- 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
- Validation of Velocity Measuring Devices in Velocity Based Strength Training
- Concurrent Validity of the Inertial Measurement Unit Vmaxpro (Enode Pro) in Vertical Jump Estimation
All Scienific Publications
Validation of Velocity Measuring Devices in Velocity Based Strength Training
To control and monitor strength training with a barbell various systems are on the consumer market. They provide the user with information regarding velocity, acceleration and trajectory of the barbell. Some systems additionally calculate the 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) of exercises and use it to suggest individual intensities for future training. Three systems were tested: GymAware, PUSH Band 2.0 and Vmaxpro (Enode Pro). The GymAware system bases on linear position transducers, PUSH Band 2.0 and Vmaxpro (Enode Pro) base on inertial measurement units. The aim of this paper was to determine the accuracy of the three systems with regard to the determination of the average velocity of each repetition of three barbell strength exercises (squat, barbell rowing, deadlift). The velocity data of the three systems were compared to a Vicon system using linear regression analyses and Bland-Altman-diagrams. In the linear regression analyses the smallest coefficient of determination (R ² .) in each exercise can be observed for PUSH Band 2.0. In the Bland-Altman diagrams the mean value of the differences in the average velocities is near zero for all systems and all exercises. PUSH Band 2.0 has the largest differences between the Limits of Agreement. For GymAware and Vmaxpro (Enode Pro) these differences are comparable.