Validity of the Open Barbell and Tendo Weightlifting Analyzer Systems Versus the Optotrak Certus 3D Motion-Capture System for Barbell Velocity

in International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $24.95

Student 1 year subscription

USD  $107.00

1 year subscription

USD  $142.00

Student 2 year subscription

USD  $203.00

2 year subscription

USD  $265.00

Purpose: To examine the validity of 2 linear position transducers, the Tendo Weightlifting Analyzer System (TWAS) and Open Barbell System (OBS), compared with a criterion device, the Optotrak Certus 3-dimensional motion-capture system (OC3D). Methods: A total of 25 men (age, 25 [3] y; height, 174.0 [6.7] cm; body mass, 89.0 [14.7] kg; squat 1-repetition maximum [1RM], 175.8 [34.7] kg) with ≥2 y of resistance-training experience completed a back 1RM and 1 set to failure at 70% of 1RM. Average concentric velocity (ACV) and peak concentric velocity (PCV) were recorded by all 3 devices during the final warm-up set, all 1RM attempts, and every repetition during the 70% set. Results: In total, 575 samples were obtained. Bland–Altman plots, mountain plots, a 1-way analysis of variance, SEM, and intraclass correlation coefficients were used to analyze validity. The analysis of variance showed no difference (P = .089) between devices for ACV. However, for PCV, TWAS was significantly different (ie, inaccurate) from OC3D (P < .001) and OBS (P = .001), but OBS was similar (P = .412) to OC3D. For ACV, intraclass correlation coefficients were higher for OBS than for TWAS. Bland–Altman plots showed agreement for ACV for both devices against OC3D but large limits of agreement for PCV for both devices. Mountain plots showed valid ACV for both devices, however, but slightly greater ACV and PCV accuracy with OBS than TWAS. Conclusions: Both devices may provide valid ACV measurements, but some metrics suggest more accurate ACV with OBS vs TWAS. For PCV, neither device is particularly accurate; however, OBS seems to be more accurate than TWAS.

Goldsmith, Trepeck, Halle, Mendez, Cooke, Haischer, Byrnes, Zoeller, Whitehurst, and Zourdos are with the Muscle Physiology Laboratory, Dept of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL. Trepeck is also with the Dept of Ocean & Mechanical Engineering at the university. Klemp is with the Dept of Nutrition, Food, and Exercise Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

Zourdos (mzourdos@fau.edu) is corresponding author.
  • 1.

    Garnacho-Castaño MV, López-Lastra S, Maté-Muñoz JL. Reliability and validity assessment of a linear position transducer. J Sports Sci Med. 2015;14(1):128. PubMed ID: 25729300

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    McGrath G, Flanagan E, O’Donovan P, Collins D, Kenny I. Velocity based training: validity of monitoring devices to assess mean concentric velocity in the bench press exercise. J Aust Strength Cond. 2018;28(1):23–30.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Yang Y, Pu F, Li Y, Li S, Fan Y, Li D. Reliability and validity of Kinect RGB-D sensor for assessing standing balance. IEEE Sensors J. 2014;14(5):1633–1638. doi:10.1109/JSEN.2013.2296509

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Balsalobre-Fernández C, Marchante D, Baz-Valle E, Alonso-Molero I, Jiménez SL, Muñóz-López M. Analysis of wearable and smartphone-based technologies for the measurement of barbell velocity in different resistance training exercises. Front Physiol. 2017;8:649. doi:10.3389/fphys.2017.00649

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Dorrell HF, Moore JM, Smith MF, Gee TI. Validity and reliability of a linear positional transducer across commonly practised resistance training exercises. J Sports Sci. 2019;37(1):61–73. doi:10.1080/02640414.2018.1482588

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Banyard HG, Nosaka K, Sato K, Haff GG. Validity of various methods for determining velocity, force, and power in the back squat. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(9):1170–1176. PubMed ID: 28182500 doi:10.1123/ijspp.2016-0627

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Stock MS, Beck TW, DeFreitas JM, Dillon MA. Test–retest reliability of barbell velocity during the free-weight bench-press exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(1):171–177. PubMed ID: 21157383 doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e318201bdf9

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, et al. Novel resistance training–specific rating of perceived exertion scale measuring repetitions in reserve. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(1):267–275. PubMed ID: 26049792 doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001049

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Monti KL. Folded empirical distribution function curves—mountain plots. Am Stat. 1995;49(4):342–345. doi:10.2307/2684570

  • 10.

    Altman DG, Bland JM. Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician. 1983;32(3):307–317. doi:10.2307/2987937

  • 11.

    Scott LE, Galpin JS, Glencross DK. Multiple method comparison: statistical model using percentage similarity. Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2003;54(1):46–53. PubMed ID: 12827667 doi:10.1002/cyto.b.10016

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    González-Badillo J, Marques M, Sánchez-Medina L. The importance of movement velocity as a measure to control resistance training intensity. J Hum Kinet. 2011;29:15–19. PubMed ID: 23487504 doi:10.2478/v10078-011-0053-6

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 231 231 34
Full Text Views 26 26 5
PDF Downloads 8 8 0