See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285299430

Validity and Reliability of the PUSH Wearable

Device to Measure Movement Velocity During
the Back Squat Exercise

Article in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · November 2015

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001284

CITATIONS READS

10 4,407

4 authors, including:

Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández Matt Kuzdub

Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Mattspoint
36 PUBLICATIONS 174 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 10 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

J. del Campo-Vecino
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
19 PUBLICATIONS 90 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The effects of nitrate supplementation via beetroot juice on the running economy, neuromuscular
performance and running mechanics in elite middle and long distance runners View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández on 27 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE PUSHTM WEARABLE DEVICE TO MEASURE

MOVEMENT VELOCITY DURING THE BACK SQUAT EXERCISE

Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández1, Matt Kuzdub2, Pedro Poveda-Ortiz1 & Juan del Campo Vecino1

1
Department of Physical Education, Sport and Human Movement, Autonomous University of Madrid,

Spain

2
PUSH, Toronto, Canada

This manuscript is a pre-formatted version, not the publisher version.

A link to the publisher version can be found in the ResearchGate

webpage for this article

1
ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to analyze the validity and reliability of a wearable device

to measure movement velocity during the back squat exercise. To do this, 10

recreationally active healthy males (age=23.4±5.2yrs.; back squat 1-repetition

maximum =83±8.2kg) performed 3 repetitions of the back squat exercise with 5

different loads ranging from 25-85% 1-RM on a Smith Machine. Movement velocity

for each of the total 150 repetitions was simultaneously recorded using the T-Force

linear transducer (LT) and the PUSHTM wearable band. Results showed a high

correlation between the LT and the wearable device mean (r=0.85; SEE=0.08m/s) and

peak velocity (r=0.91, SEE=0.1m/s). Moreover, there was a very high agreement

between these two devices for the measurement of mean (ICC=0.907) and peak velocity

(ICC=0.944), although a systematic bias between devices was observed (PUSHTM peak

velocity being -0.07±0.1m/s lower, p<0.05). When measuring the 3 repetitions with

each load, both devices displayed almost equal reliability (Test-retest reliability: LT [r =

0.98], PUSHTM [r = 0.956]; Intraclass correlation coefficient: LT [ICC = 0.989],

PUSHTM [ICC = 0.981]; Coefficient of variation: LT [CV = 4.2%, PUSHTM [CV =

5.0%]). Finally, individual load-velocity relationships measured with both the LT (R2 =

0.96) and the PUSHTM wearable device (R2 = 0.94) showed similar, very high

coefficients of determination. In conclusion, these results support the use of an

affordable wearable device to track velocity during back squat training. Wearable

devices, such as the one in this study, could have valuable practical applications for

strength & conditioning coaches.

KEYWORDS: velocity-based training, technology, strength, weightlifting,

accelerometer, PUSH band

2
INTRODUCTION

Quantifying and prescribing training intensity in an objective way is a common problem

when designing resistance-training sessions (14,27,29). Training intensity, generally

understood as a percentage of the maximal effort that the athlete can perform, is

considered a fundamental variable for the design of resistance training programs

(14,27); in fact, the specific adaptations to resistance training are highly dependent on

the intensity of the training stimulus (14,15,27,36). Thus, several methodologies have

been used to quantify training intensity for resistance training programs; the 1-repetition

maximum (1-RM; i.e., the load that can be lifted just once) has been the most widely

used (19,28,31). However, prescribing training intensity as a percentage of the 1-RM

(i.e., 75% 1-RM), has a major drawback: it requires performing a maximal lift (direct

estimation of the 1-RM) (27) or a number of repetitions to failure with submaximal

loads (indirect estimation of the 1-RM) (12,26). Conducting a 1-RM test involves a

highly intense effort that might be risky for some populations such as elder people (30).

Also, performing repetitions to failure have shown to impair neuromuscular

performance even in trained athletes due to the high degree of fatigue it produces

(13,20,23). Finally, 1-RM values can increase over the course of a few weeks after the

beginning of a new training program, especially for untrained populations (14,29,35).

Therefore, if coaches desire accurate training load prescriptions, 1-RM tests should be

administered frequently (19).

Over the past few years, a new body of research has emerged, proposing the use of

velocity feedback to quantify training loads for resistance training exercises

(3,4,18,21,33). These studies are based on the well-known force-velocity relationship

(22,32), for which higher loads are moved at slower velocities while lighter loads are

moved at faster velocities. In fact, barbell velocity during the bench-press, back-squat

3
and bench-pull have shown to be very highly correlated with training intensity in terms

of %1-RM, with the use of a wide range of loads (2,19,25,33). Therefore, 1-RM and

each associated relative percentage can be predicted without conducting an actual 1-RM

test but rather by measuring barbell velocity. Thus, controlling barbell velocity seems to

be appropriate to monitor resistance-training intensities and to optimize adaptations

(17,19).

Although velocity-based training has been proposed as a promising methodology to

design resistance-training programs without the potential drawbacks of the 1-RM

measurement (19,25), it also has an important drawback: the technology used to track

barbell velocity, such as linear transducers (LT), professional accelerometers or video-

systems (8,10,11,34) are not affordable or practical for many strength & conditioning

coaches. Among those devices, the most widely used technology to track barbell

velocity are LT because of their accuracy and relative ease of use (10,16,19). LT consist

of a sensor with a cable that is attached to a barbell, and measure barbell velocity by

differentiating cable displacement with respect to time (i.e., linear position transducers)

(10) or, more recently, newer devices provide direct measurements by recording

electrical signals proportional to cable velocity (i.e., linear velocity transducers) (33).

As mentioned above, LT have one important limitation: they are expensive (more than

2000USD for the most popular models), which limits their use outside of laboratory or

professional sport settings. For this, it is necessary to find alternatives to accurately

track barbell velocity in the field of sport science, both for simplicity and affordability.

In recent years, several smartphone and smartphone-based wearable technologies (i.e.

devices that just need an smartphone app to work, not a PC software) have been

validated to measure different parameters related to physical activity (1,5). Indeed, these

4
user-friendly technologies, mostly consisting of accelerometers and gyroscopes, allow

the measurement of different variables (such as steps, distance or calories) by actually

wearing its sensors as wristbands, watches or even t-shirts (7). Specifically,

accelerometers measure movement velocity in resistance exercises by integrating the

acceleration data with respect to time (6). Although this approach is very different from

the method used by LT, it has been demonstrated to be valid for the measurement of

barbell velocity in previous research (8). Also, smartphone-based wearable devices

don´t need PC software to work; they are paired with a smartphone application to

transfer data via Bluetooth and/or Wi-Fi connections in a simple way, which makes

easier its set-up and use in the field. However, no studies have analyzed a smartphone-

based wearable device to track movement velocity during the back squat exercise.

For this, the purpose of the present study is to analyze the validity and reliability of a

smartphone-based wearable device to measure movement velocity during the barbell

back squat exercise.

5
METHODS

Experimental approach to the problem

The aim of this study was to test the validity and reliability of a novel smartphone-based

wearable device to measure movement velocity during a back squat exercise. Ten

recreationally active sport science students were recruited to perform an incremental test

on a Smith machine, consisting of 3 maximal repetitions (i.e. with maximal movement

speed during the concentric phase of the exercise) during a back squat exercise with 5

different loads ranging from 25-85% of their 1RM, i.e., a great part of the load-velocity

spectrum (19). Each repetition was simultaneously measured using a linear velocity

transducer attached to the barbell and a wearable device worn on the subject’s forearm.

Both concentric peak and average velocity data from the two instruments were

compared and analyzed using several validity and reliability tests. Also, load-velocity

relationships derived from the linear transducer and the wearable device data were

analyzed for each individual to compare the quality of the linear regression between the

two instruments. A total of 150 repetitions were measured and compared.

Subjects

The participants of this study were 10 male, physically active sport science students

with at least 1 year of barbell back squat training (age = 23.4 ± 5.2 yrs.; height = 1.81 ±

0.08 m, body mass = 74.0 ± 10.4 kg; back squat 1-RM = 83 ± 8.2 kg). The study was

undertaken according to the Helsinki declaration, and the Ethics Committee of the

Autonomous University of Madrid approved all procedures. Participation of the

subjects was voluntary and anonymous, and they were informed of the benefits and

risks of the investigation prior to signing an institutionally approved informed consent

document to participate in the study.

6
Procedures

Incremental Back Squat Test

The participants completed a standard warm-up comprised of 5 minutes of jogging, 5

minutes of lower-body dynamic stretches (hip flexion-extension and abductions-

adductions and knee flexion-extension exercises), and 1 set of 5 preparatory back squats

with an unloaded plastic bar. Each subject then performed an incremental back squat

test on a Smith machine with five different loads: 20, 40, 50, 60 and 70kg, which,

according to the subjects 1-RM, corresponded approximately to a range between 25-

85% of their 1-RM. This range of loads was selected in order to obtain different values

from the force-velocity spectrum of the subjects. Measuring 5 different points of the

force-velocity spectrum (i.e., from light loads which can be lifted at high speeds to high

loads which can be lifted at slow speeds) has been probed to be key for the analysis of

the force/load-velocity relationships and can provide valuable information about the

force production capabilities of the subjects. (19,32). Subjects were instructed to

maintain a hip width stance, to squat deep (i.e., hips below knees) and to perform the

concentric phase of the movement as fast as possible. Three repetitions were performed

with each load. Each repetition was followed by 30 seconds of passive rest to avoid

fatigue. Accordingly, each subject performed a total of 15 (5x3) repetitions. Three

minutes of passive rest was provided between the different loading conditions. Prior to

their participation in this study, the lead investigator instructed the participants to arrive

in a rested and hydrated state and to avoid alcohol, caffeine and vigorous exercise in the

48h preceding the testing session.

An experienced strength and conditioning coach supervised the testing session.

Instrumentation

7
Each repetition performed during the back squat incremental test was measured using

the T-Force linear velocity transducer (Ergotech, Murcia, Spain) (16), considered the

criterion in this study, and the PUSHTM Band, a novel smartphone-based wearable

device designed to track movement velocity during a variety of resistance exercises

(PUSH Inc. , Toronto, Canada). The linear velocity transducer was attached to the left

extreme of the barbell on the Smith machine, and the PUSHTM Band was worn on the

subject’s dominant forearm, with the hand supinated, in top of the ulna, 1-2cm distal to

the elbow, and with the main button located proximally according to manufacturers

instructions (see Figure 1).

***FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE***

The linear velocity transducer (LT) whose reliability has been reported elsewhere (16),

measures instantaneous vertical velocity at a sample rate of 1000 Hz. The LT obtains

vertical velocity data (z axis) directly from the electrical signal produced by the cable

movement. To register the concentric velocity data using the LT, the device was

connected to a PC with Windows 7 and the T-Force v.2.35 software via a USB port.

The PUSHTM wearable device consists of a 3-axis accelerometer and a gyroscope that

provides 6 degrees of freedom in its coordinate system. A Butterworth filter is used to

smooth the acceleration data, and vertical velocity is calculated by the integration of the

vertical acceleration with respect to time using equations [1] and [2]:

*
𝑣" 𝑡 = 𝑣& + &
𝑎𝑑𝑡 [1]

8
where t is time, 𝑣" 𝑡 is the instantaneous velocity for a time i, 𝑣& is the velocity at the

beginning of the concentric phase on the back squat (detected by PUSHTM ’s internal

algorithms), f is the time at the final of the concentric phase and a is the instantaneous

acceleration. Then, the PUSHTM band calculates the mean velocity of the movement by

averaging all of the instantaneous velocities registered during the concentric phase:

𝑛𝑣
𝑣+ = 𝑖 𝑖
𝑛
[2]

where 𝑣+ is the average velocity of the concentric phase on the back squat exercise, 𝑣"

is the ith instantaneous velocity measured with the PUSHTM band and n is the total

number of instantaneous velocities registered during the concentric phase of the

movement. Finally, peak velocity vas calculated as the highest velocity registered

during the concentric phase. Both the LT and the PUSHTM band’s software detect the

start and the end of the concentric phase of each repetition with proprietary algorithms

that were not shared with us. No calibration procedure is needed for the PUSH system

to work.

The PUSHTM Band’s sampling rate is 200 Hz. To record the measured data with the

PUSHTM Band, the system was linked to an iPhone PUSH app v.1.10.4 using a

Bluetooth 4.0 LE connection. Prior to each set, the load used was selected in the app.

Statistical analyses

Several statistical analyses were used to test the validity and reliability of the PUSHTM

Band compared to the LT with the back squat movement velocity measurement. First,

the PUSHTM Band’s concurrent validity was tested using Pearson’s Product-moment

9
correlation coefficient (r). Second, to analyze the reliability of the PUSHTM Band to

measure both peak and average velocity in comparison with the LT, the intraclass

correlation coefficient (ICC) (2,1) was used. Also, independent t-test and Bland-Altman

plots were used to identify potential systematic bias, which were reported via mean-bias

and standard deviations. Furthermore, the standard error of estimate (SEE) was also

used to inform about the typical error in the measurements. Third, to assess the

reliability of the three repetitions of each set with both the LT and the PUSHTM Band,

the ICC (2,1), the coefficient of variation (CV) and test-retest correlations (via r) were

used. Finally, linear regressions were used to analyze the load-velocity relationship for

each subject. The level of statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. All calculations

were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22 for Mac (IBM Co., USA).

10
RESULTS

Validity and reliability of the velocity measures

Peak velocity

When analyzing the whole dataset (150 repetitions measured with both the LT and the

PUSHTM Band), Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient revealed a very high

association between the LT’s and the PUSHTM Band’s measured peak velocity (r = 0.91,

p<0.001, SEE = 0.1m/s, see Figure 2).

***FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE***

Moreover, there was a very high agreement between the LT and the PUSHTM Band for

peak velocity (ICC = 0.944, CI = 0.923-0.959), as revealed by the mentioned ICC and

the Bland-Altman plots (see Figure 3).

***FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE***

Furthermore, an independent-measures t-test showed a systematic bias between the LT

and the PUSHTM Band for peak velocity (LT: 1.55 ± 0.27 m/s, PUSHTM: 1.47 ± 0.33

m/s, CI = 0.01-0.14, p<0.05); the values obtained with the PUSHTM band being lower

(mean difference: -0.07 ± 0.1 m/s).

Finally, when comparing the three repetitions of each set, both the LT and the PUSHTM

Band were seen to be highly reliable on the measurement of peak velocity (LT: [CV =

4.2 ± 2.5%; ICC = 0.988; CI = 0.98, 0.993; Test-retest reliability: r = 0.975]; PUSHTM:

[CV = 6.0 ± 3.9%; ICC = 0.981; CI = 0.969, 0.988; Test-retest reliability: r = 0.952]).

11
Mean velocity

First, Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient revealed a very high association

between the LT’s and the PUSHTM Band’s measured mean velocity (r = 0.86, p<0.001,

SEE = 0.08m/s). There was a very high agreement between the LT and the PUSHTM

Band for mean velocity measurements as well (ICC = 0.907; CI = 0.872-0.933). The

independent-measures t-test showed a systematic bias between the LT and the PUSHTM

Band for mean velocity (LT: 0.77 ± 0.17 m/s, PUSHTM: 0.88 ± 0.22 m/s, -0.1, CI = -

0.15, -0.06, p<0.001); the values obtained with the PUSHTM band being higher (mean

difference: 0.11 ± 0.1 m/s).

Lastly, when comparing the three repetitions of each set, both the LT and the PUSHTM

Band were seen to be highly reliable on the measurement of mean velocity (LT: [CV =

3.9 ± 2.4%; ICC = 0.989; CI = 0.982, 0.993; Test-retest reliability: r = 0.98]; PUSHTM:

[CV = 5.0 ± 4.1%; ICC = 0.978; CI = 0.964, 0.986–; Test-retest reliability: r = 0.956]).

Comparison of the load-velocity relationships measured with the two instruments

Lastly, we plotted the peak and mean velocities of each subject measured with both the

LT and the PUSHTM Band against the load lifted in the incremental test (in kg), and

fitted a first-order regression line to study the load-velocity relationship obtained with

these instruments. The results showed that strong load-velocity relationship exist in the

back squat exercise for each individual using both peak and mean velocity values, no

matter which instrument was used. Specifically, similar R2 values were obtained with

the LT and the PUSHTM Band for load-peak velocity (LT: R2 = 0.96 ± 0.07; PUSHTM:

12
R2 = 0.94 ± 0.08, see figure 4) and load-mean velocity (LT: R2 = 0.92 ± 0.05; PUSHTM:

R2 = 0.94 ± 0.05) relationships.

***FIGURE 4 ABOUT HERE***

13
DISCUSSION

Results from this study demonstrate a high validity and reliability of the PUSHTM Band,

compared to a validated LT, for measuring movement velocity during the back squat

exercise. It was observed that the velocity values obtained with the PUSHTM Band were

highly correlated (Peak velocity: r = 0.91; Mean velocity: r = 0.86), with a high level of

agreement (Peak velocity: ICC = 0.944; Mean velocity: ICC = 0.907), with those

measured with the LT, despite the presence of a systematic bias by which the values

obtained with the PUSHTM Band were significantly different than those obtained with

the LT (Peak velocity: 0.7 m/s lower; Mean velocity: 0.11 m/s higher). Further analysis

of the data revealed a very high reliability of the PUSHTM Band for measuring both peak

(CV = 6.0%; ICC = 0.981; r = 0.952) and mean (CV = 5.0%; ICC = 0.978; r = 0.956)

velocity. In fact, PUSHTM ’s reliability values were very close to those obtained with the

LT; thus, if the PUSHTM Band is used on a regular basis, consistency of the data

obtained is expected to be very high. Moreover, individual load-velocity relationships,

which allow to assess force production capabilities within a wide range of the force-

velocity spectrum (24,32) were calculated to be equally strong, irrespective of the

system (PUSHTM or LT) used.

The LT used in this study contains a sensor that directly measures the vertical

displacement velocity of its cable (which is attached to the barbell) by transducing

electrical signals, and not differentiating cable position with respect to time as compared

to other linear transducers (9,19); consequently accuracy of this LT has been proposed

to be very high (16,19,33). In fact, linear transducers are considered the gold standard

for the measurement of barbell velocity by many authors (9,19,25). Although force

platforms are considered the criterion for the evaluation of force production capabilities

14
(10,11), when it comes to the measurement of barbell velocity, they seem less

appropriate, since what they measure is the velocity of the system’s center of mass

using forward dynamics (10).

Meanwhile, the PUSHTM Band, which is intended to be worn on the forearm of the

subject (similar to a bracelet), measures vertical velocity by integrating the vertical

acceleration data with respect to time. Previous accelerometer-based device was

validated for lower-limb strength measurements (8); however, its high price point,

above 2000USD for some models, prevent its use for many strength & conditioning

coaches. Thus, despite the different calculation methods each of these systems uses (one

measuring directly vertical velocity at 1kHz with a cable attached to the barbell, the

other integrating vertical acceleration data at 200Hz from a sensor placed in the forearm

of the subject), which lead to a systematic bias, the PUSHTM wearable device has shown

to be highly valid and reliable for the measurement of movement velocity on the back

squat exercise. However, although its use can be recommended for the estimation of

back squat barbell velocity, the PUSHTM band should not be used interchangeably with

a LT (i.e., the PUSHTM band one day, a LT the other day) due to the aforementioned

systematic bias between these devices.

The importance of measuring movement velocity has been highlighted in many studies,

since movement velocity is very highly correlated with relative intensity in terms of it’s

association with % 1-RM (19,33). However, technologies used to measure movement

velocity, such as linear transducers, force platforms or professional accelerometers,

while validated, are still quite expensive and technical in nature, limiting their use

outside laboratory settings or high performance sports centers. Our results demonstrate

that a much more affordable device (PUSHTM Band, with a price about 15 times lower

15
than the LT used as a criterion in this study) can be used to measure movement velocity

during the back squat exercise. This could have great practical applications for strength

& conditioning coaches, since PUSHTM, like many other smartphone-based wearable

devices to track physical activity (7) are much more affordable than professional, lab-

based instruments and are integrated with user-friendly smartphone apps, instead of

using advanced PC software. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that

demonstrates that a wearable device is a valid means to measure movement velocity

during the back squat exercise.

16
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

The PUSHTM Band is an easy to use, affordable, smartphone-based system that has been

demonstrated to be highly valid and reliable in comparison with a professional linear

velocity transducer for the measurement of movement back squat velocity. Thus, the

PUSHTM Band can be used to monitor and control movement velocity accurately.

However, the PUSH TM should not be used interchangeably with linear transducers

because of the presence of a systematic bias between these devices. This could have

great practical applications for strength & conditioning coaches, especially for those

implementing velocity-based resistance training programs, since movement velocity can

be monitored with any iOS or Android smartphone and a non-expensive wearable

device.

17
REFERENCES

1. Balsalobre-Fernández, C, Glaister, M, and Lockey, RA. The validity and

reliability of an iPhone app for measuring vertical jump performance. J Sports
Sci 1574–1579, 2015.
2. Bazuelo-Ruiz, B, Padial, P, García-Ramos, A, Morales-Artacho, AJ, Miranda,
MT, and Feriche, B. Predicting maximal dynamic strength from the load-velocity
relationship in squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res Epub ahead of print, 2015.
3. Blazevich, A. Are training velocity and movement pattern important
determinants of muscular rate of force development enhancement? Eur J Appl
Physiol 112: 3689–3691, 2012.
4. Blazevich, AJ and Jenkins, DG. Effect of the movement speed of resistance
training exercises on sprint and strength performance in concurrently training
elite junior sprinters. J Sports Sci 20: 981–990, 2002.
5. Bort-Roig, J, Gilson, ND, Puig-Ribera, A, Contreras, RS, and Trost, SG.
Measuring and Influencing Physical Activity with Smartphone Technology: A
Systematic Review. Sports Med 44: 671–686, 2014.
6. Casartelli, N, Muller, R, and Maffiuletti, NA. Validity and reliability of the
myotest accelerometric system for the assessment of vertical jump height. J
Strength Cond Res 24: 3186–3193, 2010.
7. Chambers, R, Gabbett, TJ, Cole, MH, and Beard, A. The Use of Wearable
Microsensors to Quantify Sport-Specific Movements. Sport Med Epub ahead of
print, 2015.
8. Comstock, BA, Solomon-Hill, G, Flanagan, SD, Earp, JE, Luk, H-Y, Dobbins,
KA, et al. Validity of the Myotest® in measuring force and power production in
the squat and bench press. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2293–7, 2011.
9. Cormie, P, Deane, R, and McBride, JM. Methodological concerns for
determining power output in the jump squat. J Strength Cond Res 21: 424–430,
2007.
10. Cormie, P, McBride, JM, and McCaulley, GO. Validation of power measurement
techniques in dynamic lower body resistance exercises. J Appl Biomech 23: 103–
118, 2007.
11. Crewther, BT, Kilduff, LP, Cunningham, DJ, Cook, C, Owen, N, and Yang, GZ.
Validating two systems for estimating force and power. Int J Sports Med 32:
254–258, 2011.
12. Dohoney, P, Chromiak, JA, Lemire, D, Abadie, BR, and Kovacs, C. Prediction of
one repetition maximum (1-rm) strength from a 4-6 rm and a 7-10 rm

18
 submaximal strength test in healthy young adult males. J Exerc Physiol Online 5:
54–59, 2002.
13. Drinkwater, EJ, Lawton, TW, McKenna, MJ, Lindsell, RP, Hunt, PH, and Pyne,
DB. Increased number of forced repetitions does not enhance strength
development with resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 21: 841–847, 2007.
14. Folland, JP and Williams, AG. The Adaptations to Strength Training. Sport Med
37: 145–168, 2007.
15. Fry, AC. The Role of Resistance Exercise Intensity on Muscle Fibre Adaptations.
Sport Med 34: 663–679, 2004.
16. Garnacho-Castaño, M V, López-Lastra, S, and Maté-Muñoz, JL. Reliability and
validity assessment of a linear position transducer. J Sports Sci Med 14: 128–36,
2015.
17. González-Badillo, JJ, Pareja-Blanco, F, Rodríguez-Rosell, D, Abad-Herencia, JL,
Del Ojo-López, JJ, and Sánchez-Medina, L. Effects of velocity-based resistance
training on young soccer players of different ages. J Strength Cond Res 29:
1329–1338, 2015.
18. Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ, Rodriguez-Rosell, D, Sanchez-Medina, L, Gorostiaga, EM,
and Pareja-Blanco, F. Maximal intended velocity training induces greater gains
in bench press performance than deliberately slower half-velocity training. Eur J
Sport Sci 14: 772–781, 2014.
19. González-Badillo, JJ and Sánchez-Medina, L. Movement Velocity as a Measure
of Loading Intensity in Resistance Training. Int J Sports Med 31: 347–352, 2010.
20. Gorostiaga, EM, Navarro-Amézqueta, I, Calbet, JAL, Hellsten, Y, Cusso, R,
Guerrero, M, et al. Energy Metabolism during Repeated Sets of Leg Press
Exercise Leading to Failure or Not. PLoS One 7: e40621, 2012.
21. Hatfield, DL, Kraemer, WJ, Spiering, BA, Häkkinen, K, Volek, JS, Shimano, T,
et al. The impact of velocity of movement on performance factors in resistance
exercise. J Strength Cond Res 20: 760–766, 2006.
22. Hill, A V. The heat of shortening and the dynamic constants of muscle. Proc R
Soc L B Biol Sci 126: 136–195, 1938.
23. Izquierdo-Gabarren, M, De Txabarri Expósito, RG, García-Pallarés, J, Sánchez-
Medina, L, De Villarreal, ESS, and Izquierdo, M. Concurrent Endurance and
Strength Training Not to Failure Optimizes Performance Gains. Med Sci Sport
Exerc 42: 1191–1199, 2010.
24. Jaric, S. Force-velocity Relationship of Muscles Performing Multi-joint
Maximum Performance Tasks. Int J Sports Med Epub ahead of print, 2015.

19
25. Jidovtseff, B, Harris, NK, Crielaard, J-M, and Cronin, JB. Using the load-
velocity relationship for 1rm prediction. J Strength Cond Res 25: 267–270, 2011.
26. Julio, UF, Panissa, VLG, and Franchini, E. Prediction of one repetition maximum
from the maximum number of repetitions with submaximal loads in
recreationally strength-trained men. Sci Sports 27: e69–e76, 2012.
27. Kraemer, WJ and Ratamess, NA. Fundamentals of resistance training:
progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sport Exerc 36: 574–688, 2004.
28. Pearson, SN, Cronin, JB, Hume, PA, and Slyfield, D. Effects of a power-
focussed resistance training intervention on backward grinding performance in
America’s Cup sailing. Sport Biomech 8: 334–344, 2009.
29. Peterson, MD, Rhea, MR, and Alvar, BA. Applications of the dose-response for
muscular strength development: a review of meta-analytic efficacy and reliability
for designing training prescription. J Strength Cond Res 19: 950–958, 2005.
30. Pollock, ML, Carroll, JF, Graves, JE, Leggett, SH, Braith, RW, Limacher, M, et
al. Injuries and adherence to walk/jog and resistance training programs in the
elderly. Med Sci Sports Exerc 23: 1194–200, 1991.
31. Robertson, RJ, Goss, FL, Aaron, DJ, Gairola, A, Kowallis, RA, Ying, L, et al.
One repetition maximum prediction models for children using the omni rpe scale.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 196–201, 2008.
32. Samozino, P, Rejc, E, Di Prampero, PE, Belli, A, and Morin, JB. Optimal force-
velocity profile in ballistic movements--altius: citius or fortius? Med Sci Sport
Exerc 44: 313–322, 2012.
33. Sanchez-Medina, L, Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ, Perez, CE, and Pallares, JG. Velocity-
and power-load relationships of the bench pull vs. bench press exercises. Int J
Sport Med 35: 209–216, 2014.
34. Sañudo, B, Rueda, D, Pozo-Cruz, B Del, de Hoyo, M, and Carrasco, L.
Validation of a video analysis software package for quantifying movement
velocity in resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res Epub ahead of print, 2014.
35. Schoenfeld, BJ, Wilson, JM, Lowery, RP, and Krieger, JW. Muscular adaptations
in low- versus high-load resistance training: A meta-analysis. Eur J Sport Sci 1–
10, 2014.
36. Schoenfeld, BJ. Is There a Minimum Intensity Threshold for Resistance
Training-Induced Hypertrophic Adaptations? Sport Med 43: 1279–1288, 2013.

20
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Matt Kuzdub (MSc) is a Sport Science advisor at PUSHTM. To guarantee the

independence of the data analysis, the first author of the paper, who has no connection

with PUSHTM, analyzed the entire data set and was the sole contributor to the results

section. Mr. Kuzdub contributed significantly to the introduction and practical

application sections of the paper, but did not collect any data nor had any access to the

data set that was analyzed. The results of the present study do not constitute

endorsement of the product by the authors or the NSCA.

21
FIGURES

Figure 1. Correct placement of the PUSHTM band on the forearm.

Figure 2. Correlation between PUSHTM wearable device’s and linear velocity

transducer’s (LT) peak velocity values for the 150 repetitions measured.

22
Figure 3. Bland–Altman plots between PUSHTM wearable device’s and linear velocity

transducer’s (LT) measured peak (A) and mean (B) velocity. The central line represents

the systematic bias between instruments (positive values mean higher velocity obtained

with the LT, while negative values mean higher velocity obtained with the PUSHTM

band), while the upper and the lower lines represent ±1.96 SD.

23
 Figure 4. Load-peak velocity relationship using both the PUSHTM wearable device and

the linear velocity transducer (LT) data for a representative subject.

24

View publication stats