Literature DB >> 26670993

Validity and Reliability of the PUSH Wearable Device to Measure Movement Velocity During the Back Squat Exercise.

Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández1, Matt Kuzdub, Pedro Poveda-Ortiz, Juan Del Campo-Vecino.   

Abstract

Balsalobre-Fernández, C, Kuzdub, M, Poveda-Ortiz, P, and Campo-Vecino, Jd. Validity and reliability of the PUSH wearable device to measure movement velocity during the back squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res 30(7): 1968-1974, 2016-The purpose of this study was to analyze the validity and reliability of a wearable device to measure movement velocity during the back squat exercise. To do this, 10 recreationally active healthy men (age = 23.4 ± 5.2 years; back squat 1 repetition maximum [1RM] = 83 ± 8.2 kg) performed 3 repetitions of the back squat exercise with 5 different loads ranging from 25 to 85% 1RM on a Smith Machine. Movement velocity for each of the total 150 repetitions was simultaneously recorded using the T-Force linear transducer (LT) and the PUSH wearable band. Results showed a high correlation between the LT and the wearable device mean (r = 0.85; standard error of estimate [SEE] = 0.08 m·s) and peak velocity (r = 0.91, SEE = 0.1 m·s). Moreover, there was a very high agreement between these 2 devices for the measurement of mean (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.907) and peak velocity (ICC = 0.944), although a systematic bias between devices was observed (PUSH peak velocity being -0.07 ± 0.1 m·s lower, p ≤ 0.05). When measuring the 3 repetitions with each load, both devices displayed almost equal reliability (Test-retest reliability: LT [r = 0.98], PUSH [r = 0.956]; ICC: LT [ICC = 0.989], PUSH [ICC = 0.981]; coefficient of variation [CV]: LT [CV = 4.2%], PUSH [CV = 5.0%]). Finally, individual load-velocity relationships measured with both the LT (R = 0.96) and the PUSH wearable device (R = 0.94) showed similar, very high coefficients of determination. In conclusion, these results support the use of an affordable wearable device to track velocity during back squat training. Wearable devices, such as the one in this study, could have valuable practical applications for strength and conditioning coaches.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26670993     DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001284

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Strength Cond Res        ISSN: 1064-8011            Impact factor:   3.775


  14 in total

Review 1.  Trends Supporting the In-Field Use of Wearable Inertial Sensors for Sport Performance Evaluation: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Valentina Camomilla; Elena Bergamini; Silvia Fantozzi; Giuseppe Vannozzi
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 3.576

2.  The Validity and Reliability of Commercially Available Resistance Training Monitoring Devices: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jonathon Weakley; Matthew Morrison; Amador García-Ramos; Rich Johnston; Lachlan James; Michael H Cole
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 11.136

3.  The Validity of the Push Band 2.0 on the Reactive Strength Index Assessment in Drop Jump.

Authors:  Raynier Montoro-Bombú; Lázaro de la Paz Arencibia; Carlo Buzzichelli; Paulo Miranda-Oliveira; Orlando Fernandes; Amândio Santos; Luis Rama
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-22       Impact factor: 3.847

4.  Increases in Variation of Barbell Kinematics Are Observed with Increasing Intensity in a Graded Back Squat Test.

Authors:  Kevin M Carroll; Kimitake Sato; Caleb D Bazyler; N Travis Triplett; Michael H Stone
Journal:  Sports (Basel)       Date:  2017-07-14

5.  The Reliability and Validity of Current Technologies for Measuring Barbell Velocity in the Free-Weight Back Squat and Power Clean.

Authors:  Steve W Thompson; David Rogerson; Harry F Dorrell; Alan Ruddock; Andrew Barnes
Journal:  Sports (Basel)       Date:  2020-06-30

6.  Validity of the iLOAD® app for resistance training monitoring.

Authors:  Evandro Claudino de Sá; André Ricarte Medeiros; André Santana Ferreira; Amador García Ramos; Danica Janicijevic; Daniel Boullosa
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2019-08-07       Impact factor: 2.984

7.  Reliability and Criterion Validity of the Assess2Perform Bar Sensei.

Authors:  George K Beckham; Danielle K Layne; Steven B Kim; Eric A Martin; Benjamin G Perez; Kent J Adams
Journal:  Sports (Basel)       Date:  2019-11-07

8.  Validity of a Smartphone-Based Application for Determining Sprinting Performance.

Authors:  Robert Stanton; Melanie Hayman; Nyree Humphris; Hanna Borgelt; Jordan Fox; Luke Del Vecchio; Brendan Humphries
Journal:  J Sports Med (Hindawi Publ Corp)       Date:  2016-07-21

9.  Analysis of Wearable and Smartphone-Based Technologies for the Measurement of Barbell Velocity in Different Resistance Training Exercises.

Authors:  Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández; David Marchante; Eneko Baz-Valle; Iván Alonso-Molero; Sergio L Jiménez; Mario Muñóz-López
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2017-08-28       Impact factor: 4.566

10.  Validity and Reliability of Kinematics Measured with PUSH Band vs. Linear Encoder in Bench Press and Push-Ups.

Authors:  Roland van den Tillaar; Nick Ball
Journal:  Sports (Basel)       Date:  2019-09-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.