- 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
Concurrent Validity of the Inertial Measurement Unit Vmaxpro (Enode Pro) in Vertical Jump Estimation
The aim of this study was to evaluate if the inertial measurement unit (IMU) Vmaxpro is a valid device to estimate vertical jump height (VJH) when compared to a motion capture system (MoCAP). Thirteen highly trained female volleyball players participated in this study which consisted of three sessions. After a familiarization session, two sessions comprised a warm-up followed by ten countermovement jumps, resting two min between each attempt. Jump height was measured simultaneously by Vmaxpro using takeoff velocity and MoCAP using center-of-mass vertical excursion. Results show significant differences in jump height between devices (10.52 cm; p < 0.001; ES = 0.9), a very strong Spearman's correlation (rs = 0.84: p < 0.001), and a weak concordance correlation coefficient (CCC = 0.22; ρ = 0.861; Cb = 0.26). Regression analysis reveals very high correlations, high systematic error (8.46 cm), and a nonproportional random error (SEE = 1.67 cm). Bland-Altman plots show systematic error (10.6 cm) with 97.3 % of the data being within the LoA. In conclusion, Vmaxpro can be considered a valid device for the estimation of VJH, being a cheaper, portable, and manageable alternative to MoCAP. However, the magnitude of systematic error discourages its use where indistinguishable data from Vmaxpro (Enode Pro) and MoCAP are used unless the corresponding specific fitting equation is applied.