Next Article in Journal
The Reliability and Validity of Current Technologies for Measuring Barbell Velocity in the Free-Weight Back Squat and Power Clean
Previous Article in Journal
Physiological Predictors of Performance on the CrossFit “Murph” Challenge
Article

Validation of Inertial Sensor to Measure Barbell Kinematics across a Spectrum of Loading Conditions

Sport, Exercise, Recreation and Kinesiology, Clemmer College, East Tennessee State University, 1276 Gilbreath Dr, Johnson City, TN 37614, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 9 June 2020 / Revised: 23 June 2020 / Accepted: 28 June 2020 / Published: 29 June 2020
The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of agreement in measuring back squat kinematics between an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a 3D motion capture system (3DMOCAP). Kinematic variables included concentric peak velocity (CPV), concentric mean velocity (CMV), eccentric peak velocity (EPV), eccentric mean velocity (EMV), mean propulsive velocity (MPV), and POP-100: a proprietary variable. Sixteen resistance-trained males performed an incrementally loaded one repetition maximum (1RM) squat protocol. A series of Pearson correlations, 2 × 4 RM ANOVA, Cohen’s d effect size differences, coefficient of variation (CV), and standard error of the estimate (SEE) were calculated. A large relationship existed for all variables between devices (r = 0.78–0.95). Between-device agreement for CPV worsened beyond 60% 1RM. The remaining variables were in agreement between devices with trivial effect size differences and similar CV magnitudes. These results support the use of the IMU, regardless of relative intensity, when measuring EMV, EPV, MPV, and POP-100. However, practitioners should carefully select kinematic variables of interest when using the present IMU device for velocity-based training (VBT), as certain measurements (e.g., CMV, CPV) do not possess practically acceptable reliability or accuracy. Finally, the IMU device exhibited considerable practical data collection concerns, as one participant was completely excluded and 13% of the remaining attempts displayed obvious internal error. View Full-Text
Keywords: resistance training; velocity-based training; athlete monitoring; back squat resistance training; velocity-based training; athlete monitoring; back squat
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Abbott, J.C.; Wagle, J.P.; Sato, K.; Painter, K.; Light, T.J.; Stone, M.H. Validation of Inertial Sensor to Measure Barbell Kinematics across a Spectrum of Loading Conditions. Sports 2020, 8, 93. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/sports8070093

AMA Style

Abbott JC, Wagle JP, Sato K, Painter K, Light TJ, Stone MH. Validation of Inertial Sensor to Measure Barbell Kinematics across a Spectrum of Loading Conditions. Sports. 2020; 8(7):93. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/sports8070093

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abbott, John C., John P. Wagle, Kimitake Sato, Keith Painter, Thaddeus J. Light, and Michael H. Stone 2020. "Validation of Inertial Sensor to Measure Barbell Kinematics across a Spectrum of Loading Conditions" Sports 8, no. 7: 93. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/sports8070093

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop