Dataset Information

The Reliability and Validity of Current Technologies for Measuring Barbell Velocity in the Free-Weight Back Squat and Power Clean.

ABSTRACT: This study investigated the inter-day and intra-device reliability, and criterion validity of six devices for measuring barbell velocity in the free-weight back squat and power clean. In total, 10 competitive weightlifters completed an initial one repetition maximum (1RM) assessment followed by three load-velocity profiles (40-100% 1RM) in both exercises on four separate occasions. Mean and peak velocity was measured simultaneously on each device and compared to 3D motion capture for all repetitions. Reliability was assessed via coefficient of variation (CV) and typical error (TE). Least products regression (LPR) (R2) and limits of agreement (LOA) assessed the validity of the devices. The Gymaware was the most reliable for both exercises (CV < 10%; TE < 0.11 m·s-1, except 100% 1RM (mean velocity) and 90?100% 1RM (peak velocity)), with MyLift and PUSH following a similar trend. Poorer reliability was observed for Beast Sensor and Bar Sensei (CV = 5.1%?119.9%; TE = 0.08?0.48 m·s-1). The Gymaware was the most valid device, with small systematic bias and no proportional or fixed bias evident across both exercises (R2 > 0.42-0.99 LOA = -0.03-0.03 m·s-1). Comparable validity data was observed for MyLift in the back squat. Both PUSH devices produced some fixed and proportional bias, with Beast Sensor and Bar Sensei being the least valid devices across both exercises (R2 > 0.00-0.96, LOA = -0.36?0.46 m·s-1). Linear position transducers and smartphone applications could be used to obtain velocity-based data, with inertial measurement units demonstrating poorer reliability and validity.

SUBMITTER: Thompson SW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7404723 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Reliability and Validity of Current Technologies for Measuring Barbell Velocity in the Free-Weight Back Squat and Power Clean.

Thompson Steve W SW Rogerson David D Dorrell Harry F HF Ruddock Alan A Barnes Andrew A

Sports (Basel, Switzerland) 20200630 7

This study investigated the inter-day and intra-device reliability, and criterion validity of six devices for measuring barbell velocity in the free-weight back squat and power clean. In total, 10 competitive weightlifters completed an initial one repetition maximum (1RM) assessment followed by three load-velocity profiles (40-100% 1RM) in both exercises on four separate occasions. Mean and peak velocity was measured simultaneously on each device and compared to 3D motion capture for all repetit ...[more]

PMID: 32629842

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Single leg squat (SLS) is a movement screening test widely used in clinical settings. The SLS is highly subjective in its nature. Objective measures, such as 3D-motion analyses, are seldom used in daily clinical work. An interactive, Kinect-based 3D-movement analysis system, the Qinematic™, is proposed to be easily used in clinical settings to assess the SLS. The aim of this study was to establish the test-retest reliability and construct validity of Qinematic™ for assessing the SLS. A further aim was to identify angles of medial knee displacement, to summarise the discriminative ability of the SLS measured by Qinematic™.MethodsWe performed a test-retest reliability study (n = 37) of the SLS using Qinematic™ and a construct validity study, in which Qinematic™ data were compared with visual assessment of video-recorded SLS.ResultsThree variables (left knee down, right knee up and down) reached "substantial reliability" (ICC = 0.64-0.69). One variable, "left knee up", showed a significant difference between the two test occasions (T1-6.34°, T2 0.66°, p = 0.013, ICC = 0.50), and "poor absolute reliability" was seen for all variables (SEM = 9.04-10.66, SDC = 25.06-29.55). A moderate agreement between the visual assessment and Qinematic™ data for various knee angles was shown (Kappa = 0.45-0.58). The best discriminative ability of the SLS was found at a knee angle of 6° (AUC = 0.82, sensitivity = 0.86, specificity = 0.78, PPV = 0.58, NPV = 0.94).ConclusionsQinematic™ shows a poor absolute reliability, and a substantial relative reliability, in measuring a SLS at the way down. This indicates that Qinematic™ should not be recommended for the use on an individual level, but it can possibly be used on a group level. The merged results of the construct validity study indicate that Qinematic™ at 6° of medial displacement can identify subjects with a knee over foot position. In summary, the use of the Qinematic™ net trajectory angle, which estimates the "line of best fit" cannot be recommended to assess a knee medial to foot position and should be reconsidered.

Project description:The purpose of this study was to analyze the validity, reliability, and accuracy of new wearable and smartphone-based technology for the measurement of barbell velocity in resistance training exercises. To do this, 10 highly trained powerlifters (age = 26.1 ± 3.9 years) performed 11 repetitions with loads ranging 50-100% of the 1-Repetition maximum in the bench-press, full-squat, and hip-thrust exercises while barbell velocity was simultaneously measured using a linear transducer (LT), two Beast wearable devices (one placed on the subjects' wrist -BW-, and the other one directly attached to the barbell -BB-) and the iOS PowerLift app. Results showed a high correlation between the LT and BW (r = 0.94-0.98, SEE = 0.04-0.07 m•s-1), BB (r = 0.97-0.98, SEE = 0.04-0.05 m•s-1), and the PowerLift app (r = 0.97-0.98, SEE = 0.03-0.05 m•s-1) for the measurement of barbell velocity in the three exercises. Paired samples T-test revealed systematic biases between the LT and BW, BB and the app in the hip-thrust, between the LT and BW in the full-squat and between the LT and BB in the bench-press exercise (p < 0.001). Moreover, the analysis of the linear regression on the Bland-Altman plots showed that the differences between the LT and BW (R2 = 0.004-0.03), BB (R2 = 0.007-0.01), and the app (R2 = 0.001-0.03) were similar across the whole range of velocities analyzed. Finally, the reliability of the BW (ICC = 0.910-0.988), BB (ICC = 0.922-0.990), and the app (ICC = 0.928-0.989) for the measurement of the two repetitions performed with each load were almost the same than that observed with the LT (ICC = 0.937-0.990). Both the Beast wearable device and the PowerLift app were highly valid, reliable, and accurate for the measurement of barbell velocity in the bench-press, full-squat, and hip-thrust exercises. These results could have potential practical applications for strength and conditioning coaches who wish to measure barbell velocity during resistance training.

Dataset Information

The Reliability and Validity of Current Technologies for Measuring Barbell Velocity in the Free-Weight Back Squat and Power Clean.

Publications

The Reliability and Validity of Current Technologies for Measuring Barbell Velocity in the Free-Weight Back Squat and Power Clean.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets