↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of Wearable and Smartphone-Based Technologies for the Measurement of Barbell Velocity in Different Resistance Training Exercises

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
92 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
359 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Analysis of Wearable and Smartphone-Based Technologies for the Measurement of Barbell Velocity in Different Resistance Training Exercises
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.00649
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández, David Marchante, Eneko Baz-Valle, Iván Alonso-Molero, Sergio L. Jiménez, Mario Muñóz-López

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze the validity, reliability, and accuracy of new wearable and smartphone-based technology for the measurement of barbell velocity in resistance training exercises. To do this, 10 highly trained powerlifters (age = 26.1 ± 3.9 years) performed 11 repetitions with loads ranging 50-100% of the 1-Repetition maximum in the bench-press, full-squat, and hip-thrust exercises while barbell velocity was simultaneously measured using a linear transducer (LT), two Beast wearable devices (one placed on the subjects' wrist -BW-, and the other one directly attached to the barbell -BB-) and the iOS PowerLift app. Results showed a high correlation between the LT and BW (r = 0.94-0.98, SEE = 0.04-0.07 m•s(-1)), BB (r = 0.97-0.98, SEE = 0.04-0.05 m•s(-1)), and the PowerLift app (r = 0.97-0.98, SEE = 0.03-0.05 m•s(-1)) for the measurement of barbell velocity in the three exercises. Paired samples T-test revealed systematic biases between the LT and BW, BB and the app in the hip-thrust, between the LT and BW in the full-squat and between the LT and BB in the bench-press exercise (p < 0.001). Moreover, the analysis of the linear regression on the Bland-Altman plots showed that the differences between the LT and BW (R(2) = 0.004-0.03), BB (R(2) = 0.007-0.01), and the app (R(2) = 0.001-0.03) were similar across the whole range of velocities analyzed. Finally, the reliability of the BW (ICC = 0.910-0.988), BB (ICC = 0.922-0.990), and the app (ICC = 0.928-0.989) for the measurement of the two repetitions performed with each load were almost the same than that observed with the LT (ICC = 0.937-0.990). Both the Beast wearable device and the PowerLift app were highly valid, reliable, and accurate for the measurement of barbell velocity in the bench-press, full-squat, and hip-thrust exercises. These results could have potential practical applications for strength and conditioning coaches who wish to measure barbell velocity during resistance training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 92 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 359 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 359 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 66 18%
Student > Master 54 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 10%
Researcher 22 6%
Student > Postgraduate 20 6%
Other 66 18%
Unknown 96 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 171 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 4%
Social Sciences 8 2%
Engineering 6 2%
Other 27 8%
Unknown 111 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 February 2021.
All research outputs
#636,823
of 25,083,571 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#330
of 15,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,359
of 321,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#8
of 291 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,083,571 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,395 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,902 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 291 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.