Is the OUTPUT Sports Unit Reliable and Valid When Estimating Back Squat and Bench Press Concentric Velocity?

Abstract

Merrigan, JJ and Martin, JR. Is the OUTPUT sports unit reliable and valid when estimating back squat and bench press concentric velocity? J Strength Cond Res 36(8): 2069–2076, 2022—This study evaluated the reliability and concurrent validity of the OUTPUT sports inertial unit to measure concentric velocity of free-weight back squat and bench press exercises. Eleven men and women performed back squat and bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM) testing. One week later, subjects performed 3 repetitions of each exercise with 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, and 85% 1RM (18 total repetitions). The OUTPUT and 4 cable extension transducers (criterion) simultaneously recorded the mean and peak velocity. The OUTPUT had acceptable reliability for all loads except 85% 1RM for back squat and bench press (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.72–0.96, coefficient of variation = 0.03–0.12). High systematic biases existed for the mean and peak velocity for the back squat and bench press, according to Bland-Altman plot's wide limits of agreement and ordinary least products regressions. According to Bland-Altman plots, OUTPUT tended to overestimate bench press velocity and overestimate back squat velocity at slower velocities. Least products regression analyses determined proportional bias existed for the mean and peak velocity of the back squat and peak velocity of the bench press. In conclusion, researchers and practitioners are advised not to compare velocity estimates of the OUTPUT unit with criterion devices because these methods cannot be used interchangeably. However, because of the demonstrated reliability when estimating the mean and peak velocity, strength and conditioning practitioners may find the OUTPUT unit valuable for monitoring performance of the back squat and bench press exercises. Yet, caution should be taken when evaluating loads ≥85% 1RM.

Does the Multistage 20-m Shuttle Run Test Accurately Predict VO2max in NCAA Division I Women Collegiate Field Hockey Athletes?

“…Bland-Altman plots and the respective statistics were created and assessed using BlandR package [27]. Since the interpretation of these plots has potential for error [23,28], ordinary least square products (Model II linear regression) analyses were performed to assess agreement between devices [29,30]. Systematic and proportional bias were noted when 95% confidence interval of the intercept did not include "0" and "1.0", respectively.…”

“…Discrepancies in findings may also be attributed to differences in statistical analyses used to test the validity of the equations. Although common in prior literature, use of correlation analyses or group mean comparisons to determine agreement are often inappropriate as they fail to provide valuable information for reliable comparisons [23]. For example, the Chatterjee equation was not significantly different from laboratory VO 2max according to group mean differences (i.e., Wilcoxon tests); however, according to Ordinary Least Products Regressions, the Chatterjee equation demonstrated systematic bias (underestimations) and proportional bias (changes in accuracy across VO 2max values).…”

“…This is critical for reliably providing VO 2max predictions, to reduce the chance of error in training prescriptions from overestimations or underestimations of VO 2max . To assess true agreement between the predicted and criterion measured values, Bland-Altman and Ordinary Least Products Regressions are commonly conducted statistical procedures [22,23]. However, commonly reported statistics include correlational and linear regression analyses or t-tests, which assess the relationship or mean group differences between the assessments, not agreement.…”

Potentiating Effects of Accentuated Eccentric Loading Are Dependent Upon Relative Strength

“…Data were filtered using a 10 Hz low pass Butterworth filter, which was determined through residual analysis by visually identifying the best fit line that did not attenuate peak velocities of various cutoff frequencies (5–25 Hz). The data were analyzed using Matlab version 7.12 software (MathWorks, R2011a, Natick, MA) with methods that are considered reliable during the bench press exercise with the current loading schemes (Intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC ≥0.80; Coefficient of variation, CV ≤5%) (18). For data analysis, the lowest position of the bench press was identified using the find peaks function in Matlab to identify the transition phase from eccentric to concentric actions (i.e., end of the lowering phase).…”

Reliability, Validity, and Comparison of Barbell Velocity Measurement Devices during the Jump Shrug and Hang High Pull

“…This method of load prescription uses technology to measure the velocity of a movement (typically barbell velocity) during each exercise repetition to determine whether or not an individual is meeting the desired training goal within a session or phase of training [ 34 , 35 ]. While the vast majority of the velocity-based training literature has focused on comparisons with other loading methods [ 36 , 37 ], load prescription [ 38 , 39 ], or the reliability and validity of various velocity devices [ 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ], researchers have primarily focused on traditional resistance training exercises such as the back squat and bench press. In contrast, limited research has investigated the use of velocity measurement devices with weightlifting derivatives [ 44 , 45 ].…”