Findings
Strong validity (r = 0.900–0.935 for squat and bench press), though it overestimated lower velocities. High intra-day reliability (CVs = 2.4%–9.7%).
- 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
Biology of Sport
Evaluation of the Vmaxpro sensor for assessing movement velocity and load-velocity variables: accuracy and implications for practical use
We investigated the ecological validity of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (Vmaxpro) to assess the movement velocity (MV) during a 1-repetition maximum (1RM) test and for the prediction of load-velocity (L-V) variables, as well as the ecological intra-day and inter-day reliability during free-weight bench press (BP) and squat (SQ). Furthermore, we provide recommendations for the practical use of the sensor. Twenty-three strength-trained men completed an incremental 1RM test, whereas seventeen men further participated in another 3 sessions consisting of 3 repetitions with 4 different loads (30, 50, 70 and 90% of 1RM) to assess validity and intra- and inter‑day reliability, respectively. The MV was assessed using the Vmaxpro and a 3D motion capture system (MoCap). L-V variables and the 1RM were calculated based on submaximal velocities. The Vmaxpro showed high validity during the 1RM test for BP (r = 0.935) and SQ (r = 0.900), but with decreasing validity at lower MVs. The L-V variables and the 1RM demonstrated high validity for BP (r = 0.808–0.942) and SQ (r = 0.615–0.741) with a systematic overestimation. Coefficients of variance for intra- and inter-day reliability ranged from 2.4% to 9.7% and from 3.2%to 8.6% for BP and SQ, respectively. The Vmaxpro appears valid at high and moderately valid at low MVs. Depending on the required degree of accuracy, the sensor may be sufficient for the prediction of L-V variables and the 1RM. Our data indicate the sensor to be suitable for monitoring changes in MVs within and between training sessions.