Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 May 23;7(5):125.
doi: 10.3390/sports7050125.

Agreement between the Open Barbell and Tendo Linear Position Transducers for Monitoring Barbell Velocity during Resistance Exercise

Adam M Gonzalez  1 , Gerald T Mangine  2 , Robert W Spitz  3 , Jamie J Ghigiarelli  4 , Katie M Sell  5
Affiliations

Agreement between the Open Barbell and Tendo Linear Position Transducers for Monitoring Barbell Velocity during Resistance Exercise

Adam M Gonzalez et al. Sports (Basel). .

Abstract

To determine the agreement between the Open Barbell (OB) and Tendo weightlifting analyzer (TWA) for measuring barbell velocity, eleven men (19.4 ± 1.0 y) performed one set of 2-3 repetitions at four sub-maximal percentage loads, [i.e., 30, 50, 70, and 90% one-repetition maximum (1RM)] in the back (BS) and front squat (FS) exercises. During each repetition, peak and mean barbell velocity were recorded by OB and TWA devices, and the average of the 2-3 repetitions was used for analyses. Although the repeated measures analysis of variance revealed significantly (p ≤ 0.005) greater peak and mean velocity scores from OB across all intensities, high intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,K = 0.790-0.998), low standard error of measurement (SEM2,K = 0.040-0.119 m·s-1), and coefficients of variation (CV = 2-4%) suggested consistency between devices. Positive (r = 0.491-0.949) Pearson correlations between averages and differences (between devices) in peak velocity, as well as associated Bland-Altman plots, showed greater differences occurred as the velocity increased, particularly at low-moderate intensity loads. OB consistently provides greater barbell velocity scores compared to TWA, and the differences between devices were more apparent as the peak velocity increased with low-to-moderate loads. Strength coaches and athletes may find better agreement between devices if the mean velocity scores are only considered.

Keywords: bar speed; movement velocity; squat; velocity-based training; weightlifting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Peak and mean barbell velocity across intensity load during the (a) back squat and (b) front squat exercises. * = Significant (p < 0.05) difference between open barbell (OB) (Solid line with black circle) and Tendo weightlifting analyzer (TWA) (Dashed line with open square). # = Significant (p < 0.05) difference across all intensities.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Bland-Altman plot comparisons for peak barbell velocity during the back squat at (a) 30% of 1RM; (b) 50% of 1RM; (c) 70% of 1RM; and (d) 90% of 1RM.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Bland-Altman plot comparisons for peak barbell velocity during the back squat at (a) 30% of 1RM; (b) 50% of 1RM; (c) 70% of 1RM; and (d) 90% of 1RM.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Bland-Altman plot comparisons for peak barbell velocity during the front squat at (a) 30% of 1RM; (b) 50% of 1RM; (c) 70% of 1RM; and (d) 90% of 1RM.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Bland-Altman plot comparisons for mean barbell velocity during the back squat at (a) 30% of 1RM; (b) 50% of 1RM; (c) 70% of 1RM; and (d) 90% of 1RM.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Bland-Altman plot comparisons for mean barbell velocity during the back squat at (a) 30% of 1RM; (b) 50% of 1RM; (c) 70% of 1RM; and (d) 90% of 1RM.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Bland-Altman plot comparisons for mean barbell velocity during the front squat at (a) 30% of 1RM; (b) 50% of 1RM; (c) 70% of 1RM; and (d) 90% of 1RM.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Mann J.B., Ivey P.A., Sayers S.P. Velocity-based training in football. Strength Cond. J. 2015;37:52–57. doi: 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000177. - DOI
    1. Hill A., editor. The heat of shortening and the dynamic constants of muscle. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 1938;126 doi: 10.1098/rspb.1938.0050. - DOI
    1. Rahmani A., Viale F., Dalleau G., Lacour J.-R. Force/velocity and power/velocity relationships in squat exercise. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2001;84:227–232. doi: 10.1007/PL00007956. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sánchez-Medina L., Gonzalez-Badillo J., Perez C., Pallarés J. Velocity-and power-load relationships of the bench pull vs. bench press exercises. Int. J. Sports Med. 2014;35:209–216. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1351252. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jidovtseff B., Harris N.K., Crielaard J.-M., Cronin J.B. Using the load-velocity relationship for 1RM prediction. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2011;25:267–270. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b62c5f. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources