Literature DB >> 28182500

Validity of Various Methods for Determining Velocity, Force, and Power in the Back Squat.

Harry G Banyard, Ken Nosaka, Kimitake Sato, G Gregory Haff.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To examine the validity of 2 kinematic systems for assessing mean velocity (MV), peak velocity (PV), mean force (MF), peak force (PF), mean power (MP), and peak power (PP) during the full-depth free-weight back squat performed with maximal concentric effort.
METHODS: Ten strength-trained men (26.1 ± 3.0 y, 1.81 ± 0.07 m, 82.0 ± 10.6 kg) performed three 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) trials on 3 separate days, encompassing lifts performed at 6 relative intensities including 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 90%, and 100% of 1RM. Each repetition was simultaneously recorded by a PUSH band and commercial linear position transducer (LPT) (GymAware [GYM]) and compared with measurements collected by a laboratory-based testing device consisting of 4 LPTs and a force plate.
RESULTS: Trials 2 and 3 were used for validity analyses. Combining all 120 repetitions indicated that the GYM was highly valid for assessing all criterion variables while the PUSH was only highly valid for estimations of PF (r = .94, CV = 5.4%, ES = 0.28, SEE = 135.5 N). At each relative intensity, the GYM was highly valid for assessing all criterion variables except for PP at 20% (ES = 0.81) and 40% (ES = 0.67) of 1RM. Moreover, the PUSH was only able to accurately estimate PF across all relative intensities (r = .92-.98, CV = 4.0-8.3%, ES = 0.04-0.26, SEE = 79.8-213.1 N).
CONCLUSIONS: PUSH accuracy for determining MV, PV, MF, MP, and PP across all 6 relative intensities was questionable for the back squat, yet the GYM was highly valid at assessing all criterion variables, with some caution given to estimations of MP and PP performed at lighter loads.

Entities:  

Keywords:  GymAware; PUSH band; athlete monitoring; velocity-based training

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28182500     DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2016-0627

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Sports Physiol Perform        ISSN: 1555-0265            Impact factor:   4.010


  23 in total

1.  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

2.  Post-Activation Performance Enhancement: Save Time With Active Intra-Complex Recovery Intervals.

Authors:  Robert Trybulski; Piotr Makar; Dan Iulian Alexe; Silvius Stanciu; Rafał Piwowar; Michal Wilk; Michal Krzysztofik
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 4.755

3.  The impact of resistance exercise range of motion on the magnitude of upper-body post-activation performance enhancement.

Authors:  Michał Krzysztofik; Robert Trybulski; Bartosz Trąbka; Dawid Perenc; Konrad Łuszcz; Adam Zajac; Dan Iulian Alexe; Tatiana Dobrescu; Cristina Elena Moraru
Journal:  BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil       Date:  2022-07-07

4.  Assessment of Back-Squat Performance at Submaximal Loads: Is the Reliability Affected by the Variable, Exercise Technique, or Repetition Criterion?

Authors:  Alejandro Pérez-Castilla; Danica Janicijevic; Zeki Akyildiz; Deniz Senturk; Amador García-Ramos
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-04-27       Impact factor: 3.390

5.  Between-Leg Mechanical Differences as Measured by the Bulgarian Split-Squat: Exploring Asymmetries and Relationships with Sprint Acceleration.

Authors:  Robert G Lockie; Fabrice G Risso; Adrina Lazar; Dominic V Giuliano; Alyssa A Stage; Tricia M Liu; Megan D Beiley; Jillian M Hurley; Ibett A Torne; John J Stokes; Samantha A Birmingham-Babauta; DeShaun L Davis; Ashley J Orjalo; Matthew R Moreno
Journal:  Sports (Basel)       Date:  2017-09-01

6.  Muscle activation varies between high-bar and low-bar back squat.

Authors:  Michal Murawa; Anna Fryzowicz; Jaroslaw Kabacinski; Jakub Jurga; Joanna Gorwa; Manuela Galli; Matteo Zago
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2020-06-08       Impact factor: 2.984

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

Authors:  Alejandro Martínez-Cava; Alejandro Hernández-Belmonte; Javier Courel-Ibáñez; Ricardo Morán-Navarro; Juan José González-Badillo; Jesús G Pallarés
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  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

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.  Effects of Very Short-Term Dynamic Constant External Resistance Exercise on Strength and Barbell Velocity in Untrained Individuals.

Authors:  M Travis Byrd; Haley C Bergstrom
Journal:  Int J Exerc Sci       Date:  2018-06-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.