Repositorio UFRO · Omeka S

Comparison of the two most commonly used gold-standard velocity monitoring devices (GymAware and T-Force) to assess lifting velocity during the free-weight barbell back squat exercise

Primer Autor	Janicijevic, Danica
Co-autores	Garcia-Ramos, Amador Luis Lamas-Cepero, Juan Garcia-Pinillos, Felipe Marcos-Blanco, Aitor Javier Rojas, Francisco Weakley, Jonathon Perez-Castilla, Alejandro
Título	Comparison of the two most commonly used gold-standard velocity monitoring devices (GymAware and T-Force) to assess lifting velocity during the free-weight barbell back squat exercise
Editorial	SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
Revista	PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS PART P-JOURNAL OF SPORTS ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
Lenguaje	en
Resumen	This study aimed to compare the reliability and agreement of mean velocity (MV) and maximal velocity (V-max) between the two velocity monitoring devices (GymAware vs T-Force) most commonly used in the scientific literature. Twenty resistance-trained males completed two testing sessions. The free-weight barbell back squat one-repetition maximum (1RM) was determined in the first session (125.0 +/- 24.2 kg, mean +/- standard deviation). The second session consisted of two blocks of 16 repetitions (six repetitions at 45% 1RM and 65% 1RM, and four repetitions at 85% 1RM). Half of the repetitions were performed with the GymAware on the left side of the barbell and the other half of the repetitions were performed on the right side of the barbell (opposite placement for the T-Force). MV and V-max were recorded simultaneously with the GymAware and T-Force. The overall reliability, which was calculated pooling together the data of three loads, did not differ between the T-Force (coefficient of variation (CV) = 5.28 +/- 1.79%) and GymAware (CV = 5.79 +/- 2.26%) (CVratio = 1.10), but the reliability was higher for V-max (CV = 5.08 +/- 1.79%) compared to MV (CV = 5.98 +/- 2.73%) (CVratio = 1.18). MV was significantly higher for the T-Force (p < 0.001, Delta = 4.42%), but no significant differences were detected between the devices for V-max (p = 0.455, Delta = 0.22%). These results support the use of both the GymAware and T-Force as gold-standards in studies designed to validate other velocity monitoring devices. However, systematic bias, albeit rather constant, exists for the magnitude of MV between the two devices.
Fecha Publicación	2023
Tipo de Recurso	artículo original
Derecho de Acceso	registro bibliográfico
doi	10.1177/17543371211029614
Formato Recurso	PDF
Palabras Claves	linear position transducer linear velocity transducer reliability validity velocity-based training
Ubicación del archivo	http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17543371211029614
Categoría OCDE	Ingeniería Ciencias del Deporte Ciencias del Deporte y Acondicionamiento Físico Ciencias de la Computación Fisiología
Materias	transductor de posición lineal transductor de velocidad lineal fiabilidad validez entrenamiento basado en la velocidad
Página de inicio (Recomendado-único)	205.0
Página final (Recomendado-único)	212
Identificador del recurso (Mandatado-único)	artículo original
Versión del recurso (Recomendado-único)	versión publicada
Derechos de acceso	metadata
Access Rights	metadata
Id de Web of Science	WOS:000671410800001
ISSN	1754-3371
Tipo de ruta	verde / hibrido
Categoría WOS	Ingeniería Ciencias del Deporte