Comparison of the two most commonlyused gold-standard velocity monitoringdevices (GymAware and T-Force) to assesslifting velocity during the free-weightbarbell back squat exercise
Journal article
Janicijevic, Danica, García-Ramos, Amador, Lamas-Cepero, Juan Luis, García-Pinillos, Felipe, Marcos-Blanco, Aitor, Rojas, Francisco Javier, Weakley, Jonathon and Pérez-Castilla, Alejandro. (2021). Comparison of the two most commonlyused gold-standard velocity monitoringdevices (GymAware and T-Force) to assesslifting velocity during the free-weightbarbell back squat exercise. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology. 237(3), pp. 205-212. https://doi.org/10.1177/17543371211029614
Authors | Janicijevic, Danica, García-Ramos, Amador, Lamas-Cepero, Juan Luis, García-Pinillos, Felipe, Marcos-Blanco, Aitor, Rojas, Francisco Javier, Weakley, Jonathon and Pérez-Castilla, Alejandro |
---|---|
Abstract | This study aimed to compare the reliability and agreement of mean velocity (MV) and maximal velocity (Vmax) between the two velocity monitoring devices (GymAware vs T-Force) most commonly used in the scientific literature. Twenty resistance-trained males completed two testing sessions. The free-weight barbell back squat one-repetition maximum (1RM) was determined in the first session (125.0 ± 24.2 kg; mean ± standard deviation). The second session consisted of two blocks of 16 repetitions (six repetitions at 45% 1RM and 65% 1RM, and four repetitions at 85% 1RM). Half of the repetitions were performed with the GymAware on the left side of the barbell and the other half of the repetitions were performed on the right side of the barbell (opposite placement for the T-Force). MV and Vmax were recorded simultaneously with the GymAware and T-Force. The overall reliability, which was calculated pooling together the data of three loads, did not differ between the T-Force (coefficient of variation (CV) = 5.28 ± 1.79%) and GymAware (CV = 5.79 ± 2.26%) (CVratio = 1.10), but the reliability was higher for Vmax (CV = 5.08 ± 1.79%) compared to MV (CV = 5.98 ± 2.73%) (CVratio = 1.18). MV was significantly higher for the T-Force (p < 0.001, Δ = 4.42%), but no significant differences were detected between the devices for Vmax (p = 0.455, Δ = 0.22%). These results support the use of both the GymAware and T-Force as gold-standards in studies designed to validate other velocity monitoring devices. However, systematic bias, albeit rather constant, exists for the magnitude of MV between the two devices. |
Keywords | linear position transducer; linear velocity transducer; reliability; validity; velocity-based training |
Year | 2021 |
Journal | Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology |
Journal citation | 237 (3), pp. 205-212 |
Publisher | SAGE Publications |
ISSN | 1754-3371 |
Digital Object Identifier (DOI) | https://doi.org/10.1177/17543371211029614 |
Scopus EID | 2-s2.0-85109080244 |
Web address (URL) | https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17543371211029614 |
Research or scholarly | Research |
Page range | 205-212 |
Publisher's version | License All rights reserved File Access Level Controlled |
Output status | Published |
Publication dates | |
Online | 03 Jul 2021 |
Publication process dates | |
Deposited | 04 Jul 2022 |
https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/item/8xz88/comparison-of-the-two-most-commonlyused-gold-standard-velocity-monitoringdevices-gymaware-and-t-force-to-assesslifting-velocity-during-the-free-weightbarbell-back-squat-exercise
Restricted files
Publisher's version
92
total views0
total downloads2
views this month0
downloads this month