Comparison of the FitroDyne and GymAware Rotary Encoders for Quantifying Peak and Mean Velocity During Traditional Multijointed Exercises

Fernandes, John; Lamb, Kevin L.; Clark, Cain C. T.; Moran, Jason; Drury, Ben; García-Ramos, Amador; Twist, Craig

doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000002952

Cited by 26 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, it should also be noted that the MV, but not MPV and PV, is a variable reported by all commercial measurement devices that have been designed to measure movement velocity during resistance training. This is accompanied by greater agreement across commercial devices in MV when compared to PV values [27,28].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of the load-velocity profile in the free-weight prone bench pull exercise through different velocity variables and regression models

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This aims of this study were (I) to determine the velocity variable and regression model which best fit the load-velocity relationship during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise, (II) to compare the reliability of the velocity attained at each percentage of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) between different velocity variables and regression models, and (III) to compare the within- and between-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM. Eighteen men (14 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental test during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise in two different sessions. General and individual load-velocity relationships were modelled through three velocity variables (mean velocity [MV], mean propulsive velocity [MPV] and peak velocity [PV]) and two regression models (linear and second-order polynomial). The main findings revealed that (I) the general (Pearson's correlation coefficient [ r ] range = 0.964–0.973) and individual (median r = 0.986 for MV, 0.989 for MPV, and 0.984 for PV) load-velocity relationships were highly linear, (II) the reliability of the velocity attained at each %1RM did not meaningfully differ between the velocity variables (coefficient of variation [CV] range = 2.55–7.61% for MV, 2.84–7.72% for MPV and 3.50–6.03% for PV) neither between the regression models (CV range = 2.55–7.72% and 2.73–5.25% for the linear and polynomial regressions, respectively), and (III) the within-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM was lower than the between-subject variability for the light-moderate loads. No meaningful differences between the within- and between-subject CVs were observed for the MV of the 1RM trial (6.02% vs . 6.60%; CV ratio = 1.10), while the within-subject CV was lower for PV (6.36% vs . 7.56%; CV ratio = 1.19). These results suggest that the individual load-MV relationship should be determined with a linear regression model to obtain the most accurate prescription of the relative load during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of the load-velocity profile in the free-weight prone bench pull exercise through different velocity variables and regression models

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, when comparing the agreement of these devices [55], it appears that there are slight discrepancies. Mitter et al [9] demonstrated greater accuracy of the GymAware PowerTool compared to the Fitrodyne (Fitronic), while Fernandes et al [55] warned practitioners against interchanging these devices due to systematic differences (refer to Table 4). This is particularly pertinent when utilising peak velocity [55].…”

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of all linear transducer devices, the GymAware PowerTool [8, 9, 24-27, 50, 54, 55] and Tendo Fitrodyne [36,53,54,[56][57][58] have been the most investigated, with nine and six independent validity studies, respectively. Additionally, the Fitrodyne (Fitronic) [9,55] and Open Barbell System [53,57] have both had two studies assessing their validity. However, when comparing the agreement of these devices [55], it appears that there are slight discrepancies.…”

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, the Fitrodyne (Fitronic) [9,55] and Open Barbell System [53,57] have both had two studies assessing their validity. However, when comparing the agreement of these devices [55], it appears that there are slight discrepancies. Mitter et al [9] demonstrated greater accuracy of the GymAware PowerTool compared to the Fitrodyne (Fitronic), while Fernandes et al [55] warned practitioners against interchanging these devices due to systematic differences (refer to Table 4).…”

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Validity and Reliability of Commercially Available Resistance Training Monitoring Devices: A Systematic Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Monitoring resistance training has a range of unique difficulties due to differences in physical characteristics and capacity between athletes, and the indoor environment in which it often occurs. Traditionally, methods such as volume load have been used, but these have inherent flaws. In recent times, numerous portable and affordable devices have been made available that purport to accurately and reliably measure kinetic and kinematic outputs, potentially offering practitioners a means of measuring resistance training loads with confidence. However, a thorough and systematic review of the literature describing the reliability and validity of these devices has yet to be undertaken, which may lead to uncertainty from practitioners on the utility of these devices. Objective A systematic review of studies that investigate the validity and/or reliability of commercially available devices that quantify kinetic and kinematic outputs during resistance training. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Medline was performed; studies included were (1) original research investigations; (2) full-text articles written in English; (3) published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; and (4) assessed the validity and/or reliability of commercially available portable devices that quantify resistance training exercises. Results A total of 129 studies were retrieved, of which 47 were duplicates. The titles and abstracts of 82 studies were screened and the full text of 40 manuscripts were assessed. A total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Additional 13 studies, identified via reference list assessment, were included. Therefore, a total of 44 studies were included in this review. Conclusion Most of the studies within this review did not utilise a gold-standard criterion measure when assessing validity. This has likely led to under or overreporting of error for certain devices. Furthermore, studies that have quantified intra-device reliability have often failed to distinguish between technological and biological variability which has likely altered the true precision of each device. However, it appears linear transducers which have greater accuracy and reliability compared to other forms of device. Future research should endeavour to utilise gold-standard criterion measures across a broader range of exercises (including weightlifting movements) and relative loads.

show abstract

“…Differences have previously been noted between various linear position transducers in their ability to measure velocity [12,24,25]. Although similar in concept, each device differs in its design and function, which impacts its estimation of velocity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreement between the Open Barbell and Tendo Linear Position Transducers for Monitoring Barbell Velocity during Resistance Exercise

Gonzalez

Mangine

Spitz

et al. 2019

Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To determine the agreement between the Open Barbell (OB) and Tendo weightlifting analyzer (TWA) for measuring barbell velocity, eleven men (19.4 ± 1.0 y) performed one set of 2–3 repetitions at four sub-maximal percentage loads, [i.e., 30, 50, 70, and 90% one-repetition maximum (1RM)] in the back (BS) and front squat (FS) exercises. During each repetition, peak and mean barbell velocity were recorded by OB and TWA devices, and the average of the 2–3 repetitions was used for analyses. Although the repeated measures analysis of variance revealed significantly (p ≤ 0.005) greater peak and mean velocity scores from OB across all intensities, high intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,K = 0.790–0.998), low standard error of measurement (SEM2,K = 0.040–0.119 m·s−1), and coefficients of variation (CV = 2–4%) suggested consistency between devices. Positive (r = 0.491–0.949) Pearson correlations between averages and differences (between devices) in peak velocity, as well as associated Bland-Altman plots, showed greater differences occurred as the velocity increased, particularly at low-moderate intensity loads. OB consistently provides greater barbell velocity scores compared to TWA, and the differences between devices were more apparent as the peak velocity increased with low-to-moderate loads. Strength coaches and athletes may find better agreement between devices if the mean velocity scores are only considered.

show abstract

Comparison of the FitroDyne and GymAware Rotary Encoders for Quantifying Peak and Mean Velocity During Traditional Multijointed Exercises

Abstract: , A. & Twist, C. (2018). A comparison of the FitroDyne and GymAware rotary encoders for quantifying peak and mean velocity during traditional multi-jointed exercises.

Cited by 26 publications

References 32 publications

Assessment of the load-velocity profile in the free-weight prone bench pull exercise through different velocity variables and regression models

Assessment of the load-velocity profile in the free-weight prone bench pull exercise through different velocity variables and regression models

The Validity and Reliability of Commercially Available Resistance Training Monitoring Devices: A Systematic Review

Agreement between the Open Barbell and Tendo Linear Position Transducers for Monitoring Barbell Velocity during Resistance Exercise

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About