Velocity-based approach to resistance training: the reproducibility and sensitivity of commercially available velocity monitoring technologies

Abstract

This study examined the reproducibility of GymAware, PUSH2 and Vmaxpro velocity monitoring devices during resistance training (RT). The sensitivity of these devices to detect the smallest changes in velocity that correspond to true changes in RT performance was also investigated. Fifty-one resistance-trained people performed an incremental loading (1RM) test, and two repetitions to failure (RTF) tests with different loads, 72 hours apart. During all repetitions, mean velocity (MV) and peak velocity (PV) were simultaneously recorded by two devices of each brand. Overall, GymAware was the most reliable and sensitive device for detecting the smallest changes in RT performance, regardless of the velocity metric used. Vmaxpro can be considered as an equivalent, cheaper alternative to GymAware for RT monitoring and prescription, but only if the MV metric is used. Caution should be exercised when using PUSH2 in practice due to their comparatively higher, unacceptable measurement error and generally low sensitivity to detect changes in RT performance. Collectively, these findings support the use of MV and PV from GymAware and MV from Vmaxpro devices for RT monitoring and prescription due to their low magnitudes of error; thus, allowing for sensible detection of meaningful changes in neuromuscular status and functional performance during RT.

Velocity-Based Strength Training: The Validity and Personal Monitoring of Barbell Velocity with the Apple Watch

“…For the Enode Pro device, a total of 36 repetitions (accounting for 6.0% of the total) were missed due to connection issues. These results align with previous findings by Jukic et [12,19,24]. Here, Jukic et al, suggested that Bluetooth-related problems may be the underlying cause of the missed repetitions [24].…”

“…These results align with previous findings by Jukic et [12,19,24]. Here, Jukic et al, suggested that Bluetooth-related problems may be the underlying cause of the missed repetitions [24].…”

“…Based on the validity outcomes, it is hypothesized that the issue may be attributed to software-related factors, given the challenges associated with the task of segmentation, especially in real time. Our app version 1.1.6 and firmware version 5.2.0 differ from those utilized in other studies [12,19,24]. Furthermore, given the potential software-related nature of the issue, it is crucial to report both the firmware and software versions of the devices utilized for validation purposes, to enable meaningful comparisons between publications.…”

“…We assessed its performance during a VBT protocol on healthy, recreational RT athletes by comparing the resulting velocity data of the free-weighted back squat from two different watch positions (i.e., wrist and barbell), compared with Vicon (Vicon 3D Motion Systems, Oxford, UK) as a criterion [22]. As a secondary objective and for a comprehensive and practically oriented assessment, we further compared the results from the Apple Watch with a commercially available IMUbased VBT device, namely the Enode Pro device (Blaumann and Meyer Sports Technology UG, Magdeburg, Germany), formerly known as Vmaxpro [12,19,23,24]. Our aim was to provide scientifically robust, praxis-oriented insights into the validity of the Apple Watch for monitoring barbell kinematics during VBT, given its widespread popularity as a consumer electronic device and the growing interest in VBT among athletes and recreational exercisers.…”