» Articles » PMID: 39409484

Validity and Concordance of a Linear Position Transducer (Vitruve) for Measuring Movement Velocity During Resistance Training

Overview
Journal Sensors (Basel)
Publisher MDPI
Specialty Biotechnology
Date 2024 Oct 16
PMID 39409484
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study aimed to analyze the intra-device agreement of a new linear position transducer (Vitruve, VT) and the inter-device agreement with a previously validated linear velocity transducer (T-Force System, TF) in different range of velocities. A group of 50 healthy, physically active men performed a progressive loading test during a bench press (BP) and full-squat (SQ) exercise with a simultaneous recording of two VT and one TF devices. The mean propulsive velocity (MPV) and peak of velocity (PV) were recorded for subsequent analysis. A set of statistics was used to determine the degree of agreement (Intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], Lin's concordance correlation coefficient [CCC], mean square deviation [MSD], and variance of the difference between measurements [VMD]) and the error magnitude (standard error of measurement [SEM], smallest detectable change [SDC], and maximum errors [ME]) between devices. The established velocity ranges were as follows: >1.20 m·s; 1.20-0.95 m·s; 0.95-0.70 m·s; 0.70-0.45 m·s; ≤0.45 m·s for BP; and >1.50 m·s; 1.50-1.25 m·s; 1.25-1.00 m·s; 1.00-0.75 m·s; and ≤0.75 m·s for SQ. For the MPV, the VT system showed high intra- and inter-device agreement and moderate error magnitude with pooled data in both exercises. However, the level of agreement decreased (ICC: 0.790-0.996; CCC: 0.663-0.992) and the error increased (ME: 2.8-13.4% 1RM; SEM: 0.035-0.01 m·s) as the velocity range increased. For the PV, the magnitude of error was very high in both exercises. In conclusion, our results suggest that the VT system should only be used at MPVs below 0.45 m·s for BP and 0.75 m·s for SQ in order to obtain an accurate and reliable measurement, preferably using the MPV variable instead of the PV. Therefore, it appears that the VT system may not be appropriate for objectively monitoring resistance training and assessing strength performance along the entire spectrum of load-velocity curve.

Citing Articles

Validity of a New Portable Sensor to Measure Velocity-Based Resistance Training.

Justo-Alvarez A, Garcia-Lopez J, Sabido R, Garcia-Valverde A Methods Protoc. 2025; 8(1.

PMID: 39846695 PMC: 11755614. DOI: 10.3390/mps8010009.

References
1.
Revicki D, Hays R, Cella D, Sloan J . Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61(2):102-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012. View

2.
Martinez-Cava A, Hernandez-Belmonte A, Courel-Ibanez J, Moran-Navarro R, Gonzalez-Badillo J, Pallares J . Reliability of technologies to measure the barbell velocity: Implications for monitoring resistance training. PLoS One. 2020; 15(6):e0232465. PMC: 7286482. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232465. View

3.
Pareja-Blanco F, Rodriguez-Rosell D, Aagaard P, Sanchez-Medina L, Ribas-Serna J, Mora-Custodio R . Time Course of Recovery From Resistance Exercise With Different Set Configurations. J Strength Cond Res. 2018; 34(10):2867-2876. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002756. View

4.
Balsalobre-Fernandez C, Kuzdub M, Poveda-Ortiz P, Del Campo-Vecino J . Validity and Reliability of the PUSH Wearable Device to Measure Movement Velocity During the Back Squat Exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2015; 30(7):1968-74. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001284. View

5.
Weakley J, Munteanu G, Cowley N, Johnston R, Morrison M, Gardiner C . The Criterion Validity and Between-Day Reliability of the Perch for Measuring Barbell Velocity During Commonly Used Resistance Training Exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 2022; 37(4):787-792. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004337. View