Reliability of Squat Kinetics in Well-Trained Rugby Players: Implications for Monitoring Training

Reliability of kettlebell swing one and five repetition maximum

Background

Research into the kettlebell swing has increased in the last decade. There has been a paucity of literature assessing an individual's ability to perform the kettlebell swing exercise. The purpose of this study was to determine the test-retest reliability of the one and five repetition maximum (1RM and 5RM) kettlebell swing.

Materials & Methods

Twenty four recreational resistance-trained participants performed an isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) and two familiarization sessions followed by three test sessions for each RM load approximately one week apart, using a custom-built plate-loaded kettlebell. On each test occasion, subjects completed a series of warm-up sets followed by 3-4 progressively heavier kettlebell swings to a standardized height until 1RM or 5RM was reached. Test-retest reliability was calculated using the intra-class correlation (ICC) and typical error was represented as the coefficient of variation (CV%) with 90% confidence limits (90% CL). The smallest worthwhile change (SWC%) representing the smallest change of practical importance, was calculated as 0.2 × between-subject standard deviation. The relationship of kettlebell swing performance and maximum strength was determined by Pearson correlation with ±90% CL between the absolute peak force recorded during IMTP and 1RM or 5RM.

Results

Results demonstrated a high test-retest reliability for both the 1RM (ICC = 0.97, 90% CL [0.95-0.99]; CV = 2.7%, 90% CL [2.2-3.7%]) and 5RM (ICC = 0.98, 90% CL [0.96-0.99]; CV = 2.4%, 90% CL [1.9-3.3%]), respectively. The CV% was lower than the SWC for both the 1RM (SWC = 2.8%, 90% CL [1.9-3.5]) and 5RM (SWC = 2.9%, 90% CL [1.9-3.6]) kettlebell swing. The correlation between IMTP absolute peak force and the 1RM (r = 0.69, 90% CL 0.43-0.83) was large and very large for the 5RM (r = 0.75, 90% CL [0.55-0.87]).

Conclusions

These results demonstrate the stability of 1RM and 5RM kettlebell swing performance after two familiarization sessions. Practitioners can be confident that changes in kettlebell swing 1RM and 5RM performance of >3.6 kg represent a practically important difference, which is the upper limit of the 90% CL.

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.