Enode Pro: versatile, powerful, but what does the research really say?

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 Pro, especially in the

contest against some of the top contenders in the velocity-based training game.

We conducted a systematic search across fve research databases—PubMed,

Medline, Scopus, SportDiscus, and CINAHL—using search terms related to the

Vmaxpro or Enode Pro 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 Vmax (a previous version

of the Enode Pro), the Enode Pro 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.

Enode Pro (in most research articles and 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.

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 coeficients 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.

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 coeficients 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,

ofering 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.

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 coeficient (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 ofers comparable accuracy to more expensive or

laboratory-grade systems like the Vicon motion capture system, making it a valuable

and cost-efective tool for athletes and coaches who wish to incorporate velocity-based

feedback into their training programs.

Unlike most prior research that focused on test–retest reliability, which can

inadvertently confate human biological variability with device error, the study by Jukic

et al. (2023) took a diferent 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 fuctuations 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, ofering

practical insights into the devices' capacity to detect meaningful changes in velocity

associated with changes in performance. Specifcally, the sensitivity was assessed

through the smallest detectable change (SDC), which quantifes 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 fndings 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.

Anecdotally, the Enode Pro 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 feld. 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 Pro, its potential

continues to expand—so watch this space!

In conclusion, Enode Pro 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, afordability, and

consistent performance, Enode Pro 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 efects 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 diferent

velocity monitoring technologies. Scientifc 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.