Literature DB >> 29742745

Validity and Reliability of a Wearable Inertial Sensor to Measure Velocity and Power in the Back Squat and Bench Press.

Samuel T Orange1,2, James W Metcalfe1,2, Andreas Liefeith2, Phil Marshall1, Leigh A Madden3, Connor R Fewster4, Rebecca V Vince1.   

Abstract

Orange, ST, Metcalfe, JW, Liefeith, A, Marshall, P, Madden, LA, Fewster, CR, and Vince, RV. Validity and reliability of a wearable inertial sensor to measure velocity and power in the back squat and bench press. J Strength Cond Res 33(9): 2398-2408, 2019-This study examined the validity and reliability of a wearable inertial sensor to measure velocity and power in the free-weight back squat and bench press. Twenty-nine youth rugby league players (18 ± 1 years) completed 2 test-retest sessions for the back squat followed by 2 test-retest sessions for the bench press. Repetitions were performed at 20, 40, 60, 80, and 90% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) with mean velocity, peak velocity, mean power (MP), and peak power (PP) simultaneously measured using an inertial sensor (PUSH) and a linear position transducer (GymAware PowerTool). The PUSH demonstrated good validity (Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient [r]) and reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) only for measurements of MP (r = 0.91; ICC = 0.83) and PP (r = 0.90; ICC = 0.80) at 20% of 1RM in the back squat. However, it may be more appropriate for athletes to jump off the ground with this load to optimize power output. Further research should therefore evaluate the usability of inertial sensors in the jump squat exercise. In the bench press, good validity and reliability were evident only for the measurement of MP at 40% of 1RM (r = 0.89; ICC = 0.83). The PUSH was unable to provide a valid and reliable estimate of any other criterion variable in either exercise. Practitioners must be cognizant of the measurement error when using inertial sensor technology to quantify velocity and power during resistance training, particularly with loads other than 20% of 1RM in the back squat and 40% of 1RM in the bench press.

Year:  2019        PMID: 29742745     DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002574

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


  6 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.  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

3.  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

4.  Validation of video analysis of marker-less barbell auto-tracking in weightlifting.

Authors:  Hideyuki Nagao; Daichi Yamashita
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-01-28       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  A comparison of muscle activation and concomitant intermuscular coupling of antagonist muscles among bench presses with different instability degrees in untrained men.

Authors:  Lejun Wang; Minjie Qiao; Haifeng Tao; Xiaoqian Song; Qineng Shao; Ce Wang; Hua Yang; Wenxin Niu; Yiqing Chen
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-09-06       Impact factor: 4.755

6.  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
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.