Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 10 items for :

  • Sport and Exercise Science/Kinesiology x
  • Physical Education and Coaching x
Clear All
Restricted access

Harry G. Banyard, Ken Nosaka, Kimitake Sato and G. Gregory Haff

Purpose:

To examine the validity of 2 kinematic systems for assessing mean velocity (MV), peak velocity (PV), mean force (MF), peak force (PF), mean power (MP), and peak power (PP) during the full-depth free-weight back squat performed with maximal concentric effort.

Methods:

Ten strength-trained men (26.1 ± 3.0 y, 1.81 ± 0.07 m, 82.0 ± 10.6 kg) performed three 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) trials on 3 separate days, encompassing lifts performed at 6 relative intensities including 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 90%, and 100% of 1RM. Each repetition was simultaneously recorded by a PUSH band and commercial linear position transducer (LPT) (GymAware [GYM]) and compared with measurements collected by a laboratory-based testing device consisting of 4 LPTs and a force plate.

Results:

Trials 2 and 3 were used for validity analyses. Combining all 120 repetitions indicated that the GYM was highly valid for assessing all criterion variables while the PUSH was only highly valid for estimations of PF (r = .94, CV = 5.4%, ES = 0.28, SEE = 135.5 N). At each relative intensity, the GYM was highly valid for assessing all criterion variables except for PP at 20% (ES = 0.81) and 40% (ES = 0.67) of 1RM. Moreover, the PUSH was only able to accurately estimate PF across all relative intensities (r = .92–.98, CV = 4.0–8.3%, ES = 0.04–0.26, SEE = 79.8–213.1 N).

Conclusions:

PUSH accuracy for determining MV, PV, MF, MP, and PP across all 6 relative intensities was questionable for the back squat, yet the GYM was highly valid at assessing all criterion variables, with some caution given to estimations of MP and PP performed at lighter loads.

Restricted access

Shannon O’Donnell, Christopher M. Beaven and Matthew Driller

position transducer device (GymAware; Kinetic Performance Technology, Canberra, Australia). The linear position transducer was connected to a tablet computer (iPad 3; Apple Inc, Cupertino, CA) and the manufacturer’s software (GymAware Lite v2.10; GymAware, Kinetic Performance Technology, Canberra

Restricted access

Jacob A. Goldsmith, Cameron Trepeck, Jessica L. Halle, Kristin M. Mendez, Alex Klemp, Daniel M. Cooke, Michael H. Haischer, Ryan K. Byrnes, Robert F. Zoeller, Michael Whitehurst and Michael C. Zourdos

position transducers (LPTs) and wearable velocity calculators have been developed, 1 , 2 which have a lower cost (Tendo Weightlifting Analyzer System [TWAS], ∼$1500; GymAware, ∼$2000) than criterion measurement systems: force platforms and 3-dimensional motion capture ($10,000–40,000). In terms of

Restricted access

Samuel T. Orange, James W. Metcalfe, Ashley Robinson, Mark J. Applegarth and Andreas Liefeith

position transducer (GymAware PowerTool [GYM]; Kinetic Performance Technologies, Canberra, Australia) was used to measure mean velocity (MV) in the free-weight back squat. Following the same standardized warm-up performed in the 1-RM assessment, participants completed 3 repetitions at 40%, 3 repetitions at

Restricted access

Matthew Ellis, Mark Noon, Tony Myers and Neil Clarke

stretch, and heel flicks); 4-minute mobilization (squat, lunge and lateral lunge); and 2-minute potentiation (jump, land, and sprints). The CMJ protocol consisted of participants placing their hands on a dowel (situated on the participants back) and was instructed to jump as high as possible. The GymAware

Restricted access

Peter Ibbott, Nick Ball, Marijke Welvaert and Kevin G. Thompson

the participant was standing upright following the squat movement. Any participant who could not complete a repetition on their own did not participate in any further sets during that session. A GymAware optical encoder (GymAware; Kinetic Performance, Canberra, Australia) was used to collect

Restricted access

Joel M. Garrett, Stuart R. Graham, Roger G. Eston, Darren J. Burgess, Lachlan J. Garrett, John Jakeman and Kevin Norton

apart during a normal microcycle within an ARF in-season period. Methodology Countermovement Jump Test The CMJ test was performed using previously established protocols 1 with an average of 6 CMJs used for analysis. CMJ performance was obtained for analysis via an optical encoder (GymAware Power Tool

Restricted access

Joel Garrett, Stuart R. Graham, Roger G. Eston, Darren J. Burgess, Lachlan J. Garrett, John Jakeman and Kevin Norton

plane. Similar to previous procedures, 3 subjects were encouraged to self-select the amplitude or rate of the countermovement with no attempts made to standardize these variables. CMJ height (CMJ H ) performance was obtained for analysis via an optical encoder (GymAware Power Tool; Kinetic Performance

Restricted access

Jonathon Weakley, Kevin Till, John Sampson, Harry Banyard, Cedric Leduc, Kyle Wilson, Greg Roe and Ben Jones

multijoint barbell resistance exercises. All repetitions of resistance training exercises were recorded with a GymAware linear position transducer (Kinetic Performance Technology, Canberra, Australia) that sampled at 50 Hz. The optical encoder, which was placed directly below the barbell during all movements

Restricted access

Jonathon Weakley, Carlos Ramirez-Lopez, Shaun McLaren, Nick Dalton-Barron, Dan Weaving, Ben Jones, Kevin Till and Harry Banyard

(GymAware; Kinetic Performance Technology, Canberra, Australia). 16 , 17 After the squat-specific warm-up, the load that elicited a barbell MV of 0.70 (0.01) m·s −1 was found. The primary investigator (who was present during all testing occasions) placed a load that was 70% of the subject’s estimated 1RM