Criterion Validity, and Interunit and Between-Day Reliability of the FLEX for Measuring Barbell Velocity During Commonly Used Resistance Training Exercises

Validity of submaximal aerobic capacity and strength tests in firefighters

BACKGROUND

Typically, the fitness of UK firefighters is assessed via submaximal estimate methods due to the low demands on time, money, expertise and equipment. However, the firefighter-specific validity of such testing in relation to maximum aerobic capacity (V˙O2max) and particularly muscular strength is not well established.

AIMS

To examine the validity of submaximal methods to estimate V˙O2max and maximal strength in operational firefighters.

METHODS

Twenty-two full-time operational firefighters (3 female) completed same-day submaximal (Chester Step Test; CST) and maximal (treadmill) assessments of V˙O2max, with a sub-sample of 10 firefighters (1 female) also completing submaximal and maximal back-squat (i.e. one repetition maximum; 1RM) assessments. All participants then completed the Firefighter Simulation Test (FFST) within 2-4 days.

RESULTS

CST underestimated actual V˙O2max by 1.4 ml·kg-1·min-1 (~3%), although V˙O2max values were positively correlated (r = 0.61, P < 0.01) and not significantly different. Estimated V˙O2max values negatively correlated with FFST performance (r = -0.42). Predicted 1RM underestimated actual 1RM by ~2%, although these values were significantly correlated (r = 0.99, P < 0.001) and did not significantly differ. The strongest predictive model of FFST performance included age, body mass index, and direct maximal measures of 1RM and V˙O2max.

CONCLUSIONS

Submaximal back-squat testing offers good validity in estimating maximum firefighter strength without exposure to the fatigue associated with maximal methods. The CST provides a reasonably valid and cost-effective V˙O2max estimate which translates to firefighting task performance, although the error observed means it should be used cautiously when making operational decisions related to V˙O2max benchmarks.

The Effects and Reproducibility of 10, 20, and 30% Velocity Loss Thresholds on Acute and Short-Term Fatigue and Recovery Responses

ABSTRACT

Weakley, J, Johnston, RD, Cowley, N, Wood, T, Ramirez-Lopez, C, McMahon, E, and García-Ramos, A. The effects and reproducibility of 10, 20, and 30% velocity loss thresholds on acute and short-term fatigue and recovery responses. J Strength Cond Res 38(3): 465-473, 2024-This study aimed to establish the effects and reproducibility of implementing 10, 20, and 30% velocity loss thresholds (VLTs) during the free-weight barbell back squat on acute and short-term perceived soreness, neuromuscular fatigue, and physical performance. Using a repeated, counterbalanced, crossover design, 12 team-sport athletes completed on separate sessions 5 sets of the free-weight barbell back-squat until reaching VLTs of either 10, 20, or 30%. Outcomes were measured immediately postexercise and 24 hours after each session. To assess reproducibility, the same sessions were repeated after 4 weeks. Immediately postexercise, small differences in countermovement jump (CMJ) and 10-m sprint performance were observed between VLT conditions, whereas small to moderate differences in differential ratings of perceived exertion were reported (10% < 20% < 30%). At 24 hours, trivial differences in CMJ outcomes were found but small differences in 10-m sprint performance were detected between conditions (10% < 20% < 30%). In addition, at 24 hours, a single small difference in radial deformation using tensiomyography was found between 10 and 30% conditions, whereas large to very large differences in perceived soreness were reported between conditions (10% < 20% < 30%). Finally, the standard error of measurement of all outcome measures at 24 hours were of a similar magnitude to those reported in tightly controlled, short-term studies. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that VLTs help control the fatigue outcomes that occur as a response to resistance training and that they are reproducible. Therefore, for practitioners who wish to prescribe resistance training and be confident in the subsequent fatigue response, it is strongly advised that VLTs are implemented.

The Effect of Feedback on Resistance Training Performance and Adaptations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Augmented feedback is often used during resistance training to enhance acute physical performance and has shown promise as a method of improving chronic physical adaptation. However, there are inconsistencies in the scientific literature regarding the magnitude of the acute and chronic responses to feedback and the optimal method with which it is provided.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to (1) establish the evidence for the effects of feedback on acute resistance training performance and chronic training adaptations; (2) quantify the effects of feedback on acute kinematic outcomes and changes in physical adaptations; and (3) assess the effects of moderating factors on the influence of feedback during resistance training.

METHODS

Twenty studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. This review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Four databases were searched, and studies were included if they were peer-reviewed investigations, written in English, and involved the provision of feedback during or following dynamic resistance exercise. Furthermore, studies must have evaluated either acute training performance or chronic physical adaptations. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Downs and Black assessment tool. Multilevel meta-analyses were performed to quantify the effects of feedback on acute and chronic training outcomes.

RESULTS

Feedback enhanced acute kinetic and kinematic outputs, muscular endurance, motivation, competitiveness, and perceived effort, while greater improvements in speed, strength, jump performance, and technical competency were reported when feedback was provided chronically. Furthermore, greater frequencies of feedback (e.g., following every repetition) were found to be most beneficial for enhancing acute performance. Results demonstrated that feedback improves acute barbell velocities by approximately 8.4% (g = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.90). Moderator analysis revealed that both verbal (g = 0.47, 95% CI 0.22-0.71) and visual feedback (g = 1.11, 95% CI 0.61-1.61) were superior to no feedback, but visual feedback was superior to verbal feedback. For chronic outcomes, jump performance might have been positively influenced (g = 0.39, 95% CI - 0.20 to 0.99) and short sprint performance was likely enhanced (g = 0.47, 95% CI 0.10-0.84) to a greater extent when feedback is provided throughout a training cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

Feedback during resistance training can lead to enhanced acute performance within a training session and greater chronic adaptations. Studies included in our analysis demonstrated a positive influence of feedback, with all outcomes showing superior results than when no feedback is provided. For practitioners, it is recommended that high-frequency, visual feedback is consistently provided to individuals when they complete resistance training, and this may be particularly useful during periods of low motivation or when greater competitiveness is beneficial. Alternatively, researchers must be aware of the ergogenic effects of feedback on acute and chronic responses and ensure that feedback is standardised when investigating resistance training.

The Criterion Validity and Between-Day Reliability of the Perch for Measuring Barbell Velocity During Commonly Used Resistance Training Exercises

ABSTRACT

Weakley, J, Munteanu, G, Cowley, N, Johnston, R, Morrison, M, Gardiner, C, Pérez-Castilla, A, and García-Ramos, A. The criterion validity and between-day reliability of the Perch for measuring barbell velocity during commonly used resistance training exercises. J Strength Cond Res 37(4): 787-792, 2023-This study aimed to assess the criterion validity and between-day reliability (accounting for technological and biological variability) of mean and peak concentric velocity from the Perch measurement system. On 2 testing occasions, 16 subjects completed repetitions at 20, 40, 60, 80, 90, and 100% of 1-repetition maximum in the free-weight barbell back squat and bench press. To assess criterion validity, values from the Perch and a 3-dimensional motion capture system (criterion) were compared. Technological variability was assessed by determining whether the differences between the Perch and criterion for each load were comparable for both testing sessions, whereas between-day reliability with both technological and biological variability was calculated from Perch values across days. Generalized estimating equations were used to calculate R2 and root mean square error, whereas Bland-Altman plots assessed magnitude of difference between measures. To support monitoring of athletes over time, standard error of measurement and minimum detectable changes (MDC) were calculated. There was excellent agreement between the Perch and criterion device, with mean velocity in both exercises demonstrating a mean bias ranging from -0.01 to 0.01 m·s -1 . For peak velocity, Perch underestimated velocity compared with the criterion ranging from -0.08 to -0.12 m·s -1 for the back squat and -0.01 to -0.02 m·s -1 for the bench press. Technological variability between-days were all less than the MDC. These findings demonstrate that the Perch provides valid and reliable mean and peak concentric velocity outputs across a range of velocities. Therefore, practitioners can confidently implement this device for the monitoring and prescription of resistance training.

Development and Evaluation of a Full-Waveform Resistance Training Monitoring System Based on a Linear Position Transducer

Recent advances in training monitoring are centered on the statistical indicators of the concentric phase of the movement. However, those studies lack consideration of the integrity of the movement. Moreover, training performance evaluation needs valid data on the movement. Thus, this study presents a full-waveform resistance training monitoring system (FRTMS) as a whole-movement-process monitoring solution to acquire and analyze the full-waveform data of resistance training. The FRTMS includes a portable data acquisition device and a data processing and visualization software platform. The data acquisition device monitors the barbell's movement data. The software platform guides users through the acquisition of training parameters and provides feedback on the training result variables. To validate the FRTMS, we compared the simultaneous measurements of 30-90% 1RM of Smith squat lifts performed by 21 subjects with the FRTMS to similar measurements obtained with a previously validated three-dimensional motion capture system. Results showed that the FRTMS produced practically identical velocity outcomes, with a high Pearson's correlation coefficient, intraclass correlation coefficient, and coefficient of multiple correlations and a low root mean square error. We also studied the applications of the FRTMS in practical training by comparing the training results of a six-week experimental intervention with velocity-based training (VBT) and percentage-based training (PBT). The current findings suggest that the proposed monitoring system can provide reliable data for refining future training monitoring and analysis.

Effects of a Velocity-Based Complex Training Program in Young Female Artistic Roller Skating Athletes

Complex training consists of a near maximal strength effort followed by a biomechanically similar explosive exercise. One of many complex training methods that have been proposed is the French Contrast Method. The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of the French Contrast Method on maximal strength and power of young female artistic roller skating athletes with the help of velocity-based training to prescribe the intervention program. Eighteen female artistic roller skating athletes, divided into an experimental group (EG) and a control group (CG), participated in this study. The EG performed complex training via the French Contrast Method. The CG did not perform any additional training besides their regular roller skating practices. All participants were tested on the 1-RM back squat and hip thrust, the load-velocity profile assessment of both exercises previously stated, the countermovement jump, and the drop jump. A significant increase in mean concentric velocity (MCV) of the hip thrust exercise from 10 to 60% of 1-RM in the EG was observed. Significant differences between groups were observed for the MCV of the hip thrust from 10 to 90% of 1-RM. There were also significant increases in the 1-RM back squat and 1-RM hip thrust over time in the EG. For the vertical jump variables, there were significant differences between groups for both contact time and the reactive strength index with and without an arm swing. The results of this study suggest that a 6-week training intervention with the use of the French Contrast Method can

A Systematic Review on Fitness Testing in Adult Male Basketball Players: Tests Adopted, Characteristics Reported and Recommendations for Practice

Background

As basketball match-play requires players to possess a wide range of physical characteristics, many tests have been introduced in the literature to identify talent and quantify fitness in various samples of players. However, a synthesis of the literature to identify the most frequently used tests, outcome variables, and normative values for basketball-related physical characteristics in adult male basketball players is yet to be conducted.

Objective

The primary objectives of this systematic review are to (1) identify tests and outcome variables used to assess physical characteristics in adult male basketball players across all competition levels, (2) report a summary of anthropometric, muscular power, linear speed, change-of-direction speed, agility, strength, anaerobic capacity, and aerobic capacity in adult male basketball players based on playing position and competition level, and (3) introduce a framework outlining recommended testing approaches to quantify physical characteristics in adult male basketball players.

Methods

A systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify relevant studies. To be eligible for inclusion, studies were required to: (1) be original research articles; (2) be published in a peer-reviewed journal; (3) have full-text versions available in the English language; and (4) include the primary aim of reporting tests used and/or the physical characteristics of adult (i.e., ≥ 18 years of age) male basketball players. Additionally, data from the top 10 draft picks who participated in the National Basketball Association combined from 2011–12 to 2020–21 were extracted from the official league website to highlight the physical characteristics of elite 19- to 24-year-old basketball players.

Results

A total of 1684 studies were identified, with 375 being duplicates. Consequently, the titles and abstracts of 1309 studies were screened and 231 studies were eligible for full-text review. The reference list of each study was searched, with a further 59 studies identified as eligible for review. After full-text screening, 137 studies identified tests, while 114 studies reported physical characteristics in adult male basketball players.

Conclusions

Physical characteristics reported indicate a wide range of abilities are present across playing competitions. The tests and outcome variables reported in the literature highlight the multitude of tests currently being used. Because there are no accepted international standards for physical assessment of basketball players, establishing normative data is challenging. Therefore, future testing should involve repeatable protocols that are standardised and provide outcomes that can be monitored across time. Recommendations for testing batteries in adult male basketball players are provided so improved interpretation of data can occur.

Clinical Trial Registration

This review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and allocated registration number CRD42020187151 on 28 April, 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40279-021-01626-3.

Validity and Effects of Placement of Velocity-Based Training Devices

Velocity-based training (VBT) is a resistance training method by which training variables are manipulated based on kinematic outcomes, e.g., barbell velocity. The better precision for monitoring and manipulating training variables ascribed to VBT assumes that velocity is measured and communicated correctly. This study assessed the validity of several mobile and one stationary VBT device for measuring mean and peak concentric barbell velocity over a range of velocities and exercises, including low- and high-velocity, ballistic and non-ballistic, and plyometric and non-plyometric movements, and to quantify the isolated effect of device attachment point on measurement validity. GymAware (r = 0.90-1, standard error of the estimate, SEE = 0.01-0.08 m/s) and Quantum (r = 0.88-1, SEE = 0.01-0.18 m/s) were most valid for mean and peak velocity, with Vmaxpro (r = 0.92-0.99, SEE = 0.02-0.13 m/s) close behind. Push (r = 0.69-0.96, SEE = 0.03-0.17 m/s) and Flex (r = 0.60-0.94, SEE = 0.02-0.19 m/s) showed poorer validity (especially for higher-velocity exercises), although typical errors for mean velocity in exercises other than hang power snatch were acceptable. Effects of device placement were detectable, yet likely small enough (SEE < 0.1 m/s) to be negligible in training settings.

Number of Repetitions Performed Before and After Reaching Velocity Loss Thresholds: First Repetition Versus Fastest Repetition-Mean Velocity Versus Peak Velocity

PURPOSE

To explore the effect of several methodological factors on the number of repetitions performed before and after reaching certain velocity loss thresholds (VLTs).

METHOD

Fifteen resistance-trained men (bench press 1-repetition maximum = 1.25 [0.16] kg·kg-1) performed with maximum intent a total of 182 sets (77 short sets [≤12 repetitions] and 105 long sets [>12 repetitions]) leading to failure during the Smith machine bench press exercise. Fifteen percent, 30%, and 45% VLTs were calculated, considering 2 reference repetitions (first and fastest repetitions) and 2 velocity variables (mean velocity [MV] and peak velocity [PV]).

RESULTS

The number of repetitions performed before reaching all VLTs were affected by the reference repetition and velocity variable (P ≤ .001). The fastest MV and PV during the short sets (75.3%) and PV during the long sets (72.4%) were predominantly observed during the first repetition, while the fastest MV during long sets was almost equally distributed between the first (37.1%) and second repetition (40.0%). Failure occurred before reaching the VLTs more frequently using PV (4, 8, and 33 occasions for 15%, 30%, and 45% VLTs, respectively) than MV (only 1 occasion for the 45% VLT). The participants rarely produced a velocity output above a VLT once this threshold was exceeded for the first time (≈10% and 30% of occasions during the short and long sets, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The reference repetition and velocity variable are important factors to consider when implementing VLTs during resistance training. The fastest repetition (instead of the first repetition) and MV (instead of PV) are recommended.

Training for Muscular Strength: Methods for Monitoring and Adjusting Training Intensity

Linear loading, the two-for-two rule, percent of one repetition maximum (1RM), RM zones, rate of perceived exertion (RPE), repetitions in reserve, set-repetition best, autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE), and velocity-based training (VBT) are all methods of adjusting resistance training intensity. Each method has advantages and disadvantages that strength and conditioning practitioners should be aware of when measuring and monitoring strength characteristics. The linear loading and 2-for-2 methods may be beneficial for novice athletes; however, they may be limited in their capacity to provide athletes with variation and detrimental if used exclusively for long periods of time. The percent of 1RM and RM zone methods may provide athletes with more variation and greater potential for strength-power adaptations; however, they fail to account for daily changes in athlete's performance capabilities. An athlete's daily readiness can be addressed to various extents by both subjective (e.g., RPE, repetitions in reserve, set-repetition best, and APRE) and objective (e.g., VBT) load adjustment methods. Future resistance training monitoring may aim to include a combination of measures that quantify outcome (e.g., velocity, load, time, etc.) with process (e.g., variability, coordination, efficiency, etc.) relevant to the stage of learning or the task being performed. Load adjustment and monitoring methods should be used to supplement and guide the practitioner, quantify what the practitioner 'sees', and provide longitudinal data to assist in reviewing athlete development and providing baselines for the rate of expected development in resistance training when an athlete returns to sport from injury or large training load reductions.

Sensitivity of the iLOAD® Application for Monitoring Changes in Barbell Velocity Following Power- and Strength-Oriented Resistance Training Programs

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the sensitivity of the iLOAD® application to detect the changes in mean barbell velocity of complete sets following power- and strength-oriented resistance training (RT) programs.

METHODS

Twenty men were randomly assigned to a power training group (countermovement jump and bench press throw at 40% of the 1-repetition maximum [1RM]) or strength training group (back squat and bench press at 70% to 90% of 1RM). Single sets of 10 repetitions at 25% and 70% of 1RM during the back squat and bench press exercises were assessed before and after the 4-week RT programs simultaneously with the iLOAD® application and a linear velocity transducer.

RESULTS

The power training group showed a greater increment in velocity performance at the 25% of 1RM (effect size range = 0.66-1.53) and the 70% of 1RM (effect size range = 0.11-0.30). The percent change in mean velocity after the RT programs highly correlated between the iLOAD® application and the linear velocity transducer for the back squat (r range = .85-.88) and bench press (r range = .87-.93). However, the iLOAD® application revealed a 2% greater increase in mean velocity after training compared to the linear velocity transducer.

CONCLUSIONS

The iLOAD® application is a cost-effective, portable, and easy-to-use tool which can be used to detect changes in mean barbell velocity after power- and strength-oriented RT programs.

Reliability and Validity of the iLOAD Application for Monitoring the Mean Set Velocity During the Back Squat and Bench Press Exercises Performed Against Different Loads

ABSTRACT

Pérez-Castilla, A, Boullosa, D, and García-Ramos, A. Reliability and validity of the iLOAD application for monitoring the mean set velocity during the back squat and bench press exercises performed against different loads. J Strength Cond Res 35(2S): S57-S65, 2021-This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of a smartphone application (iLOAD) for the monitoring of mean concentric velocity (MV) during resistance training sets. Twenty males completed 2 identical sessions consisting of one set of 10 repetitions against 4 loads (25, 40, 55, 70% of the one repetition maximum [1RM]) during the back squat and bench press exercises. The MV of the 5 initial repetitions and for the whole set were determined simultaneously with the iLOAD application and a linear velocity transducer (LVT). Two independent researchers operated the iLOAD application during the experimental sessions to evaluate the interrater agreement for the assessment of MV. An acceptable but generally lower reliability was observed for iLOAD (coefficient of variation [CV] range: 5.61-9.79%) compared to the LVT (CV range: 4.51-8.18%) at 25-40-55% of 1RM, whereas the reliability at 75% of 1RM was acceptable for the LVT during the bench press (CV range: 6.37-8.26%), but it was unacceptable for the iLOAD during both exercises (CV range: 11.3-12.8%) and for the LVT during the back squat (CV range: 11.3-17.4%). Small to moderate differences (ES range: 0.24-1.04) and very high to practically perfect correlations (r range: 0.70-0.90) were observed between the iLOAD and the LVT. A very high agreement was observed between both raters for the recording of MV during the back squat and bench press exercises (r ≥ 0.98). Taken together, these results suggest that the iLOAD application can be confidently used to quantify the MV of training sets during the squat and bench press exercises not performed to failure.

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.