Reliability, Validity, and Comparison of Barbell Velocity Measurement Devices during the Jump Shrug and Hang High Pull

Abstract

This study examined the reliability, potential bias, and practical differences between the GymAware Powertool (GA), Tendo Power Analyzer (TENDO), and Push Band 2.0 (PUSH) during the jump shrug (JS) and hang high pull (HHP) performed across a spectrum of loads. Fifteen resistance-trained men performed JS and HHP repetitions with 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% of their 1RM hang power clean, and mean (MBV) and peak barbell velocity (PBV) were determined by each velocity measurement device. Least-products regression and Bland-Altman plots were used to examine instances of proportional, fixed, and systematic bias between the TENDO and PUSH compared to the GA. Hedge's g effect sizes were also calculated to determine any meaningful differences between devices. The GA and TENDO displayed excellent reliability and acceptable variability during the JS and HHP while the PUSH showed instances of poor-moderate reliability and unacceptable variability at various loads. While the TENDO and PUSH showed instances of various bias, the TENDO device demonstrated greater validity when compared to the GA. Trivial-small differences were shown between the GA and TENDO during the JS and HHP exercises while trivial-moderate differences existed between GA and PUSH during the JS. However, despite trivial-small effects between the GA and PUSH devices at 20 and 40% 1RM during the HHP, practically meaningful differences existed at 60, 80, and 100%, indicating that the PUSH velocity outputs were not accurate. The TENDO appears to be more reliable and valid than the PUSH when measuring MBV and PBV during the JS and HHP.

Keywords: load–velocity profile; power clean; velocity-based training; weightlifting.

Figure 1

Bland–Altman plots showing variation of the Tendo Power Analyzer compared to the GymAware Powertool for mean barbell velocity during the jump shrug performed with loads of 20 (A), 40 (B), 60 (C), 80 (D), and 100% (E) of participants’ 1RM hang power clean. The black line displays the mean systematic bias, and the orange lines represent the 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 2

Bland–Altman plots showing variation of the Push Band 2.0 compared to the GymAware Powertool for mean barbell velocity during the jump shrug performed with loads of 20 (A), 40 (B), 60 (C), 80 (D), and 100% (E) of participants’ 1RM hang power clean. The black line displays the mean systematic bias, and the orange lines represent the 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 3

Bland–Altman plots showing variation of the Tendo Power Analyzer compared to the GymAware Powertool for peak barbell velocity during the jump shrug performed with loads of 20 (A), 40 (B), 60 (C), 80 (D), and 100% (E) of participants’ 1RM hang power clean. The black line displays the mean systematic bias, and the orange lines represent the 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 4

Bland–Altman plots showing variation of the Push Band 2.0 compared to the GymAware Powertool for peak barbell velocity during the jump shrug performed with loads of 20 (A), 40 (B), 60 (C), 80 (D), and 100% (E) of participants’ 1RM hang power clean. The black line displays the mean systematic bias, and the orange lines represent the 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 5

Bland–Altman plots showing variation of the Tendo Power Analyzer compared to the GymAware Powertool for mean barbell velocity during the hang high pull performed with loads of 20 (A), 40 (B), 60 (C), 80 (D), and 100% (E) of participants’ 1RM hang power clean. The black line displays the mean systematic bias, and the orange lines represent the 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 6

Bland–Altman plots showing variation of the Push Band 2.0 compared to the GymAware Powertool for mean barbell velocity during the hang high pull performed with loads of 20 (A), 40 (B), 60 (C), 80 (D), and 100% (E) of participants’ 1RM hang power clean. The black line displays the mean systematic bias, and the orange lines represent the 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 7

Bland–Altman plots showing variation of the Tendo Power Analyzer compared to the GymAware Powertool for peak barbell velocity during the hang high pull performed with loads of 20 (A), 40 (B), 60 (C), 80 (D), and 100% (E) of participants’ 1RM hang power clean. The black line displays the mean systematic bias, and the orange lines represent the 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 8

Bland–Altman plots showing variation of the Push Band 2.0 compared to the GymAware Powertool for peak barbell velocity during the hang high pull performed with loads of 20 (A), 40 (B), 60 (C), 80 (D), and 100% (E) of participants’ 1RM hang power clean. The black line displays the mean systematic bias, and the orange lines represent the 95% confidence intervals.