Validity and reliability of force–velocity outcome parameters in flywheel squats

Spudić, Darjan; Smajla, Darjan; Šarabon, Nejc

doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2020.109824

Cited by 22 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In most of them, participants are requested to perform between 4 and 6 sets of 4 maximal repetitions with different inertial loads (between ∼0.01 and ∼0.10 kg•m 2 ) with a 3-min recovery between sets, until finding the inertial load in which concentric (or eccentric) peak power decreases compared to the previous one. This protocol was used for determining the inertia-power profile of a flywheel squat exercise, which reliability was recently reported for force and mean velocity results (intra-class correlation coefficient [ICC] > 0.9) (Spudić et al, 2020). However, this type of protocol presents some limitations, for instance, the power outputs recorded during this testing protocol may be affected by accumulated fatigue (during previous sets), therefore, strategies such as to prescribe an adequate recovery between sets and randomization of the order of the inertias used should be considered during the test.…”

Section: The Use Of Flywheel Devices For Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Load Quantification and Testing Using Flywheel Devices in Sports

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Use Of Flywheel Devices For Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Load Quantification and Testing Using Flywheel Devices in Sports

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…After warming up, participants performed FW squats on a custom-made FW device (Figure 1). Based on the results of a previous study [17] two sets of 10 consecutive squats were performed at four inertias (0.025, 0.075, 0.225, and 0.25 kg•m 2 ). To avoid any systematic inter-load effect of fatigue, inertias were administered in a random order.…”

Section: Testing Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The faster the pull of the rope/strap, the higher the angular acceleration of the FW and the higher the FW pulling force. Furthermore, recent studies of the FW squat have found near-perfect linear regression fits between incremental inertias and velocity (v) [16] and between ground reaction force (GRF) and v [17] under incremental inertial conditions. This is in agreement with weight-based exercises-squat jumps and countermovement jumps [18][19][20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Strain gauges [15,29], force plates [17,30], rotary [31,32] or linear encoders (including draw wire encoders) [17,29], accelerometers [30], and 3D motion capture [16] were used to measure F and v during FW squats. Recently, using interrupt sensors (encoders and optocouplers) has increased because they are inexpensive, easy to adjust, and portable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment and Evaluation of Force–Velocity Variables in Flywheel Squats: Validity and Reliability of Force Plates, a Linear Encoder Sensor, and a Rotary Encoder Sensor

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research into flywheel (FW) resistance training and force–velocity–power (F–v–P) profiling has recently gained attention. Ground reaction force (GRF) and velocity (v) during FW squats can be predicted from shaft rotational data. Our study aimed to compare the inter-set reliability of GRF, v, and F–v–P relationship output variables calculated from force plates and linear encoder (presumed gold-standard) and rotary encoder data. Fifty participants performed two sets of FW squats at four inertias. Peak and mean concentric and eccentric GRF, v, and F–v–P outcomes from mean variables during the concentric phase of the squat were calculated. Good to excellent reliability was found for GRF and v (ICC > 0.85), regardless of the measure and the variable type. The F–v–P outcomes showed moderate to good reliability (ICC > 0.74). Inter-measure bias (p < 0.05) was found in the majority of GRF and v variables, as well as for all the calculated F–v–P outcomes (trivial to large TEs) with very large to perfect correlations for v (r 0.797–0.948), GRF (r 0.712–0.959), and, finally, F–v–P outcomes (ICC 0.737–0.943). Rotary encoder overestimated the force plates and linear encoder variables, and the differences were dependent on the level of inertia. Despite high reliability, FW device users should be aware of the discrepancy between the measures.

show abstract

“…0.05, 0.125, 0.225 kg�m 2 . Before each testing session, participants performed a 10-min warm-up as described in detail elswhere [15]. A draw-wire sensor (d = 1250 mm; linearity = ± 0.02%; Way-Con SX-50, Taufkirchen, Deutschland) was fixed perpendicularly to the FW device below the standing surface and a draw-wire was attached to the lifting harness (between legs).…”

Section: Testing Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intra-session reliability of electromyographic measurements in flywheel squats

Spudić¹,

Smajla²,

Šarabon³

2020

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the popularity of flywheel (FW) devices in sports research is increasing, to date, no study has been designed to test the reliability of electromyographic (EMG) variables during FW squats as a basic lower-body FW resistance exercise. At the primary level, our study was conducted to determine the minimum number of the consecutive flywheel (FW) squat repetitions that need to be averaged in a single set to obtain excellent reliability of peak, mean and three position-specific EMG variables. At the secondary level, comprehensive analysis for peak and mean EMG variables was done. Intra-set reliability was investigated using the minimum number of repetitions determined from the primary level of the study. Twenty-six participants performed five sets of seven squats with three FW loads (0.05, 0.125, 0.225 kg∙m2). EMG signals were collected from eight leg muscles. By averaging twelve consecutive repetitions, we obtained ICC2.k > 0.95 for mean and peak EMGRMS regardless of the muscle, load or phase of the squat (concentric vs. eccentric). Due to the heterogeneity of the results at the primary level, position-specific variables were excluded from the inter-set reliability analysis at the secondary level. Trustworthy mean and peak EMG variables from the primary level showed good to excellent inter-set reliability. We suggest averaging twelve consecutive squat repetitions to achieve good to excellent intra-session reliability of EMG variables. By following the proposed protocol, activation of leg muscles can be confidently studied in intra-session repeated-measures study designs.

show abstract

Validity and reliability of force–velocity outcome parameters in flywheel squats

Cited by 22 publications

References 20 publications

Load Quantification and Testing Using Flywheel Devices in Sports

Load Quantification and Testing Using Flywheel Devices in Sports

Assessment and Evaluation of Force–Velocity Variables in Flywheel Squats: Validity and Reliability of Force Plates, a Linear Encoder Sensor, and a Rotary Encoder Sensor

Intra-session reliability of electromyographic measurements in flywheel squats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About