Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Test-Retest Reliability Between Free Weight and Machine-Based Movement Velocities.
J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Feb; 34(2):440-444.JS

Abstract

Miller, RM, Freitas, EDS, Heishman, AD, Koziol, KJ, Galletti, BAR, Kaur, J, and Bemben, MG. Test-retest reliability between free weight and machine-based movement velocities. J Strength Cond Res 34(2): 440-444, 2020-Several devices are available to measure muscular power through velocity measurement, including the Tendo FitroDyne. The ability for such devices to produce consistent results is still questioned, and the reproducibility of measurement between free weight and machine exercise has yet to be examined. Therefore, the aim of this investigation was to determine the test-retest reliability for barbell velocity during the bench press (BP) and weight velocity during the 2 leg press (2LP) for loads corresponding to 20-80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Forty recreationally active individuals (22.6 ± 2.5 years; 175.9 ± 10.8 cm; and 76.2 ± 13.2 kg) with a 1RM BP and 2LP of 66.8 ± 32.4 kg and 189.5 ± 49 kg, respectively, volunteered for this study. Subjects completed 1 familiarization visit preceding 3 testing visits, which encompassed 1RM determination and 2 days of velocity testing. Forty-eight hours after 1RM testing, the subjects performed 1 repetition at 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80% of their 1RM for each exercise in randomized order. Subjects returned to the laboratory 1 week later to perform the velocity assessment again in randomized order. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1) and relative SEM for the BP and 2LP ranged from 0.56 to 0.98 (3-18.1%) and 0.78 to 0.98 (2.8-7.2%), respectively, and no mean differences were observed between trials. The results suggest high reliability for BP velocity between 30 and 60% 1RM and moderate reliability at 20, 70, and 80% 1RM, while the 2LP displayed high to excellent reliability from 20 to 80% 1RM. Cumulatively, machine-based exercise displayed greater reproducibility; however, additional machine exercises need to be examined to bolster this conclusion.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Health and Exercise Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

30199448

Citation

Miller, Ryan M., et al. "Test-Retest Reliability Between Free Weight and Machine-Based Movement Velocities." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, vol. 34, no. 2, 2020, pp. 440-444.
Miller RM, Freitas EDS, Heishman AD, et al. Test-Retest Reliability Between Free Weight and Machine-Based Movement Velocities. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(2):440-444.
Miller, R. M., Freitas, E. D. S., Heishman, A. D., Koziol, K. J., Galletti, B. A. R., Kaur, J., & Bemben, M. G. (2020). Test-Retest Reliability Between Free Weight and Machine-Based Movement Velocities. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 34(2), 440-444. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002817
Miller RM, et al. Test-Retest Reliability Between Free Weight and Machine-Based Movement Velocities. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(2):440-444. PubMed PMID: 30199448.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Test-Retest Reliability Between Free Weight and Machine-Based Movement Velocities. AU - Miller,Ryan M, AU - Freitas,Eduardo D S, AU - Heishman,Aaron D, AU - Koziol,Karolina J, AU - Galletti,Bianca A R, AU - Kaur,Japneet, AU - Bemben,Michael G, PY - 2018/9/11/pubmed PY - 2020/8/25/medline PY - 2018/9/11/entrez SP - 440 EP - 444 JF - Journal of strength and conditioning research JO - J Strength Cond Res VL - 34 IS - 2 N2 - Miller, RM, Freitas, EDS, Heishman, AD, Koziol, KJ, Galletti, BAR, Kaur, J, and Bemben, MG. Test-retest reliability between free weight and machine-based movement velocities. J Strength Cond Res 34(2): 440-444, 2020-Several devices are available to measure muscular power through velocity measurement, including the Tendo FitroDyne. The ability for such devices to produce consistent results is still questioned, and the reproducibility of measurement between free weight and machine exercise has yet to be examined. Therefore, the aim of this investigation was to determine the test-retest reliability for barbell velocity during the bench press (BP) and weight velocity during the 2 leg press (2LP) for loads corresponding to 20-80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Forty recreationally active individuals (22.6 ± 2.5 years; 175.9 ± 10.8 cm; and 76.2 ± 13.2 kg) with a 1RM BP and 2LP of 66.8 ± 32.4 kg and 189.5 ± 49 kg, respectively, volunteered for this study. Subjects completed 1 familiarization visit preceding 3 testing visits, which encompassed 1RM determination and 2 days of velocity testing. Forty-eight hours after 1RM testing, the subjects performed 1 repetition at 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80% of their 1RM for each exercise in randomized order. Subjects returned to the laboratory 1 week later to perform the velocity assessment again in randomized order. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1) and relative SEM for the BP and 2LP ranged from 0.56 to 0.98 (3-18.1%) and 0.78 to 0.98 (2.8-7.2%), respectively, and no mean differences were observed between trials. The results suggest high reliability for BP velocity between 30 and 60% 1RM and moderate reliability at 20, 70, and 80% 1RM, while the 2LP displayed high to excellent reliability from 20 to 80% 1RM. Cumulatively, machine-based exercise displayed greater reproducibility; however, additional machine exercises need to be examined to bolster this conclusion. SN - 1533-4287 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/30199448/Test_Retest_Reliability_Between_Free_Weight_and_Machine_Based_Movement_Velocities_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002817 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -