Reliability and Validity of Using the Push Band v2.0 to Measure Repetition Velocity in Free-Weight and Smith Machine Exercises

Validity and reliability of the Output sport device for assessing drop jump performance

The devices for measuring plyometric exercise in field conditions are becoming increasingly prevalent in applied research and practice. However, before the use of a device in an applied setting, the validity and reliability of such an instrument must be determined. The study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of the Output Sport, an inertial measurement unit (IMU), through comparisons with a force plate for research purposes. A repeated measure test-retest study was performed. Reliability was assessed during single-session trials (i.e., intrasession reliability). A total of 34 national/university level athletes (13 females, 21 males) performed three drop jumps with a fall from 30 cm while both devices recorded ground contact time (GCT), flight time (FT), jump height (HJ), and reactive strength index (RSI). T-tests demonstrated that data collected from the IMU device were significantly different to the force platform for all reported variables (all p < 0.01). The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) demonstrated good-to-excellent reliability, but with a large range of confidence intervals (CI 95%) for GCT (0.825, 0.291–0.930), FT (0.928, 0.756–0.958), HJ (0.921, 0.773–0.964), and RSI (0.772, 0.151–0.907). The Bland-Altman test showed that the device overestimated contact times and underestimated the other variables. Upon landing, greater ground contact times (i.e., ≥0.355ms) were associated with higher reliability. These results suggest that a single IMU can be used to track changes somewhat accurately and reliably in jump metrics, especially when the GCT is greater than 0.355ms. It is recommended that before practitioners and trainers use the device as a cost-effective solution in the field, further research should be carried out to evaluate a range of data on the type of exercise to be performed.

Video-Based System for Automatic Measurement of Barbell Velocity in Back Squat

Velocity-based training is a contemporary method used by sports coaches to prescribe the optimal loading based on the velocity of movement of a load lifted. The most employed and accurate instruments to monitor velocity are linear position transducers. Alternatively, smartphone apps compute mean velocity after each execution by manual on-screen digitizing, introducing human error. In this paper, a video-based instrument delivering unattended, real-time measures of barbell velocity with a smartphone high-speed camera has been developed. A custom image-processing algorithm allows for the detection of reference points of a multipower machine to autocalibrate and automatically track barbell markers to give real-time kinematic-derived parameters. Validity and reliability were studied by comparing the simultaneous measurement of 160 repetitions of back squat lifts executed by 20 athletes with the proposed instrument and a validated linear position transducer, used as a criterion. The video system produced practically identical range, velocity, force, and power outcomes to the criterion with low and proportional systematic bias and random errors. Our results suggest that the developed video system is a valid, reliable, and trustworthy instrument for measuring velocity and derived variables accurately with practical implications for use by coaches and practitioners.

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

Background

Monitoring resistance training has a range of unique difficulties due to differences in physical characteristics and capacity between athletes, and the indoor environment in which it often occurs. Traditionally, methods such as volume load have been used, but these have inherent flaws. In recent times, numerous portable and affordable devices have been made available that purport to accurately and reliably measure kinetic and kinematic outputs, potentially offering practitioners a means of measuring resistance training loads with confidence. However, a thorough and systematic review of the literature describing the reliability and validity of these devices has yet to be undertaken, which may lead to uncertainty from practitioners on the utility of these devices.

Objective

A systematic review of studies that investigate the validity and/or reliability of commercially available devices that quantify kinetic and kinematic outputs during resistance training.

Methods

Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Medline was performed; studies included were (1) original research investigations; (2) full-text articles written in English; (3) published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; and (4) assessed the validity and/or reliability of commercially available portable devices that quantify resistance training exercises.

Results

A total of 129 studies were retrieved, of which 47 were duplicates. The titles and abstracts of 82 studies were screened and the full text of 40 manuscripts were assessed. A total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Additional 13 studies, identified via reference list assessment, were included. Therefore, a total of 44 studies were included in this review.

Conclusion

Most of the studies within this review did not utilise a gold-standard criterion measure when assessing validity. This has likely led to under or overreporting of error for certain devices. Furthermore, studies that have quantified intra-device reliability have often failed to distinguish between technological and biological variability which has likely altered the true precision of each device. However, it appears linear transducers which have greater accuracy and reliability compared to other forms of device. Future research should endeavour to utilise gold-standard criterion measures across a broader range of exercises (including weightlifting movements) and relative loads.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40279-020-01382-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Masculinising testosterone treatment and effects on preclinical cardiovascular disease, muscle strength and power, aggression, physical fitness and respiratory function in transgender men: protocol for a 10-year, prospective, observational cohort study in Denmark at the Body Identity Clinic (BIC)

INTRODUCTION

The number of individuals with gender dysphoria seeking gender-affirming treatment is increasing. The short-term and long-term effects of masculinising treatment with testosterone are debated as serum testosterone increases up to 20-fold compared with cisgender women. We will investigate short-term and long-term effects of masculinising testosterone treatment on preclinical and clinical coronary disease, muscle strength and power, oxygen consumption (VO₂) max, cardiac and respiratory function and quality of life including aggression in transgender men.

METHODS AND ANALYSES

Prospective, single-centre, observational cohort study at the Body Identity Clinic (BIC), Odense University Hospital, Denmark. Investigations are performed at inclusion and following 1, 3, 5 and 10 years of testosterone therapy. Non-calcified coronary plaque volume and calcium score are estimated by coronary CT angiography. CT is only performed at inclusion and following 1 and 10 years. Upper body muscle strength and power are measured by a 'low row' weight stack resisted exercise machine. Evaluation of aggression and quality of life is assessed by questionnaires, VO₂ max is estimated by maximal testing on bike ergometer, and cardiac and respiratory functions are measured by echocardiography and spirometry, respectively. Markers of cardiovascular risk and inflammation and also cortisol and cortisone are assessed in blood, diurnal urine and/or hair samples. Our cohort (BIC), including dropouts, will be an embedded subcohort in a future national registry study in all individuals with gender dysphoria and controls. Data are available on International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10^th version diagnostic codes, prescriptions, socioeconomics and causes of death.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Regional Committee on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark (S-20190108) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (19/27572) approved the study. Signed informed consent will be obtained from all participants. All findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals or at scientific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04254354.

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

This study investigated the inter-day and intra-device reliability, and criterion validity of six devices for measuring barbell velocity in the free-weight back squat and power clean. In total, 10 competitive weightlifters completed an initial one repetition maximum (1RM) assessment followed by three load-velocity profiles (40-100% 1RM) in both exercises on four separate occasions. Mean and peak velocity was measured simultaneously on each device and compared to 3D motion capture for all repetitions. Reliability was assessed via coefficient of variation (CV) and typical error (TE). Least products regression (LPR) (R2) and limits of agreement (LOA) assessed the validity of the devices. The Gymaware was the most reliable for both exercises (CV < 10%; TE < 0.11 m·s-1, except 100% 1RM (mean velocity) and 90‒100% 1RM (peak velocity)), with MyLift and PUSH following a similar trend. Poorer reliability was observed for Beast Sensor and Bar Sensei (CV = 5.1%‒119.9%; TE = 0.08‒0.48 m·s-1). The Gymaware was the most valid device, with small systematic bias and no proportional or fixed bias evident across both exercises (R2 > 0.42-0.99 LOA = -0.03-0.03 m·s-1). Comparable validity data was observed for MyLift in the back squat. Both PUSH devices produced some fixed and proportional bias, with Beast Sensor and Bar Sensei being the least valid devices across both exercises (R2 > 0.00-0.96, LOA = -0.36‒0.46 m·s-1). Linear position transducers and smartphone applications could be used to obtain velocity-based data, with inertial measurement units demonstrating poorer reliability and validity.