Abstract
Velocity-based training (VBT) is a resistance training method by which training variables are manipulated based on kinematic outcomes, e.g., barbell velocity. The better precision for monitoring and manipulating training variables ascribed to VBT assumes that velocity is measured and communicated correctly. This study assessed the validity of several mobile and one stationary VBT device for measuring mean and peak concentric barbell velocity over a range of velocities and exercises, including low- and high-velocity, ballistic and non-ballistic, and plyometric and non-plyometric movements, and to quantify the isolated effect of device attachment point on measurement validity. GymAware (r = 0.90–1, standard error of the estimate, SEE = 0.01–0.08 m/s) and Quantum (r = 0.88–1, SEE = 0.01–0.18 m/s) were most valid for mean and peak velocity, with Vmaxpro (r = 0.92–0.99, SEE = 0.02–0.13 m/s) close behind. Push (r = 0.69–0.96, SEE = 0.03–0.17 m/s) and Flex (r = 0.60–0.94, SEE = 0.02–0.19 m/s) showed poorer validity (especially for higher-velocity exercises), although typical errors for mean velocity in exercises other than hang power snatch were acceptable. Effects of device placement were detectable, yet likely small enough (SEE < 0.1 m/s) to be negligible in training settings.
Highlights
Velocity-based training (VBT) is a resistance training method by which training variables are manipulated based on kinematic outcomes, e.g., barbell velocity, of individual movement cycles
Accepted are the parameters mean and peak concentric velocity, which are usually obtained by linear position transducers (LPTs), inertial measurement units (IMUs), or some sort of optical system
724 repetitions were recorded from 14 participants performing five different free-weight exercise configurations
Summary
Velocity-based training (VBT) is a resistance training method by which training variables are manipulated based on kinematic outcomes, e.g., barbell velocity, of individual movement cycles (repetitions). The justification for VBT is that training variables can be determined or adjusted on an individual and day-to-day basis more precisely than with traditional methods [3]. This reasoning along with current advances in mobile technology are driving VBT’s quickly spreading acceptance among strength training coaches and athletes. Whereas Clemente et al [5] point out that devices employing IMUs are often most practical to use, Weakley et al [4] suggest that LPTs are generally more accurate, a strict distinction does not exist. A myriad of reference methods has been employed, whereas the use of a 3D motion capture systems as the gold-standard criterion measure in new validity studies has been highly recommended [4]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: 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.
