Next Article in Journal
Verifying Physiological and Biomechanical Parameters during Continuous Swimming at Speed Corresponding to Lactate Threshold
Next Article in Special Issue
Using Velocity to Predict the Maximum Dynamic Strength in the Power Clean
Previous Article in Journal
Validation of Inertial Sensor to Measure Barbell Kinematics across a Spectrum of Loading Conditions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Individual Sprint Force-Velocity Profile Adaptations to In-Season Assisted and Resisted Velocity-Based Training in Professional Rugby
Article

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

1
Department of Sport and Physical Activity, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield S10 2BP, UK
2
School of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Lincoln, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sports 2020, 8(7), 94; https://doi.org/10.3390/sports8070094
Received: 12 May 2020 / Revised: 25 June 2020 / Accepted: 25 June 2020 / Published: 30 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Perspectives in Resistance Training)
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. View Full-Text
Keywords: velocity-based training; strength and conditioning; resistance training; load-velocity profile velocity-based training; strength and conditioning; resistance training; load-velocity profile
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Thompson, S.W.; Rogerson, D.; Dorrell, H.F.; Ruddock, A.; Barnes, A. The Reliability and Validity of Current Technologies for Measuring Barbell Velocity in the Free-Weight Back Squat and Power Clean. Sports 2020, 8, 94. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports8070094

AMA Style

Thompson SW, Rogerson D, Dorrell HF, Ruddock A, Barnes A. The Reliability and Validity of Current Technologies for Measuring Barbell Velocity in the Free-Weight Back Squat and Power Clean. Sports. 2020; 8(7):94. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports8070094

Chicago/Turabian Style

Thompson, Steve W., David Rogerson, Harry F. Dorrell, Alan Ruddock, and Andrew Barnes. 2020. "The Reliability and Validity of Current Technologies for Measuring Barbell Velocity in the Free-Weight Back Squat and Power Clean" Sports 8, no. 7: 94. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports8070094

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop