Validity of Various Methods for Determining Velocity, Force, and Power in the Back Squat

Banyard, Harry G.; Nosaka, Ken; Sato, Kimitake; Haff, G. Gregory

doi:10.1123/ijspp.2016-0627

Cited by 133 publications

(142 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

132

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The placement of GYM and the methods used to calculate MV and MP have been described previously. 9,19,20 Work was determined as the area underneath the force-displacement curve during the concentric phase of each repetition, and TUT represented the time spent during the same period. Data obtained from GYM were transmitted via Bluetooth to a tablet (iPad, Apple Inc., California, USA) using the GymAware v2.1.1 app and uploaded onto a cloud-based system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of In-Season Velocity- Versus Percentage-Based Training in Academy Rugby League Players

Orange¹,

Metcalfe²,

Robinson³

et al. 2020

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare the effects of velocity-based training (VBT) vs percentage-based training (PBT) on strength, speed, and jump performance in academy rugby league players during a 7-wk in-season mesocycle. Methods: A total of 27 rugby league players competing in the Super League U19s Championship were randomized to VBT (n = 12) or PBT (n = 15). Both groups completed a 7-wk resistance-training intervention (2×/wk) that involved the back squat. The PBT group used a fixed load based on a percentage of 1-repetition maximum (1-RM), whereas the VBT group used a modifiable load based on individualized velocity thresholds. Biomechanical and perceptual data were collected during each training session. Back-squat 1-RM, countermovement jump, reactive strength index, sprint times, and back-squat velocity at 40–90% 1-RM were assessed pretraining and posttraining. Results: The PBT group showed likely to most likely improvements in 1-RM strength and reactive strength index, whereas the VBT group showed likely to very likely improvements in 1-RM strength, countermovement jump height, and back-squat velocity at 40% and 60% 1-RM. Sessional velocity and power were most likely greater during VBT compared with PBT (standardized mean differences = 1.8–2.4), while time under tension and perceptual training stress were likely lower (standardized mean differences = 0.49–0.66). The improvement in back-squat velocity at 60% 1-RM was likely greater following VBT compared with PBT (standardized mean difference = 0.50). Conclusion: VBT can be implemented during the competitive season, instead of traditional PBT, to improve training stimuli, decrease training stress, and promote velocity-specific adaptations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of In-Season Velocity- Versus Percentage-Based Training in Academy Rugby League Players

Orange¹,

Metcalfe²,

Robinson³

et al. 2020

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Due to the inherent difficulties in applying 1RM tests [6][7][8] (and thus monitoring the resistance-training load), velocity-based training (VBT) 9,10 has emerged as a practical and advantageous alternative to control resistance training intensity. 11,12 Indeed, the strong relationship between force and velocity enable practitioners to rapidly estimate relative load (i.e., % 1RM), by simply monitoring movement velocity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

One-Repetition-Maximum Measures or Maximum Bar-Power Output: Which Is More Related to Sport Performance?

Loturco¹,

Suchomel²,

Bishop³

et al. 2019

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The bar-power outputs were more strongly associated with sprint-speed and power performance than the 1RM measures. Therefore, coaches and researchers can use the bar-power approach for athlete testing and monitoring. Due to the strong correlations presented, it is possible to infer that meaningful variations in bar-power production may also represent substantial changes in actual sport performance.

show abstract

“…2 The relatively high agreement between the device and SD motion analysis is encouraging for its use in practical settings and provides insight into how the device actually measures velocity output. An interesting finding comes from the Bland-Altman analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…[1][2][3] While the concept of velocitybased training (VBT) has been around for years, [4][5][6] these new technologies have made velocity measurement accessible to practitioners. Because of this accessibility, researchers have sought to explore the potential uses for VBT in practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validation of inertial sensor to measure velocity of medicine balls

Sato¹,

Carroll²,

Wagle³

et al. 2018

Journal of Trainology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of a wireless device measuring velocity via inertial sensor medicine ball. Design and Methods:Sixteen healthy adults volunteered in the study. Each participant performed a series of three static and countermovement (CM) medicine ball chest throws. All throws were performed using 8-lb and 12-lb medicine balls inlayed with a wirelessly transmitted accelerometer and gyroscope. Reflective markers were placed on both sides of medicine ball and data were collected using a three-dimensional (3D) motion analysis system as the criterion measure. Pearson correlations and paired samples t-tests were calculated to assess the accuracy of the medicine ball peak velocity to that of the 3D motion analysis. Additionally, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated within each device to determine reliability. The alpha level was set as p ≤ 0.05. Results:Pearson correlations indicated the medicine ball device to be relatively accurate with 3D motion analysis for static throws (r = 0.85-0.94) and CM throws (r = 0.62-0.89). There were no statistically significant differences between the two devices. ICC indicated trial-to-trial reliability of the medicine ball device to be acceptable (ICC = 0.74-0.98) compared to the 3D motion analysis (ICC = 0.67-0.98). Conclusion:Overall, the study demonstrated that relatively accurate data may be obtained from an inertial sensor medicine ball, indicated from the strong and very strong correlations with 3D motion analysis. Additionally, similar ICC values between the medicine ball and 3D motion analysis suggest the device yields acceptable reliability.(Journal of Trainology 2018;7:16-20)

show abstract

Validity of Various Methods for Determining Velocity, Force, and Power in the Back Squat

Abstract: PUSH accuracy for determining MV, PV, MF, MP, and PP across all 6 relative intensities was questionable for the back squat, yet the GYM was highly valid at assessing all criterion variables, with some caution given to estimations of MP and PP performed at lighter loads.

Cited by 133 publications

References 0 publications

Effects of In-Season Velocity- Versus Percentage-Based Training in Academy Rugby League Players

Effects of In-Season Velocity- Versus Percentage-Based Training in Academy Rugby League Players

One-Repetition-Maximum Measures or Maximum Bar-Power Output: Which Is More Related to Sport Performance?

Validation of inertial sensor to measure velocity of medicine balls

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About