Velocity-based training (VBT) is a contemporary method of resistance training that enables accurate and objective prescription of resistance training intensities and volumes. This review provides an applied framework for the theory and application of VBT. Specifically, this review gives detail on how to: use velocity to provide objective feedback, estimate strength, develop load-velocity profiles for accurate load prescription, and how to use statistics to monitor velocity. Furthermore, a discussion on the use of velocity loss thresholds, different methods of VBT prescription, and how VBT can be implemented within traditional programming models and microcycles is provided.

Velocity-Based Training: From Theory to Application

This study investigated the inter- and intra-device agreement of four new devices marketed for barbell velocity measurement. Mean, mean propulsive and peak velocity outcomes were obtained for bench press and full squat exercises along the whole load-velocity spectrum (from light to heavy loads). Measurements were simultaneously registered by two linear velocity transducers T-Force, two linear position transducers Speed4Lifts, two smartphone video-based systems My Lift, and one 3D motion analysis system STT. Calculations included infraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman Limits of Agreement (LoA), standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable change (SDC) and maximum errors (MaxError). Results were reported in absolute (m/s) and relative terms (%1RM). Three velocity segments were differentiated according to the velocity-load relationships for each exercise: heavy (≥ 80% 1RM), medium (50% 0.990 and SDC < 0.07 m/s (~5% 1RM). The T-Force device shown the best intra-device agreement (SDC = 0.01-0.02 m/s, LoA <0.01m/s, MaxError = 1.3-2.2%1RM). The Speed4Lifts and STT were found as highly reliable, especially against lifting velocities ≤1.0 m/s (Speed4Lifts, SDC = 0.01-0.05 m/s; STT, SDC = 0.02-0.04 m/s), whereas the My Lift app showed the worst results with errors well above the acceptable levels (SDC = 0.26-0.34 m/s, MaxError = 18.9-24.8%1RM). T-Force stands as the preferable option to assess barbell velocity and to identify technical errors of measurement for emerging monitoring technologies. Both the Speed4Lifts and STT are fine alternatives to T-Force for measuring velocity against high-medium loads (velocities ≤ 1.0 m/s), while the excessive errors of the newly updated My Lift app advise against the use of this tool for velocity-based resistance training.

/pdf/reliability-of-technologies-to-measure-the-barbell-velocity-497a4pe9uf.pdf

Reliability of technologies to measure the barbell velocity: Implications for monitoring resistance training

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

/pdf/the-validity-and-reliability-of-commercially-available-2v2xmwguph.pdf

The Validity and Reliability of Commercially Available Resistance Training Monitoring Devices: A Systematic Review

The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the bar-mounted PUSH BandTM 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 BandTM 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 BandTM 2.0 could accurately predict motion capture velocity. Results showed that PUSH BandTM 2.0 and motion capture peak and mean velocity reliability was acceptable with both loads. While there was a tendency for the PUSH BandTM 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 BandTM 2.0 peak velocity with 60 and 90% 1RM is valid, but mean velocity is not.

/pdf/the-reliability-and-validity-of-the-bar-mounted-push-bandtm-3loqzql7fb.pdf

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

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 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.

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/8/7/94/pdf

The Reliability and Validity of Current Technologies for Measuring Barbell Velocity in the Free-Weight Back Squat and Power Clean

Perez-Castilla, A, Piepoli, A, Delgado-Garcia, G, Garrido-Blanca, G, and Garcia-Ramos, A. Reliability and concurrent validity of seven commercially available devices for the assessment of movement velocity at different intensities during the bench press. J Strength Cond Res 33(5): 1258-1265, 2019-The aim of this study was to compare the reliability and validity of 7 commercially available devices to measure movement velocity during the bench press exercise. Fourteen men completed 2 testing sessions. One-repetition maximum (1RM) in the bench press exercise was determined in the first session. The second testing session consisted of performing 3 repetitions against 5 loads (45, 55, 65, 75, and 85% of 1RM). The mean velocity was simultaneously measured using an optical motion sensing system (Trio-OptiTrack; "gold-standard") and 7 commercially available devices: 1 linear velocity transducer (T-Force), 2 linear position transducers (Chronojump and Speed4Lift), 1 camera-based optoelectronic system (Velowin), 1 smartphone application (PowerLift), and 2 inertial measurement units (IMUs) (PUSH band and Beast sensor). The devices were ranked from the most to the least reliable as follows: (a) Speed4Lift (coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.61%); (b) Velowin (CV = 3.99%), PowerLift (3.97%), Trio-OptiTrack (CV = 4.04%), T-Force (CV = 4.35%), and Chronojump (CV = 4.53%); (c) PUSH band (CV = 9.34%); and (d) Beast sensor (CV = 35.0%). A practically perfect association between the Trio-OptiTrack system and the different devices was observed (Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient (r) range = 0.947-0.995; p < 0.001) with the only exception of the Beast sensor (r = 0.765; p < 0.001). These results suggest that linear velocity/position transducers, camera-based optoelectronic systems, and the smartphone application could be used to obtain accurate velocity measurements for restricted linear movements, whereas the IMUs used in this study were less reliable and valid.

Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Seven Commercially Available Devices for the Assessment of Movement Velocity at Different Intensities During the Bench Press.

Objective:This study aimed to compare the accuracy of different devices to predict the bench press 1-repetition maximum (1RM) from the individual load-velocity relationship modelled through the mul...

Gabriel Garrido-Blanca

Papers

Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Seven Commercially Available Devices for the Assessment of Movement Velocity at Different Intensities During the Bench Press.

Precision of 7 Commercially Available Devices for Predicting Bench-Press 1-Repetition Maximum From the Individual Load-Velocity Relationship.