TY - JOUR
T1 - Validity and reliability of velocity and power measures provided by the Vitruve linear position transducer
AU - Ruiz-Alias, Santiago A.
AU - Şentürk, Deniz
AU - Akyildiz, Zeki
AU - Çetin,, Onat
AU - Kaya, Selman
AU - Pérez-Castilla, Alejandro
AU - Jukic, Ivan
N1 - © 2024 Ruiz-Alias et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement:
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.
PY - 2024/10/24
Y1 - 2024/10/24
N2 - This study aimed to determine the validity and between-day reliability of the mean velocity (MV), peak velocity (PV), mean power (MP), and peak power (PP) provided by the Vitruve linear position transducer at different submaximal loads in the free-weight and Smith machine back squat using GymAware as a reference point. Fourteen male sports science students (free-weight back squat one-repetition maximum [1RM]: 132.5 ± 28.5 kg, Smith machine back squat 1RM: 163.9 ± 30.4 kg) performed six experimental sessions, twice per week with 72 hours of rest. The first two included the assessment of the 1RM of both exercises. In the four remaining, both linear position transducers were simultaneously used to record MV, PV, MP, PP of each repetition during an incremental load test (i.e., 20, 40, 60, 80, 90% 1RM) with three minutes of rest between sets. Vitruve displayed both fixed and proportional bias for certain relative loads across all variables. Vitruve did not meet the validity criteria for all (MV, PP) or at least two (MP, PV) relative loads (Coefficient of variation [CV] > 10%; Pearson correlation < 0.70; Effect size > 0.60). MV, PV, MP, and PP recorded by Vitruve displayed acceptable reliability (CV < 10%) with superior reliability observed during a Smith Machine compared to free-weight back squat, and for velocity compared to power variables. Considering GymAware as a reference point, Vitruve was not valid for measuring velocity and power outcomes. Acceptable validity was observed only for PV in the Smith machine back squat, while the other variables—regardless of relative loads and exercise modes—were mostly inaccurate. All variables demonstrated acceptable reliability, with greater reliability noted in the Smith machine compared to the free-weight back squat exercise mode.
AB - This study aimed to determine the validity and between-day reliability of the mean velocity (MV), peak velocity (PV), mean power (MP), and peak power (PP) provided by the Vitruve linear position transducer at different submaximal loads in the free-weight and Smith machine back squat using GymAware as a reference point. Fourteen male sports science students (free-weight back squat one-repetition maximum [1RM]: 132.5 ± 28.5 kg, Smith machine back squat 1RM: 163.9 ± 30.4 kg) performed six experimental sessions, twice per week with 72 hours of rest. The first two included the assessment of the 1RM of both exercises. In the four remaining, both linear position transducers were simultaneously used to record MV, PV, MP, PP of each repetition during an incremental load test (i.e., 20, 40, 60, 80, 90% 1RM) with three minutes of rest between sets. Vitruve displayed both fixed and proportional bias for certain relative loads across all variables. Vitruve did not meet the validity criteria for all (MV, PP) or at least two (MP, PV) relative loads (Coefficient of variation [CV] > 10%; Pearson correlation < 0.70; Effect size > 0.60). MV, PV, MP, and PP recorded by Vitruve displayed acceptable reliability (CV < 10%) with superior reliability observed during a Smith Machine compared to free-weight back squat, and for velocity compared to power variables. Considering GymAware as a reference point, Vitruve was not valid for measuring velocity and power outcomes. Acceptable validity was observed only for PV in the Smith machine back squat, while the other variables—regardless of relative loads and exercise modes—were mostly inaccurate. All variables demonstrated acceptable reliability, with greater reliability noted in the Smith machine compared to the free-weight back squat exercise mode.
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0312348
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0312348
M3 - Article
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 19
JO - PLOS ONE
JF - PLOS ONE
IS - 10
M1 - e0312348
ER -