Reliability and Criterion Validity of the Assess2Perform Bar Sensei

Differences in Lift Quality During the Barbell Back Squat When Using Perceived Recovery Status-Regulated Intrasession Recovery Compared With Standardized Recovery Intervals

ABSTRACT

Wolfe, AA, Laurent, CM, Tolusso, DV, and Rinehart, AN. Differences in lift quality during the barbell back squat when using perceived recovery status-regulated intrasession recovery compared with standardized recovery intervals. J Strength Cond Res 38(3): 444-449, 2024-The current investigation examined kinetic differences between standardized and perceptually regulated rest internals during power-based resistance training. Recreationally resistance-trained men ( n = 7) and women ( n = 7) completed 3 training sessions. Session 1 consisted of barbell back squat (SQ) 1 repetition maximum (1RM) testing. Two counterbalanced subsequent sessions of perceptually regulated vs. standardized intrasession recovery for 5 sets of 6 repetitions of SQ at 80% 1RM were completed. Lift quality was assessed using a barbell accelerometer that measured concentric and eccentric power and force outputs for each repetition. In each set, subjects reported a rating of perceived exertion (RPE) followed by passive rest for either 2 minutes or a self-selected period using the Perceived Recovery Status (PRS) scale. For the self-selected session, when an individual reported a PRS at level "7," they were instructed to begin the next set. Data were analyzed using a 2 (session) × 5 (set) repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc analyses performed when appropriate. No significant main effects or interactions were observed for any set quality metrics in the concentric phase or eccentric phase, except peak eccentric power ( p = 0.01). Post hoc analyses revealed a significant increase in peak eccentric power from set 1 to set 2 ( p = 0.003) only. Finally, no significant difference between self-selected vs. standardized work-to-rest strategies on RPE ( p = 0.547) was expressed. These data suggest perceptually regulated intrasession recovery selection yields equivalent lift quality as standardized rest recommendations. Therefore, PRS utilization may provide a more simplified and individualized method of between-set rest prescriptions.

Validity and Reliability of the Inertial Measurement Unit for Barbell Velocity Assessments: A Systematic Review

The use of inertial measurement unit (IMU) has become popular in sports assessment. In the case of velocity-based training (VBT), there is a need to measure barbell velocity in each repetition. The use of IMUs may make the monitoring process easier; however, its validity and reliability should be established. Thus, this systematic review aimed to (1) identify and summarize studies that have examined the validity of wearable wireless IMUs for measuring barbell velocity and (2) identify and summarize studies that have examined the reliability of IMUs for measuring barbell velocity. A systematic review of Cochrane Library, EBSCO, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. From the 161 studies initially identified, 22 were fully reviewed, and their outcome measures were extracted and analyzed. Among the eight different IMU models, seven can be considered valid and reliable for measuring barbell velocity. The great majority of IMUs used for measuring barbell velocity in linear trajectories are valid and reliable, and thus can be used by coaches for external load monitoring.

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.

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.