The Validity of the Push Band 2.0 during Vertical Jump Performance

Concurrent Validity and Reliability of a Free Smartphone Application for Evaluation of Jump Height

Background/Objectives: Jump test assessment is commonly used for physical tests, with different type of devices used for its evaluation. The purpose of the present study was to examine the validity and reliability of a freely accessible mobile application (VertVision, version 2.0.5) for measuring jump performance. Methods: With that intent, thirty-eight college age recreationally active subjects underwent test assessment after a specific warm-up, performing countermovement jumps (CMJs) and squat jumps (SJs) on a contact platform while being recorded with a smartphone camera. Jump height was the criterion variable, with the same formula being used for both methods. Data analysis was performed by two experienced observers. Results: The results showed strong correlations with the contact platform (ICC > 0.9) for both jumps. Furthermore, between-observer reliability was also high (ICC > 0.9; CV ≤ 2.19), with lower values for smallest worthwhile change (≤0.23) and typical error of measurement (≤0.14). Estimation error varied when accounting for both observers, with the SJ accounting for bigger differences (4.1-6.03%), when compared to the CMJ (0.73-3.09%). Conclusions: The study suggests that VertVision is a suitable and handy method for evaluating jump performance. However, it presents a slight estimation error when compared to the contact platform.

Physical fitness metrics and their relationship to locomotor activity profiles among female international field hockey players across an Olympic cycle

OBJECTIVES

The study explored the correlations between physical fitness metrics and match locomotor activity profiles. Furthermore exploring the transformations of both fitness tests as well as match locomotor activities over an Olympic cycle.

DESIGN

Observational descriptive study.

METHODS

Fitness testing (n = 24) and match locomotor activity (n = 102) profiles were collected. A Pearson's product-moment correlation and 95 % confidence intervals were calculated to determine relationships between metrics for each year. A mixed-effects model was used for repeated measures to identify differences in the physical fitness tests and match locomotor activity profiles between years.

RESULTS

The YoYo intermittent reocvery testest level 1 changed significantly (p < 0.0001) and accounted for 29 % of the variance in average speed (p < 0.001, rrm (59) = 0.54) Upper and lower body muscular strength, also improved, evidenced by the 3RM bench press (p < 0.0001), and a 28 % (2017-2019) increase in 3RM squat (p < 0.0001). Also pull-ups increased from 4.2 ± 2.8 pull-ups (2017) to 10.0 ± 3.1 pull-ups (2020) (p < 0.0001) and. countermovement jump height increased over the study duration (p < 0.0001). Match total distances remained unchanged, while average speed increased significantly (p < 0.0001). High-speed running distance (p < 0.0003) and sprint counts (p < 0.0001), showed significant improvements over the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

The study underscores noteworthy improvements in physical attributes and performance metrics over an Olympic cycle. Contributing valuable insights for enhancing athletic performance in hockey players competing in the Olympics.

Validity and test-retest reliability of a resistance training device for Smith machine back squat exercise

This study evaluated the validity and test-retest reliability of a resistance training device Jueying (Beijing, China) for Smith machine back squat exercise. Twelve male participants completed two test sessions with an interval of one week. In each test session, participants completed 30%, 45%, 60%, and 75% of 1RM back squats on a Smith machine equipped with Jueying and a linear position transducer GymAware (Canberra, Australia), which measured the velocity and power during the movement simultaneously. Results showed that Jueying was both valid (Pearson correlation coefficient [r] = 0.896-0.999, effect size [ES] = 0.004-0.192) when compared with GymAware and consistent between two tests in terms of reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.79-0.95) to assess speed and power within all exercises. The device could be applied to provide athletes and coaches with effective and reliable data in actual application.

Validity of Commercially Available Punch Trackers

ABSTRACT

Omcirk, D, Vetrovsky, T, Padecky, J, Malecek, J, and Tufano, JJ. Validity of commercially available punch trackers. J Strength Cond Res 37(11): 2273-2281, 2023-This study determined how well data from commercially available punch trackers (Corner, Hykso, and StrikeTec) related to gold-standard velocity and force measures during full-contact punches. In a quasi-randomized order, 20 male subjects performed 6 individual rear straight punches, rear hooks, and rear uppercuts against a wall-mounted force plate. Punch tracker variables were compared with the peak force of the force plate and to the peak (QPV) and mean velocity (QMV) assessed through Qualisys 3-dimensional tracking. For each punch tracker variable, Pearson's correlation coefficient, mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), and mean percentage error (MPE) were calculated. There were no strong correlations between punch tracker data and gold-standard force and velocity data. However, Hykso "velocity" was moderately correlated with QMV ( r = 0.68, MAPE 0.64, MPE 0.63) and QPV ( r = 0.61, MAPE 0.21, MPE -0.06). Corner Power G was moderately correlated with QMV ( r = 0.59, MAPE 0.65, MPE 0.58) and QPV ( r = 0.58, MAPE 0.27, MPE -0.09), but Corner "velocity" was not. StrikeTec "velocity" was moderately correlated with QMV ( r = 0.56, MAPE 1.49, MPE 1.49) and QPV ( r = 0.55, MAPE 0.46, MPE 0.43). Therefore, none of the devices fared particularly well for all of their data output, and if not willing to accept any room for error, none of these devices should be used. Nevertheless, these devices and their proprietary algorithms may be updated in the future, which would warrant further investigation.

Similarities and discrepancies between commercially available bioelectrical impedance analysis system and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for body composition assessment in 10-14-year-old children

A variety of easy-to-use commercial bioelectrical impedance appliances are available. The aim of this study was to examine the usefulness of a commercially available body composition meter using bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) by comparing its measurement results with those obtained from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The participants were 443 children aged from 10 to 14 years (226 boys and 217 girls). Fat mass, fat-free mass, lean body mass, percentage of body fat, and bone mineral contents were evaluated for all participants using BIA and DXA. The agreement in the anthropometric data obtained from both devices was analyzed using correlation analysis, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), Bland-Altman plots, and ordinary least products regression analysis. Equivalence between both devices was tested by two one-sided t-test. All measured indicators showed strong linear correlations between the two measurement systems (r, 0.853-1.000). Fat mass, fat-free mass, and lean body mass showed absolute concordance (ICC, 0.902-0.972; Lin's CCC, 0.902-0.972). BIA overestimated bone mineral content (62.7-66.5%) and underestimated percentage of body fat (- 8.9 to - 0.8%), lean body mass (- 3.5 to - 1.8%), and body mass (- 0.8 to - 0.5%). For fat mass and fat-free mass, the overestimate or underestimate varied according to the sex and statistical analysis test. Bland-Altman analysis and ordinary least products analysis showed fixed bias and proportional bias in all indicators. Results according to quartiles of body mass index showed poor agreement for fat mass and percentage of body fat in both boys and girls in the lowest body mass index quartile. The present results revealed strong linear correlations between BIA and DXA, which confirmed the validity of the present single-frequency BIA-derived parameters. Our results suggest that BIA cannot provide the exact same values as DXA for some body composition parameters, but that performance is sufficient for longitudinal use within an individual for daily health management and monitoring.

Reliability of ADR Jumping Photocell: Comparison of Beam Cut at Forefoot and Midfoot

The ability to detect small changes in a vertical jump is crucial when data are used by sports science specialists to monitor their athletes. This study aimed to analyze the intrasession reliability of the ADR jumping photocell and the reliability relative to the position of the transmitter when it is located facing the phalanges of the foot (forefoot) or the metatarsal area (midfoot). A total of 12 female volleyball players performed 240 countermovement jumps (CMJ), alternating both methods. The intersession reliability was higher for the forefoot method (ICC = 0.96; CCC = 0.95; SEM = 1.15 cm; CV = 4.11%) than for the midfoot method (ICC = 0.85; CCC = 0.81; SEM = 3.68 cm; CV = 8.75%). Similarly, the sensitivity values were better for the forefoot method (SWC = 0.32) than for the midfoot method (SWC = 1.04). Significant differences were found between the methods (13.5 cm, p < 0.05, ES = 2.1) with low agreement (rs = 0.57; ICC = 0.49; CCC = 0.15; SEM = 4.7 cm) and heteroscedasticity was observed (r2 > 0.1). In conclusion, the ADR jumping photocell is shown to be a reliable tool for measuring CMJs. However, the reliability of the instrument can be influenced depending on the placement of the device. Comparing the two methods, the midfoot placement was less reliable as indicated by higher values of SEM and systematic error, and thus its use is not recommended.

Effects of whole-body vibration warm-up on subsequent jumping and running performance

The aim of this study was to examine whether acute whole-body vibration, a single bout of drop jumps, or a combination of both may enhance countermovement jump (CMJ) and would affect volitional pace 3 km running performance. Twelve healthy and recreationally active males completed 4 conditions in randomized order: (i) 5 sets of 30 s calf raises on the platform but without vibration; (ii) 5 sets of 30 s calf raises on the vibration platform with 30 s rest intervals between sets; (iii) 5 sets of 6 drop jump with a 30 s rest interval between sets; (iv) 5 sets of 30 s calf raises on the vibration platform followed by 6 drop jumps with a 30 s rest interval between sets. Before, 3-min after, and immediately after a 3 km run each participant performed CMJ. No significant difference between conditions (p = 0.327) for the 3 km time trial was found. Whereas CMJ height and relative peak power were significantly improved in post-3 km run than at baseline (p < 0.001 and p = 0.025) and post-warm-up (p = 0.001 and p = 0.002) in all conditions. The present study indicates that warm-up consisting of either whole-body vibration, drop jumps, or a combination of both failed to acutely improve CMJ and 3 km volitional pace running performance in physically active males. However, the increase in the CMJ performance was noted after the end of the 3 km run, which may indicate that the warm-up protocols used were insufficient to enhance subsequent performance.

Reliability, Validity, and Comparison of Barbell Velocity Measurement Devices during the Jump Shrug and Hang High Pull

This study examined the reliability, potential bias, and practical differences between the GymAware Powertool (GA), Tendo Power Analyzer (TENDO), and Push Band 2.0 (PUSH) during the jump shrug (JS) and hang high pull (HHP) performed across a spectrum of loads. Fifteen resistance-trained men performed JS and HHP repetitions with 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% of their 1RM hang power clean, and mean (MBV) and peak barbell velocity (PBV) were determined by each velocity measurement device. Least-products regression and Bland-Altman plots were used to examine instances of proportional, fixed, and systematic bias between the TENDO and PUSH compared to the GA. Hedge's g effect sizes were also calculated to determine any meaningful differences between devices. The GA and TENDO displayed excellent reliability and acceptable variability during the JS and HHP while the PUSH showed instances of poor-moderate reliability and unacceptable variability at various loads. While the TENDO and PUSH showed instances of various bias, the TENDO device demonstrated greater validity when compared to the GA. Trivial-small differences were shown between the GA and TENDO during the JS and HHP exercises while trivial-moderate differences existed between GA and PUSH during the JS. However, despite trivial-small effects between the GA and PUSH devices at 20 and 40% 1RM during the HHP, practically meaningful differences existed at 60, 80, and 100%, indicating that the PUSH velocity outputs were not accurate. The TENDO appears to be more reliable and valid than the PUSH when measuring MBV and PBV during the JS and HHP.

Reliability, Usefulness, and Validity of Field-Based Vertical Jump Measuring Devices

ABSTRACT

Comyns, TM, Murphy, J, and O'Leary, D. Reliability, usefulness, and validity of field-based vertical jump measuring devices. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2022-The purpose of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability, usefulness, and validity of field-based devices, in determining jump height (JH) during a countermovement jump (CMJ). Twenty-one male (22.8 ± 2.4 years; 1.82 ± 0.07 m; 86.0 ± 10.4 kg) and 7 female field sport athletes (20.5 ± 1.5 years; 1.65 ± 0.06 m; 65.4 ± 7.2 kg) performed 3 CMJs with data simultaneously recorded using a force plate (criterion measure), Optojump, Output Capture, and Push-Band 2.0. Reliability was determined by intraclass correlation (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV) analyses. Usefulness was assessed by comparing typical error (TE) with the smallest worthwhile change (SWC), and the validity analyses involved repeated measures analysis of variance with post hoc analysis, Pearson correlation coefficient ( r ), coefficient of determination, and Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement analyses. All 3 field-based devices were deemed reliable in assessing CMJ height as the respective ICCs ≥ 0.80 and the CV ≤ 10%. Only the Optojump and Output Capture devices were rated as "good" at detecting the SWC in performance (Optojump SWC: 1.44 > TE: 1.04; Output Capture SWC: 1.47 > TE: 1.05). The Output Capture device demonstrated acceptable validity for CMJ height assessment, whereas the Push-Band 2.0 showed systematic bias when compared with the criterion force plate data. Systematic difference was also evident for the Optojump potentially due to the optical switching-cell position on the Optojump. Although all 3 devices showed excellent reliability, the Optojump and Output Capture devices offer practitioners a cost effective, reliable, and valid method of assessing the smallest worthwhile change in CMJ performance in an applied setting.

Test-Retest and Between-Device Reliability of Vmaxpro IMU at Hip and Ankle for Vertical Jump Measurement

The ability to generate force in the lower body can be considered a performance factor in sports. This study aims to analyze the test-retest and between-device reliability related to the location on the body of the inertial measurement unit Vmaxpro for the estimation of vertical jump. Eleven highly trained female athletes performed 220 countermovement jumps (CMJ). Data were simultaneously captured by two Vmaxpro units located between L4 and L5 vertebrae (hip method) and on top of the tibial malleolus (ankle method). Intrasession reliability was higher for ankle (ICC = 0.96; CCC = 0.93; SEM = 1.0 cm; CV = 4.64%) than hip (ICC = 0.91; CCC = 0.92; SEM = 3.4 cm; CV = 5.13%). In addition, sensitivity was higher for ankle (SWC = 0.28) than for the hip method (SWC = 0.40). The noise of the measurement (SEM) was higher than the worthwhile change (SWC), indicating lack of ability to detect meaningful changes. The agreement between methods was moderate (rs = 0.84; ICC = 0.77; CCC = 0.25; SEM = 1.47 cm). Significant differences were detected between methods (-8.5 cm, p < 0.05, ES = 2.2). In conclusion, the location of the device affects the measurement by underestimating CMJ on ankle. Despite the acceptable consistency of the instrument, the results of the reliability analysis reveal a significant magnitude of both random and systematic error. As such, the Vmaxpro should not be considered a reliable instrument for measuring CMJ.

Comparison of the PUSH Band 2.0 and Vicon Motion Capture to Measure Concentric Movement Velocity during the Barbell Back Squat and Bench Press

The purpose of this investigation was to compare concentric movement velocity (CMV) measured with the PUSH Band (v2.0) and a Vicon motion capture system (MC) during the back squat (SQ) and the bench press (BP) resistance exercises (RE). Twelve resistance-trained males (26.0 ± 5.5 years; 175.6 ± 4.9 cm; 96.3 ± 15.8 kg) completed ten repetitions at 50% of one-repetition maximum (1RM), and six repetitions at 75% 1RM for both BP and SQ. Four PUSH devices were utilized and attached to the subject’s right forearm, the center barbell, left and right sides of the barbell. MC markers were placed on top of each PUSH device. An overall analysis using a series of least-squares means contrasts suggested CMV did not differ (p > 0.05) between measurement technologies when position, RE, intensity and repetitions were combined. PUSH exhibited the highest Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC = 0.835−0.961) and Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients (r = 0.742−0.949) at the arm and center barbell locations when compared with MC. The measurement of CMV between MC and PUSH compares favorably during moderate (i.e., 50%) and high (75%) intensity SQ and BP RE. These data indicate individuals can use the PUSH band v2.0 to accurately monitor CMV within a RE set for SQ and BP RE.

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.

Validity and between-unit agreement of commercially-available linear position transducer and inertial sensor devices during loaded countermovement jumps

To assess the validity and between-unit agreement of velocity monitoring devices during incrementally-loaded countermovement jumps (CMJ), 16 males (24.0 ± 3.5 yr) completed 12 CMJs on a force plate (FP). Performance variables were collected through two linear position transducers (GymAware [GA]) and four accelerometer-based devices (two PUSH units, two Bar Sensei units). Pearson correlations (r) and coefficients of variation (CV) demonstrated strong to very-strong relationships (r = 0.60-0.88) and poor agreement (CV = 11.7-25.3%) between FP and GA, and moderate to very-strong relationships (r = 0.31-0.81) and poor agreement (CV = 10.1-24.2%) between FP and PUSH. Between-unit comparisons demonstrated moderate to very-strong relationships (r = 0.50-0.88) with poor agreement (CV = 10.8-26.6%) for GA, and very weak to very-strong relationships (r = 0.01-0.87) with moderate to poor agreement (CV = 9.1-24.1%) for PUSH. Bar Sensei units were excluded from analyses. Loaded CMJ data collected with either device displayed poor agreement with a FP. Velocity monitoring devices demonstrate poor validity across all loads; however, GA demonstrated strong between-unit agreement. A FP should be utilised to accurately assess CMJ performance at all times.

Validity and Test-retest Reliability of the Jumpo App for Jump Performance Measurement

The vertical jump test is one of the simplest and most prevalent physical tests used in practice and research. This study investigated the validity and reliability of a new mobile application (Jumpo) for measuring jump performance on Android devices. University-aged students (n = 10; 20 ± 3 years; 176 ± 6 cm; 68 ± 9 kg) reported to the laboratory on three occasions (2-7 days apart): to be familiarized with the jump performance measurements and then for test-retest reliability assessments. Participants performed countermovement jumps (CMJ), squat jumps (SJ), and right and left single-legged jumps in random order on a force platform while being recorded by a smartphone's slow-motion camera. Flight time was selected as the criterion variable. Strong positive correlations between the Jumpo and force platform were observed for each jump type tested (r ≥ 0.93), although the flight times obtained with the Jumpo App were systematically shorter than those provided by the force platform by 3-6% (p < 0.001). The Jumpo App demonstrated a high test-retest reliability (ICC ≥ 0.94, CV ≤ 3.7%) with no differences between the coefficients of variation obtained from the Jumpo App and force platform (p ≥ 0.25). With respect to jump type, data from double-legged jumps (CMJ and SJ) were more accurately measured than data from single-legged jumps. The Jumpo App provides a valid and reliable measurement of jump performance, but the following equation should be used to calibrate its flight time results, allowing comparisons to be made to force platform data: Force platformflight time = 0.948 × Jumpoflight time + 41.515. Future studies should cross-validate the calibration equation in a different sample of individuals.

Autoregulation in Resistance Training: Addressing the Inconsistencies

Autoregulation is a process that is used to manipulate training based primarily on the measurement of an individual's performance or their perceived capability to perform. Despite being established as a training framework since the 1940s, there has been limited systematic research investigating its broad utility. Instead, researchers have focused on disparate practices that can be considered specific examples of the broader autoregulation training framework. A primary limitation of previous research includes inconsistent use of key terminology (e.g., adaptation, readiness, fatigue, and response) and associated ambiguity of how to implement different autoregulation strategies. Crucially, this ambiguity in terminology and failure to provide a holistic overview of autoregulation limits the synthesis of existing research findings and their dissemination to practitioners working in both performance and health contexts. Therefore, the purpose of the current review was threefold: first, we provide a broad overview of various autoregulation strategies and their development in both research and practice whilst highlighting the inconsistencies in definitions and terminology that currently exist. Second, we present an overarching conceptual framework that can be used to generate operational definitions and contextualise autoregulation within broader training theory. Finally, we show how previous definitions of autoregulation fit within the proposed framework and provide specific examples of how common practices may be viewed, highlighting their individual subtleties.

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

Hughes, LJ, Peiffer, JJ, and Scott, BR. Reliability and validity of using the Push Band v2.0 to measure repetition velocity in free-weight and Smith machine exercises. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2019-The purpose of this study was to investigate the test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of using the Push Band device 2.0 (PUSH) to quantify repetition velocity across 4 common resistance training exercises performed using free-weight and Smith machine training modalities. Twenty well-trained men (age: 25.1 ± 2.9 years, height: 182.4 ± 6.0 cm, body mass: 77.9 ± 12.0 kg, training age: 5.2 ± 1.4 years) visited the laboratory on 6 occasions (3 free-weight and 3 Smith machine sessions). Baseline strength assessments were conducted in the first session with each modality for squat, bench press, overhead press, and prone row exercises. The subsequent sessions featured repetitions performed with 30, 60, and 90% 1-repetition maximum. During these sessions, velocity was measured simultaneously using a validated linear position transducer (LPT; considered the criterion for this study) and 2 PUSH devices, one in body mode (PUSHBODY) and the other bar mode (PUSHBAR). Test-retest reliability was examined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV). The LPT demonstrated slightly greater reliability (ICC = 0.80-0.98, CV = 0.4-5.1%) than the PUSHBODY (ICC = 0.65-0.95, CV = 0.8-6.9%) and PUSHBAR (ICC = 0.50-0.93, CV = 0.7-7.1%) devices. Near-perfect correlations existed between velocity measured using LPT and PUSH devices (r = 0.96-0.99). No significant differences existed between mean velocity measures obtained using LPT and either PUSH device. The PUSH device can be used in either bar or body mode to obtain reliable and valid repetition velocity measures across a range of loads and exercises performed using either free weights or a Smith machine.

The reliability and validity of the bar-mounted PUSH BandTM 2.0 during bench press with moderate and heavy loads

The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the bar-mounted PUSH Band^TM 2.0 to determine peak and mean velocity during the bench press exercise with a moderate (60% one repetition maximum [1RM]) and heavy (90% 1RM) load. We did this by simultaneously recording peak and mean velocity using the PUSH Band^TM 2.0 and three-dimensional motion capture from participants bench pressing with 60% and 90% 1RM. We used ordinary least products regression to assess within-session reliability and whether the PUSH Band^TM 2.0 could accurately predict motion capture velocity. Results showed that PUSH Band^TM 2.0 and motion capture peak and mean velocity reliability was acceptable with both loads. While there was a tendency for the PUSH Band^TM 2.0 to slightly overestimate peak and mean velocity, there was no fixed bias. However, mean velocity with 60 and 90% 1RM demonstrated proportional bias (differences between predicted and motion capture values increase with magnitude). Therefore, PUSH Band^TM 2.0 peak velocity with 60 and 90% 1RM is valid, but mean velocity is not.