Findings
High validity (ICCs = 0.66–0.81) and moderate to strong reliability. Vmaxpro showed minor systematic bias at lower loads.
- 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
Journal of Human Sport and Exercise
Random measurement and prediction errors limit the practical relevance of two velocity sensors to estimate the 1RM back squat
Measurement of barbell velocity is a simple and effective way to control strength training. To assess the concurrent validity of different technological approaches measuring barbell velocity, video-analysis (Kinovea), linear velocity transducer (Speedograph), and an inertial measurement unit (VmaxPro) were compared. Sixty-eight female and male sport science students lifted two repetitions in the bench press exercise at self-selected barbell loads. Peak vertical barbell velocity (Vmax) was parallel measured during the concentric phase of the lift using the aforementioned devices. Concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), Deming regression (DR) and Bland-Altman analysis (BA) were used to assess relative and absolute concurrent validity of Vmax measured with Kinovea, Speedograph, and VmaxPro. Results confirmed high concurrent validity of Speedograph and VmaxPro (CCC = 0.99, standard deviation of differences [SDD] = 0.04 m•s-1) without detecting proportional or constant bias. In contrast, Vmax measured with Kinovea showed poor concurrent validity to Speedograph (CCC = 0.83) and VmaxPro (CCC = 0.81) with significant proportional and constant bias. Regression based re-calibration of Vmax from Kinovea resulted in an SDD = 0.09 m•s-1 compared to Speedograph and an SDD = 0.08 m•s-1 compared to VmaxPro. Among the three tested devices, Vmax assessed using Kinovea showed poor concurrent validity. Furthermore, as Kinovea showed proportional bias compared to Speedograph and VmaxPro, application-specific re-calibration of Kinovea should be applied when barbell velocity data is compared to Speedograph and VmaxPro.