Validity of wireless device measuring velocity of resistance exercises

Sato, Kimitake; Beckham, George K.; Carroll, Kevin M.; Bazyler, Caleb D.; Sha, Zhanxin; Haff, G. Greg

doi:10.17338/trainology.4.1_15

Cited by 30 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Sato et al (35) also suggested that PUSH TM is highly valid at measuring movement velocity in the dumbbell biceps curl and dumbbell shoulder press. However, the Pearson correlation analyses employed in both studies (5,35) involved combining all repetitions performed by each individual. That is, all participants provided multiple data points in each paired measure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite receiving considerable academic and practitioner interest in recent years, the test-retest reliability of the PUSH TM device is yet to be determined. Previous studies have either not employed a repeated measures design that permits a test-retest analysis (5,35) and/or have not reported any reliability statistics (6,35). Similarly, the smallest difference between repeated trials that is not due to measurement error or variation within individual performance, termed the smallest worthwhile change (SWC) (22), has not been established.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Orange¹,

Metcalfe²,

Liefeith³

et al. 2019

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Orange, ST, Metcalfe, JW, Liefeith, A, Marshall, P, Madden, LA, Fewster, CR, and Vince, RV. Validity and reliability of a wearable inertial sensor to measure velocity and power in the back squat and bench press. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2018-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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Orange¹,

Metcalfe²,

Liefeith³

et al. 2019

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The device has shown to be a valid tool for the measurement of concentric barbell velocity. 13 The device was attached to each participant's forearm. Prior to the initial testing, subject anthropometric measurements were collected.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship between concentric velocities at varying intensity in the back squat using a wireless inertial sensor

Carroll¹,

Sato²,

Beckham³

et al. 2017

Journal of Trainology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of velocities in the back squat between one repetition maximum (1RM) and submaximally loaded repetition maximum (RM) conditions, specifically in regard to what has been described as the minimal velocity threshold (MVT). The MVT describes a minimum concentric velocity that an individual must reach or surpass in order to successfully complete a repetition. Design: To test the presence of a MVT, participants were tested for 1RM and RM back squat ability. The mean concentric velocities (MCV) of the last successful repetition of each condition were then compared. Methods: Fourteen male participants familiar with the back squat volunteered to participate in the current study (age = 25.0 y ± 2.6, height = 178.9 cm ± 8.1, body mass = 88.2 kg ± 15.8). The mean concentric velocity (MCV) during the last successful repetition from each testing condition was considered for the comparison. Results: Results indicated a non-significant negative relationship of MCV between the 1RM and RM conditions (r =-0.135), no statistical difference between testing conditions (p = 0.266), with a small-to-moderate effect size (d = 0.468). Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that MVT should be further investigated to enhance its use in the practical setting. Additionally, coaches considering using a velocity-based approach for testing athletes should use data from either 1RM or RM conditions, but not both interchangeably. Coaches should be cautious when considering group averages or comparing velocity data between athletes, which may not be appropriate based on our results.

show abstract

“…It has been established that a load-velocity relationship (r = ~0.95) exists during progressive resistance training tests. 7,11 However, VBT is typically only investigated for dumbbell 13 or barbell 11,14 exercises. Other common resistance training exercises, such as medicine ball variations, should also be explored if practitioners are interested in quantifying and prescribing resistance training loads.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many of these devices have been tested for validity and reliability in dumbbell and barbell exercises using gold standard criterions. 2,13 However, medicine ball exercises present a unique challenge for technology manufacturers because of the versatile nature of many medicine ball exercise variations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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 wireless device measuring velocity of resistance exercises

Cited by 30 publications

References 10 publications

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

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

Relationship between concentric velocities at varying intensity in the back squat using a wireless inertial sensor

Validation of inertial sensor to measure velocity of medicine balls

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About