Introduction: Velocity-Based Training and the Importance of Validity and Reliability

When it comes to resistance training, the rise of a velocity-based approach to it has been a game-changer, offering a more precise and personalised way to track performance. But here’s the rub: not all gadgets are created equal. Before you slap a shiny new device on your barbell, it’s worth asking—how accurate is this thing? Validity and reliability are the bread and butter of any training tool worth its salt. Validity tells you if the device is measuring what it claims to, while reliability ensures it doesn’t decide to “freestyle” its data from one session to the next. Picking the right device is like choosing the right spotter—you need one you can trust, especially when you’re chasing PBs. So, let’s dive into what the research says about our little Enode Sensor, especially in the contest against some of the top contenders in the velocity-based training game.

Methodology of the Research Review

Systematic Literature Search: Databases and Criteria

We conducted a systematic search across five research databases—PubMed, Medline, Scopus, SportDiscus, and CINAHL—using search terms related to the Vmaxpro Sensor or Enode Sensor device, resistance training, and plyometric training. This approach ensured that all articles referencing these devices were considered. The search yielded a total of 136 studies. Inclusion criteria were straightforward: studies just had to examine either the validity and/or reliability of the Vmaxpro Sensor (as it was called before the rebranding to Enode), the Enode Sensor device, or both. Initial screening based on titles and abstracts narrowed the selection to 13 articles, of which 10 were deemed relevant for the article you are now reading.

Validity and Reliability of the Enode Sensor

Comparison with Established Systems: Vicon, GymAware, and More

Enode Sensor (in most research articles and the rest of this article Vmaxpro) has become an increasingly popular device for monitoring velocity-based training in recent years, providing valuable insights for athletes, coaches, and researchers. This wearable device–an inertial measurement unit allowing coaches and their athletes, clients or patients to track movement velocity–has been tested against several established gold-standard systems such as Vicon and OptiTrack Motive motion capture systems, and GymAware, T-force, and Tendo linear position transducers across a variety of exercises like free-weight back squats, bench presses, deadlifts, and hip thrusts. The goal of these studies has been to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Vmaxpro, determining how well it performs in real-world training contexts.

Free-Weight Squats and Bench Press

Many of these studies have found that the Vmaxpro is highly valid when compared to motion capture systems like Vicon, often regarded as the gold standard in biomechanics. For example, in a study by Achermann et al. (2023), the device showed strong correlations with Vicon for both mean concentric velocity and peak concentric velocity during free-weight back squats. Correlation coefficients ranged from 0.833 to 0.966, and despite a small overestimation of velocity at higher speeds, the device was deemed accurate enough for use in training environments. Similarly, Dragutinovic et al. (2023) found that the Vmaxpro was reliable for measuring velocity during 1RM testing in both the bench press and squat exercises. Although small discrepancies between Vmaxpro and Vicon were noted—particularly at lower loads—the overall validity was considered high, indicating that the Vmaxpro is a useful tool for assessing velocity in the gym.

Measuring Additional Parameters: Displacement and Velocity

The Vmaxpro was also evaluated for its ability to measure other key metrics like barbell displacement. In Feuerbacher et al. (2021), the Vmaxpro was compared to both Vicon and the T-Force platform during Smith machine back squats. This study showed that the device had strong validity, with high correlation coefficients for mean concentric velocity (r = 0.935 to 0.968). However, small systematic overestimations of velocity were detected at higher speeds, and a slight bias in displacement was noted. Despite this, the Vmaxpro demonstrated its suitability for velocity-based training, offering real-time data on both velocity and displacement, which are crucial for tracking performance.

Several other studies have assessed the Vmaxpro against various devices used in professional sports settings, including GymAware, Push, and 1080 Quantum. Fritschi et al. (2021) found that the Vmaxpro performed well in comparison to these systems, particularly for mean and peak concentric velocity during exercises such as the hang power snatch and loaded squat jumps. The device showed strong correlations with GymAware (r = 0.90–0.92) and 1080 Quantum (r = 0.88–1). While the Vmaxpro was found to have a slightly higher margin of error when compared to some devices, it was still within an acceptable range for practical use in the gym.

Practical Reliability: Consistent Results Over Time

Reliability is another critical factor when evaluating any device used in a training environment, and the Vmaxpro has been shown to be quite reliable as well. In Olaya-Cuartero et al. (2022), the Vmaxpro demonstrated excellent intra-day reliability for mean concentric velocity during Smith machine back squats. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for velocity was 0.986, indicating that the device is highly consistent when measuring velocity within the same training session. For barbell displacement, the reliability was slightly lower, but still good, with an ICC of 0.812. This suggests that the Vmaxpro is a reliable tool for tracking performance across repeated trials within a single session.

Across these studies, it became clear that the Vmaxpro is a reliable and valid tool for tracking velocity-based training metrics, especially in practical, real-world gym settings. While some small errors were detected—such as minor overestimations of velocity at higher speeds or slight biases in displacement—these errors were typically minimal and did not undermine the device’s overall performance. In fact, many studies concluded that the Vmaxpro offers comparable accuracy to more expensive or laboratory-grade systems like the Vicon motion capture system, making it a valuable and cost-effective tool for athletes and coaches who wish to incorporate velocity-based feedback into their training programs.

Detailed Analysis: Validity and Sensitivity in Complex Studies

Unlike most prior research that focused on test–retest reliability, which can inadvertently conflate human biological variability with device error, the study by Jukic et al. (2023) took a different approach. In that study, barbell velocity during a free-weight back squat was simultaneously monitored across multiple devices, including two Vmaxpro, GymAware, and PUSH2 units to evaluate their internal consistency under identical conditions. This distinction is critical because test-retest assessments inherently incorporate errors from biological factors—such as fatigue and readiness to train, both of which cause day-to-day fluctuations in strength—making it impossible to isolate technological error from human variability. By examining within-device agreement using paired Vmaxpro units and comparing their performance against GymAware and PUSH2, the study addressed this issue head-on, providing a clearer picture of the true technological reliability of the devices.

The study examined the reproducibility and sensitivity of the devices, offering practical insights into the devices’ capacity to detect meaningful changes in velocity associated with changes in performance. Specifically, the sensitivity was assessed through the smallest detectable change (SDC), which quantifies the minimum change in velocity associated with a real change in muscle strength a device can reliably detect. For mean concentric velocity, the Vmaxpro showed an SDC of 0.044 m/s, making it sensitive enough to detect changes lower than 5% of the one-repetition maximum. Conversely, for peak concentric velocity, the SDC was larger (0.11 m/s), meaning that changes in muscle strength of 6.91% or more could only be detected. This suggested that while the device is highly capable of reliably measuring mean concentric velocity, its sensitivity to detect subtle changes in peak concentric velocity is slightly more limited.

When comparing the sensitivity and reproducibility of Vmaxpro to GymAware and Push, the results showed that Vmaxpro performed similarly to GymAware for mean concentric velocity, but with less variability. For peak concentric velocity, GymAware demonstrated better consistency. These findings suggest that Vmaxpro is highly reliable for mean concentric velocity measurements but may be less consistent when tracking peak concentric velocity, particularly compared to more established devices like GymAware. Overall, this study provides important insights into the sensitivity, reproducibility, and comparative performance of the Vmaxpro, highlighting its strengths for velocity monitoring while pointing out areas for potential improvement.

Practical Applications and Versatility of the Enode Sensor

From Training Readiness to Physiotherapy

Anecdotally, the Enode Sensor has proven itself a versatile tool in the hands of practitioners and researchers alike. It has been used to validate other velocity monitoring devices and even AI tools, demonstrating its credibility in the field. In practice, the device is often employed to monitor daily readiness, track movement technique during resistance training, and assess post-session fatigue. Its applications extend beyond the gym, with its role in physiotherapy settings to monitor return-to-play progress gaining attention. With a host of studies planned for Enode Sensor, its potential continues to expand—so watch this space!

Conclusion: A Valuable Tool for Performance-Oriented Training

In conclusion, Enode Sensor has demonstrated strong validity and reliability in measuring key performance metrics like velocity and displacement during resistance training exercises. While some small biases were detected in certain contexts, the device consistently performed well in comparison to gold-standard motion capture systems and other velocity measurement tools. Given its ease of use, affordability, and consistent performance, Enode Sensor is a valuable addition to any training regimen focused on optimising performance through velocity-based metrics.

References:

1. Achermann B, Oberhofer K, Ferguson SJ, Lorenzetti SR. Velocity-based strength training: the validity and personal monitoring of barbell velocity with the Apple watch. Sports. 2023 Jun 23;11(7):125.
2. Dragutinovic B, Jacobs M, Feuerbacher J, Goldmann JP, Cheng S, Schumann M. Evaluation of the Vmaxpro sensor for assessing movement velocity and load-velocity variables: accuracy and implications for practical use. Biology of sport. 2023 May 25;41(1):41-51.
3. Feuerbacher JF, Jacobs MW, Dragutinovic B, Goldmann JP, Cheng S, Schumann M. Validity and test-retest reliability of the Vmaxpro sensor for evaluation of movement velocity in the deep squat. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2023 Jan 1;37(1):35-40.
4. Fritschi R, Seiler J, Gross M. Validity and effects of placement of velocity-based training devices. Sports. 2021 Sep;9(9):123.
5. Held S, Rappelt L, Deutsch JP, Donath L. Valid and reliable barbell velocity estimation using an inertial measurement unit. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021 Aug 31;18(17):917
6. Jukic I, King A, Sousa CA, Prnjak K, McGuigan MR. Implementing a velocity-based approach to resistance training: the reproducibility and sensitivity of different velocity monitoring technologies. Scientific Reports. 2023 May 2;13(1):7152.
7. Menrad T, Edelmann-Nusser J. Validation of velocity measuring devices in velocity based strength training. International Journal of Computer Science in Sport. 2021;20(1):106-18.
8. Olaya-Cuartero J, Villalon-Gasch L, Penichet-Tomás A, Jimenez-Olmedo JM. Validity and Reliability of the VmaxPro IMU for back squat exercise in multipower machine. Journal of Physical Education and Sport. 2022;22(11):2920-2926. DOI:10.7752/jpes.2022.11369.
9. Sandau, I, Ritterbusch, A, Schelenz, A, & Witt, M. Concurrent validity of VmaxPro, Kinovea, and Speedograph for the assessment of peak barbell velocity during the bench press: A comparison of technological approaches and historical evolutions. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, 2023;18(3):612-621. DOI:10.14198/jhse.2023.183.09.
10. Warneke K, Skratek J, Wagner CM, Wirth K, Keiner M. Random measurement and prediction errors limit the practical relevance of two velocity sensors to estimate the 1RM back squat. Frontiers in Physiology. 2024 Sep 10; 15:1435103.