Abstract
To determine the agreement between the Open Barbell (OB) and Tendo weightlifting analyzer (TWA) for measuring barbell velocity, eleven men (19.4 ± 1.0 y) performed one set of 2–3 repetitions at four sub-maximal percentage loads, [i.e., 30, 50, 70, and 90% one-repetition maximum (1RM)] in the back (BS) and front squat (FS) exercises. During each repetition, peak and mean barbell velocity were recorded by OB and TWA devices, and the average of the 2–3 repetitions was used for analyses. Although the repeated measures analysis of variance revealed significantly (p ≤ 0.005) greater peak and mean velocity scores from OB across all intensities, high intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,K = 0.790–0.998), low standard error of measurement (SEM2,K = 0.040–0.119 m·s−1), and coefficients of variation (CV = 2–4%) suggested consistency between devices. Positive (r = 0.491–0.949) Pearson correlations between averages and differences (between devices) in peak velocity, as well as associated Bland-Altman plots, showed greater differences occurred as the velocity increased, particularly at low-moderate intensity loads. OB consistently provides greater barbell velocity scores compared to TWA, and the differences between devices were more apparent as the peak velocity increased with low-to-moderate loads. Strength coaches and athletes may find better agreement between devices if the mean velocity scores are only considered.
Highlights
Velocity-based training has been proposed as a promising methodology to design resistance training programs, and barbell velocity assessment is becoming more popular and widely accepted as an alternative to using percentages of an individual’s one-repetition maximum (1RM) to derive and quantify training loads [1]
Regardless of device, peak and mean barbell velocity became slower (p < 0.001) as intensity load increased for each exercise
× intensity interactions were observed for peak velocity recorded for the BS (F = 68.1, p < 0.001)
Summary
Velocity-based training has been proposed as a promising methodology to design resistance training programs, and barbell velocity assessment is becoming more popular and widely accepted as an alternative to using percentages of an individual’s one-repetition maximum (1RM) to derive and quantify training loads [1]. Proper implementation of velocity-based training is predicated on the accuracy of the technology used to monitor barbell velocity Several devices, such as linear position transducers, video systems, and accelerometers, have been developed to measure barbell velocity in resistance training and research settings [6,7,8,9]. Linear position transducers are among the most popular devices because of their
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.