Validity and reliability assessment of 3-D camera-based capture barbell velocity tracking device

Tomasevicz, Curtis L.; Hasenkamp, Ryan M.; Ridenour, Daniel T.; Bach, Christopher W.

doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2019.07.014

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The STT showed excellent results in the MV variable against medium to heavy loads, but greater errors for the fastest movements (Fig 5A and 5B). One recent study has tested the reliability of a similar 3DMA system (Qualisys Track Manager) to assess the barbell velocity with similar findings [22]. The worse performance of the 3DMA system to monitor high-velocity lifts could be attributable to the limited sampling rate of the cameras (i.e., the faster the movement, the shorter the time and the lower the number of data points, resulting in greater errors).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…This technological development has been accompanied by a parallel increase in studies attempting to examine the validity and reliability of emerging devices, including linear velocity transducers [15], linear position transducers [16,17] and optoelectronic systems [18]. While these technologies have been specifically designed to measure the barbell velocity, some authors have tested the validity of camera-based tools such as smartphones apps [19,20], inertial measurement units [21] or 3D motion analysis system (3DMA) [22] as alternatives.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reliability of technologies to measure the barbell velocity: Implications for monitoring resistance training

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the inter-and intra-device agreement of four new devices marketed for barbell velocity measurement. Mean, mean propulsive and peak velocity outcomes were obtained for bench press and full squat exercises along the whole load-velocity spectrum (from light to heavy loads). Measurements were simultaneously registered by two linear velocity transducers T-Force, two linear position transducers Speed4Lifts, two smartphone video-based systems My Lift, and one 3D motion analysis system STT. Calculations included infraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman Limits of Agreement (LoA), standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable change (SDC) and maximum errors (MaxError). Results were reported in absolute (m/s) and relative terms (%1RM). Three velocity segments were differentiated according to the velocity-load relationships for each exercise: heavy (� 80% 1RM), medium (50% < 1RM < 80%) and light loads (� 50% 1RM). Criteria for acceptable reliability were ICC > 0.990 and SDC < 0.07 m/s (~5% 1RM). The T-Force device shown the best intra-device agreement (SDC = 0.01-0.02 m/s, LoA <0.01m/s, MaxError = 1.3-2.2%1RM). The Speed4Lifts and STT were found as highly reliable, especially against lifting velocities �1.0 m/s (Speed4Lifts, SDC = 0.01-0.05 m/s; STT, SDC = 0.02-0.04 m/s), whereas the My Lift app showed the worst results with errors well above the acceptable levels (SDC = 0.26-0.34 m/s, MaxError = 18.9-24.8%1RM). T-Force stands as the preferable option to assess barbell velocity and to identify technical errors of measurement for emerging monitoring technologies. Both the Speed4Lifts and STT are fine alternatives to T-Force for measuring velocity against high-medium loads (velocities � 1.0 m/s), while the excessive errors of the newly updated My Lift app advise against the use of this tool for velocity-based resistance training.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of technologies to measure the barbell velocity: Implications for monitoring resistance training

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The 2 velocity variables most commonly used in practice and scientific research are mean velocity (MV) (i.e., the average velocity across the entire concentric phase) and peak velocity (PV) (i.e., the maximum instantaneous velocity reached during the concentric phase) (68,83). However, mean propulsive velocity (MPV) (i.e., the average velocity from the start of the concentric phase until the acceleration is less than gravity [29.81 m$s 22 ]) has also been proposed as an alternative (77).…”

Section: The Different Type Of Velocity Variables and When To Use Themmentioning

confidence: 99%

Velocity-Based Training: From Theory to Application

Weakley

Mann

Banyard

et al. 2020

Strength &Amp; Conditioning Journal

202

249

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Velocity-based training (VBT) is a contemporary method of resistance training that enables accurate and objective prescription of resistance training intensities and volumes. This review provides an applied framework for the theory and application of VBT. Specifically, this review gives detail on how to: use velocity to provide objective feedback, estimate strength, develop load-velocity profiles for accurate load prescription, and how to use statistics to monitor velocity. Furthermore, a discussion on the use of velocity loss thresholds, different methods of VBT prescription, and how VBT can be implemented within traditional programming models and microcycles is provided.

show abstract

“…The training load was selected using Velocity-Based Training (VBT) corresponding to (1-0.75 m/s), which was determined using the Tendo Power Analyzer linear position transducer (Tendo Sport Machines, Trencin, Slovakia) on which the whole training process was based (Table 1). We considered variables most commonly used in practice and scientific research which include mean velocity (MV) (i.e., the average velocity across the entire concentric phase) and peak velocity (PV) (i.e., the maximum instantaneous velocity reached during the concentric phase) [41,42].…”

Section: Strength and Power Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of a Step Load Unilateral and Bilateral Resistance Training Program on the Strength and Power of the Lower Limbs in Soccer Players

Drozd,

Kędra,

Motowidło

et al. 2024

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the investigation was to determine the influence of a four-week unilateral (UNI) and bilateral (BIL) resistance training program on peak torque and peak power of the lower limbs in soccer players. Background: We evaluated the effects of a 3:1 step load training program using UNI and BIL forms of exercises on the level of peak torque and peak power of the knee joint extensors and flexors. Methods: The study included 16 division I soccer players having the highest number of matches played in the first round of the season. The motor tests included isokinetic evaluation of peak torque and peak power of the extensors and flexors of the knee joint. Results: The results showed that both types of training sessions were equally effective. Only in terms of power during knee flexion, unilateral training contributed to improvement, whereas bilateral training did not. Conclusions: The use of periodization using a step load progression based on an extended eccentric phase of the movement during the preseason period in combination with UNI training may increase peak torque and peak power of knee flexors and extensors in soccer players.

show abstract

Validity and reliability assessment of 3-D camera-based capture barbell velocity tracking device

Cited by 7 publications

References 18 publications

Reliability of technologies to measure the barbell velocity: Implications for monitoring resistance training

Reliability of technologies to measure the barbell velocity: Implications for monitoring resistance training

Velocity-Based Training: From Theory to Application

A Comparison of a Step Load Unilateral and Bilateral Resistance Training Program on the Strength and Power of the Lower Limbs in Soccer Players

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About