Findings
Vmaxpro showed strong validity (r = 0.92–0.99) for most exercises, though placement affected results. It performed similarly to GymAware and Quantum for high-velocity movements.
- 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
Validity and Effects of Placement of Velocity-Based Training Devices
Velocity-based training (VBT) is a resistance training method by which training variables are manipulated based on kinematic outcomes, e.g., barbell velocity. The better precision for monitoring and manipulating training variables ascribed to VBT assumes that velocity is measured and communicated correctly. This study assessed the validity of several mobile and one stationary VBT device for measuring mean and peak concentric barbell velocity over a range of velocities and exercises, including low- and high-velocity, ballistic and non-ballistic, and plyometric and non-plyometric movements, and to quantify the isolated effect of device attachment point on measurement validity. GymAware (r = 0.90–1, standard error of the estimate, SEE = 0.01–0.08 m/s) and Quantum (r = 0.88–1, SEE = 0.01–0.18 m/s) were most valid for mean and peak velocity, with Vmaxpro (r = 0.92–0.99, SEE = 0.02–0.13 m/s) close behind. Push (r = 0.69–0.96, SEE = 0.03–0.17 m/s) and Flex (r = 0.60–0.94, SEE = 0.02–0.19 m/s) showed poorer validity (especially for higher-velocity exercises), although typical errors for mean velocity in exercises other than hang power snatch were acceptable. Effects of device placement were detectable, yet likely small enough (SEE < 0.1 m/s) to be negligible in training settings.