Findings
Enode Sensor showed high validity for mean velocity (r = 0.971–0.979). However, the wrist-worn Apple Watch was more valid for assessing mean propulsive and peak velocity than the Enode Sensor.
- Random measurement and prediction errors limit the practical relevance of two velocity sensors to estimate the 1RM back squat
- Validity and Reliability of the VmaxPro IMU for back squat exercise in multipower machine
- Implementing a velocity-based approach to resistance training: the reproducibility and sensitivity of different velocity monitoring technologies
- Valid and Reliable Barbell Velocity Estimation Using an Inertial Measurement Unit
- Validity and Effects of Placement of Velocity-Based Training Devices
- Validity and Test-Retest Reliability of the Vmaxpro Sensor for Evaluation of Movement Velocity in the Deep Squat
- Evaluation of the Vmaxpro sensor for assessing movement velocity and load-velocity variables: accuracy and implications for practical use
- Velocity-Based Strength Training: The Validity and Personal Monitoring of Barbell Velocity with the Apple Watch
- 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
- Validity and Reliability of a Commercially Available Inertial Sensor for Measuring Barbell Mechanics during Weightlifting
sports
Velocity-Based Strength Training: The Validity and Personal Monitoring of Barbell Velocity with the Apple Watch
Velocity-based training (VBT) is a method to monitor resistance training based on measured kinematics. Often, measurement devices are too expensive for non-professional use. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy and precision of the Apple Watch 7 and the Enode Pro device for measuring mean, peak, and propulsive velocity during the free-weighted back squat (in comparison to Vicon as the criterion). Velocity parameters from Vicon optical motion capture and the Apple Watch were derived by processing the motion data in an automated Python workflow. For the mean velocity, the barbell-mounted Apple Watch (r = 0.971–0.979, SEE = 0.049), wrist-worn Apple Watch (r = 0.952–0.965, SEE = 0.064) and barbell-mounted Enode Pro (r = 0.959–0.971, SEE = 0.059) showed an equal level of validity. The barbell-mounted Apple Watch (Vpeak: r = 0.952–0.965, SEE = 0.092; Vprop: r = 0.973–0.981, SEE = 0.05) was found to be the most valid for assessing propulsive and peak lifting velocity. The present results on the validity of the Apple Watch are very promising, and may pave the way for the inclusion of VBT applications in mainstream consumer wearables.