Tendo Power and GymAware), an accelerometer based system (Myotest) and a 3D motion capture system (Vicon) as the Gold Standard. Correlations between the simple measurement devices and 3D motion capture of the mean and the maximal velocity of the barbell, as well as the time to maximal velocity, were calculated. Results The correlations during traditional squats were significant and very high (r = 0.932, 0.990, p < 0.01) and significant and moderate to high (r = 0.552, 0.860, p < 0.01). The Myotest could only be used during the ballistic squats and was less accurate. All the linear position transducers were able to assess squat performance, particularly during traditional squats and especially in terms of mean velocity and time to maximal velocity. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13104-017-3012-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Article
Full-text available
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 (R 2 = 0.004–0.03), BB (R 2 = 0.007–0.01), and the app (R 2 = 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.
Article
Full-text available
It is unknown whether instantaneous visual feedback of resistance training outcomes can enhance barbell velocity in younger athletes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to quantify the effects of visual feedback on mean concentric barbell velocity in the back squat, and to identify changes in motivation, competitiveness, and perceived workload. In a randomised-crossover design (Feedback vs. Control) feedback of mean concentric barbell velocity was or was not provided throughout a set of 10 repetitions in the barbell back squat. Magnitude-based inferences were used to assess changes between conditions, with almost certainly greater differences in mean concentric velocity between the Feedback (0.70 ±0.04 m·s) and Control (0.65 ±0.05 m·s) observed. Additionally, individual repetition mean concentric velocity ranged from possibly (repetition number two: 0.79 ±0.04 vs. 0.78 ±0.04 m·s) to almost certainly (repetition number 10: 0.58 ±0.05 vs. 0.49 ±0.05 m·s) greater when provided feedback, while almost certain differences were observed in motivation, competitiveness, and perceived workload, respectively. Providing adolescent male athletes with visual kinematic information while completing resistance training is beneficial for the maintenance of barbell velocity during a training set, potentially enhancing physical performance. Moreover, these improvements were observed alongside increases in motivation, competitiveness and perceived workload providing insight into the underlying mechanisms responsible for the performance gains observed. Given the observed maintenance of barbell velocity during a training set, practitioners can use this technique to manipulate training outcomes during resistance training.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose: This study aimed to compare the load-velocity relationship between four variants of the bench press (BP) exercise. Methods: The full load-velocity relationship of 30 men were evaluated by means of an incremental loading test starting at 17 kg progressing to the individual one-repetition maximum (1RM) in four BP variants: concentric-only BP, concentric-only bench press throw (BPT), eccentric-concentric BP, and eccentric-concentric BPT. Results: A strong and fairly linear relationship between mean velocity (MV) and %1RM was observed for the four BP variants (r(2) > 0.96 for pooled data and r(2) > 0.98 for individual data). The MV associated with each %1RM was significantly higher in the eccentric-concentric technique compared to the concentric-only technique. The only significant difference between the BP and BPT variants was the higher MV with the light-moderate loads (20%1RM-70%1RM) in the BPT using the concentric-only technique. Mean test velocity was significantly and positively correlated between the four BP variants (r = 0.44-0.76), which suggests that the subjects with higher velocities for each %1RM in one BP variant also tend to have higher velocities for each %1RM in the three remaining BP variants. Conclusions: these results highlight (1) the need for obtaining specific equations for each BP variant, and (2) the existence of individual load-velocity profiles.
Article
Full-text available
Previous studies have revealed that the velocity of the bar can be used to determine the intensity of different resistance training exercises. However, the load-velocity relationship seems to be exercise dependent. This study aimed to compare the load- velocity relationship obtained from two variations of the half-squat exercise (traditional vs. ballistic) using two execution techniques (eccentric-concentric vs. concentric-only). Twenty men performed a submaximal progressive loading test in four half-squat exercises: eccentric-concentric traditional-squat, concentric-only traditional-squat, countermovement jump (i.e. ballistic squat using the eccentric-concentric technique), and squat jump (i.e. ballistic squat using the concentric-only technique). Individual linear regressions were used to estimate the one-repetition maximum (1RM) for each half-squat exercise. Thereafter, another linear regression was applied to establish the relationship between relative load (%RM) and mean propulsive velocity (MPV). For all exercises, a strong relationship was observed between %RM and MPV: eccentric- concentric traditional-squat (R2 = 0.949), concentric-only traditional-squat (R2 = 0.920), countermovement jump (R2 = 0.957), and squat jump (R2 = 0.879). The velocities associated with each %RM were higher for the ballistic variation and the eccentric-concentric technique than for the traditional variation and concentric-only technique, respectively. Differences in velocity among the half-squat exercises decreased with the increment in the relative load. These results demonstrate that the MPV can be used to predict exercise intensity in the four half-squat exercises. However, independent regressions are required for each half-squat exercise since the load-velocity relationship proved to be task specific. Keywords: velocity-based training; traditional; ballistic; jump squat; eccentric-concentric technique; concentric-only technique.
Article
This study analysed the validity and reliability of a new optoelectronic device (Velowin) for the measurement of vertical displacement and velocity as well as to estimate force and mechanical power. Eleven trained males with Mean (SD) age = 27.4 (4.8) years, completed an incremental squat exercise test with 5 different loads (<30–90% of their 1−repetition maximum) while displacement and vertical velocity of the barbell were simultaneously measured using an integrated 3D system (3D motion capture system + force platform) and Velowin. Substantial to almost perfect correlation (concordance correlation coefficient = 0.75–0.96), root mean square error as coefficient of variation ±90% confidence interval ≤10% and good to excellent intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.84–0.99 were determined for all the variables. Passing and Bablock regression methods revealed no differences for average velocity. However, significant but consistent bias were determined for average or peak force and power while systematic and not proportional bias was found for displacement. In conclusion, Velowin, in holds of some potential advantages over traditionally used accelerometer or linear transducers, represents a valid and reliable alternative to monitor vertical displacement and velocity as well as to estimate average force and mechanical power during the squat exercise.