Loading...
Comparison of the two most commonlyused gold-standard velocity monitoringdevices (GymAware and T-Force) to assesslifting velocity during the free-weightbarbell back squat exercise
Janicijevic, Danica García-Ramos, Amador Lamas-Cepero, Juan Luis García-Pinillos, Felipe Marcos-Blanco, Aitor Rojas, Francisco Javier Weakley, Jonathon Pérez-Castilla, Alejandro
Janicijevic, Danica
García-Ramos, Amador
Lamas-Cepero, Juan Luis
García-Pinillos, Felipe
Marcos-Blanco, Aitor
Rojas, Francisco Javier
Weakley, Jonathon
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
Date
2021
Type
Journal article
Journal
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology
Book
Volume
237
Issue
3
Page Range
205-212
Article Number
ACU Department
School of Behavioural and Health Sciences
Faculty of Health Sciences
Faculty of Health Sciences
Relation URI
Event URL
Open Access Status
License
All rights reserved
File Access
Controlled