VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE PUSH WEARABLE

DEVICE TO MEASURE MOVEMENT VELOCITY DURING

THE BACK SQUAT EXERCISE
AU1

CARLOS BALSALOBRE-FERNANDEZ,1 MATT KUZDUB,2 PEDRO POVEDA-ORTIZ,1

JUAN DEL CAMPO-VECINO1

AND

AU2

Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain; and 2PUSH, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada

ABSTRACT
Balsalobre-Fernandez, C, Kuzdub, M, Poveda-Ortiz, P, and
Campo-Vecino, Jd. Validity and reliability of the PUSH wearable device to measure movement velocity during the back
squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000000,
2015The 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 men (age = 23.4 6 5.2 years; back squat
1 repetition maximum [1RM] = 83 6 8.2 kg) performed 3
repetitions of the back squat exercise with 5 different loads
ranging from 25 to 85% 1RM 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 PUSH wearable band. Results showed a high correlation between the LT and the wearable device mean (r = 0.85;
standard error of estimate [SEE] = 0.08 m$s21) and peak
velocity (r = 0.91, SEE = 0.1 m$s21). Moreover, there was
a very high agreement between these 2 devices for the measurement of mean (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] =
0.907) and peak velocity (ICC = 0.944), although a systematic
bias between devices was observed (PUSH peak velocity
being 20.07 6 0.1 m$s21 lower, p # 0.05). When measuring
the 3 repetitions with each load, both devices displayed almost
equal reliability (Testretest reliability: LT [r = 0.98], PUSH [r =
0.956]; ICC: LT [ICC = 0.989], PUSH [ICC = 0.981]; coefficient of variation [CV]: LT [CV = 4.2%], PUSH [CV = 5.0%]).
Finally, individual load-velocity relationships measured with both
the LT (R2 = 0.96) and the PUSH 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
Address correspondence to Carlos Balsalobre-Fernandez, carlos.
balsalobre@icloud.com.
00(00)/17
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
! 2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association

devices, such as the one in this study, could have valuable practical applications for strength and conditioning coaches.

KEY WORDS velocity-based training, technology, strength,

weightlifting, accelerometer, PUSH band
INTRODUCTION

uantifying 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 (14,15,27,35).
Thus, several methodologies have been used to quantify
training intensity for resistance training programs; the 1 repetition maximum (1RM; 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 1RM
(i.e., 75% 1RM), has a major drawback: it requires performing a maximal lift (direct estimation of the 1RM) (27) or
a number of repetitions to failure with submaximal loads
(indirect estimation of the 1RM) (12,26). Conducting
a 1RM 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 because of
the high degree of fatigue it produces (13,20,23). Finally,
1RM values can increase over the course of a few weeks
after the beginning of a new training program, especially
for untrained populations (14,29,36). Therefore, if coaches
desire accurate training load prescriptions, 1RM 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
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2015 |

Copyright 2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Validation of the PUSH Band

AU3

slower velocities, whereas lighter loads are moved at faster

velocities. In fact, barbell velocity during the bench press,
back squat, and bench pull have shown to be very highly
correlated with training intensity in terms of %1RM, with
the use of a wide range of loads (2,19,25,33). Therefore, 1RM
and each associated relative percentage can be predicted
without conducting an actual 1RM 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 1RM
measurement (19,25), it also has an important drawback:
the technology used to track barbell velocity, such as linear transducers (LTs), professional accelerometers or
video-systems (8,10,11,34) are not affordable or practical
for many strength and 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). Linear Transducers 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, LTs have one 1 important limitation:
they are expensive (more than 2,000 US dollars for the
most popular models), which limits their use outside 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 smartphonebased wearable technologies (i.e., devices that just need
a smartphone app to work, not a PC software) have been
validated to measure different parameters related to physical
activity (1,5). Indeed, these 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 dont need PC
software to work; they are paired with a smartphone application to transfer data through Bluetooth and/or Wi-Fi connections in a simple way, which makes easier its setup and
use in the field. However, no studies have analyzed a smartphone-based wearable device to track movement velocity
during the back squat exercise.

the

For this, the purpose of this study is to analyze the validity

and reliability of a smartphone-based wearable device to
measure movement velocity during the barbell back squat
exercise.

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 to 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 subjects
forearm. Both concentric peak and average velocity data
from the 2 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 2
instruments. A total of 150 repetitions were measured and
compared.
Subjects

The participants of this study were 10 men, physically active

sport science students with at least 1 year of barbell back
squat training (age = 23.4 6 5.2 years; height = 1.81 6 0.08
m, body mass = 74.0 6 10.4 kg; back squat 1RM = 83 6
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 before
signing an institutionally approved informed consent document to participate in the study. The study conforms to the
Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (approved
by the ethics advisory board of Swansea University) and
required players to provide informed consent before
participation.
Procedures

Incremental Back Squat Test. The participants completed

a standard warm-up comprising 5 minutes of jogging,
5 minutes of lower-body dynamic stretches (hip flexionextension and abductions-adductions and knee flexionextension 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 5
different loads: 20, 40, 50, 60, and 70 kg, which, according
to the subjects 1RM, corresponded approximately to
a range between 25 and 85% of their 1RM. This range of

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright 2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association

AU4

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

| www.nsca.com

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 (5 3 3) repetitions. Three minutes of passive rest was
provided between the different loading conditions. Before
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 48 hours preceding the testing session.
An experienced strength and conditioning coach supervised the testing session.

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

loads was selected 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

Instrumentation. 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 PUSH 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 PUSH band was worn on the subjects
dominant forearm, with the hand supinated, in top of the ulna,
12 cm distal to the elbow, and with the main button located
proximally according to manufacturers instructions (Figure 1).
The LT, whose reliability has been reported elsewhere (16),
measures instantaneous vertical velocity at a sample rate of
1,000 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 TForce v.2.35 software through
a USB port. The PUSH 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):

vi t v0

Zf

adt

(1)

Figure 2. Correlation between PUSH wearable devices and linear velocity transducers (LT) peak velocity values
for the 150 repetitions measured.

where vi t , t is time, is the

instantaneous velocity for
a time i, v0 is the velocity at
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2015 |

Copyright 2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association

F1

Validation of the PUSH Band

vm

Pn
i

vi

(2)

where vm is the average velocity of the concentric phase on

the back squat exercise, vi is
the ith instantaneous velocity
measured with the PUSH band,
and n is the total number of
instantaneous velocities registered during the concentric
phase of the movement.
Finally, peak velocity was calculated as the highest velocity
registered during the concentric phase. Both the LT and
the PUSH bands 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 PUSH bands sampling
rate is 200 Hz. To record the
measured data with the PUSH
band, the system was linked to
an iPhone PUSH app v.1.10.4
using a Bluetooth 4.0 LE connection. Before 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 PUSH band
compared with the LT with
the back squat movement
velocity measurement. First,
the PUSH bands concurrent
validity was tested using Pearsons product-moment correlaFigure 3. BlandAltman plots between PUSH wearable devices and linear velocity transducers (LT) measured
tion coefficient (r). Second, to
peak (A) and mean (B) velocity. The central line represents the systematic bias between instruments (positive
values mean higher velocity obtained with the LT, whereas negative values mean higher velocity obtained with the
analyze the reliability of the
PUSH band), whereas the upper and the lower lines represent 61.96 SD.
PUSH band to measure both
peak and average velocity in
comparison with the LT, the
intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (2,1) was used. Also,
the beginning of the concentric phase on the back squat
independent t-test and BlandAltman plots were used to
(detected by PUSHs internal algorithms), f is the time at
identify potential systematic bias, which were reported
the final of the concentric phase, and a is the instantaneous
through mean-bias and standard deviations. Furthermore,
acceleration. Then, the PUSH band calculates the mean
the standard error of estimate (SEE) was also used to inform
velocity of the movement by averaging all instantaneous
about the typical error in the measurements. Third, to assess
velocities registered during the concentric phase:

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright 2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

| www.nsca.com

reliable on the measurement

of peak velocity (LT: [CV =
4.2 6 2.5%; ICC = 0.988;
CI = 0.980.993; testretest
reliability: r = 0.975]; PUSH:
[CV = 6.0 6 3.9%; ICC =
0.981; CI = 0.9690.988; test
retest reliability: r = 0.952]).

AU5

Mean Velocity. First, Pearsons

product-moment correlation
coefficient revealed a very high
association between the LTs
and the PUSH bands measured mean velocity (r = 0.86,
p , 0.001, SEE = 0.08 m$s21).
There was a very high agreement between the LT and the
PUSH band for mean velocity
measurements as well (ICC =
0.907; CI = 0.8720.933). The
independent measures t-test
Figure 4. Load-peak velocity relationship using both the PUSH wearable device and the linear velocity
showed a systematic bias
transducer (LT) data for a representative subject.
between the LT and the PUSH
band for mean velocity (LT:
0.77 6 0.17 m$s21, PUSH:
21
0.88 6 0.22 m$s , 20.1, CI = 20.15, 20.06, p , 0.001);
the reliability of the 3 repetitions of each set with both the
LT and the PUSH band, the ICC (2,1), the coefficient of
the values obtained with the PUSH band being higher (mean
variation (CV), and testretest correlations (through r) were
difference: 0.11 6 0.1 m$s21).
Finally, when comparing the 3 repetitions of each set,
used. Finally, linear regressions were used to analyze the
both the LT and the PUSH band were seen to be highly
load-velocity relationship for each subject. The level of
reliable on the measurement of mean velocity (LT: [CV =
statistical significance was set at P # 0.05. All calculations
3.9 6 2.4%; ICC = 0.989; CI = 0.9820.993; testretest reliwere performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22 for Mac (IBM
ability: r = 0.98]; PUSH: [CV = 5.0 6 4.1%; ICC = 0.978;
Co., USA).
CI = 0.9640.986; testretest reliability: r = 0.956]).

RESULTS
Validity and Reliability of the Velocity Measures

F2

F3

Peak Velocity. When analyzing the whole data set (150

repetitions measured with both the LT and the PUSH band),
Pearsons product-moment correlation coefficient revealed
a very high association between the LTs and the PUSH
bands measured peak velocity (r = 0.91, p , 0.001, SEE =
0.1 m$s21; Figure 2).
Moreover, there was a very high agreement between the
LT and the PUSH band for peak velocity (ICC = 0.944,
confidence interval [CI] = 0.9230.959), as revealed by the
mentioned ICC and the BlandAltman plots (Figure 3).
Furthermore, an independent-measures t-test showed a systematic bias between the LT and the PUSH band for peak
velocity (LT: 1.55 6 0.27 m$s21, PUSH: 1.47 6 0.33 m$s21,
CI = 0.010.14, p # 0.05); the values obtained with the PUSH
band being lower (mean difference: 20.07 6 0.1 m$s21).
Finally, when comparing the 3 repetitions of each set,
both the LT and the PUSH band were seen to be highly

Comparison of the Load-Velocity Relationships Measured

With the 2 Instruments

Finally, we plotted the peak and mean velocities of each

subject measured with both the LT and the PUSH band
against the load lifted in the incremental test (in kilograms),
and fitted a first-order regression line to study the loadvelocity relationship obtained with these instruments. The
results showed that strong load-velocity relationship exists 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 PUSH band for load-peak velocity (LT: R2 = 0.96
6 0.07; PUSH: R2 = 0.94 6 0.08; Figure 4) and load-mean
velocity (LT: R2 = 0.92 6 0.05; PUSH: R2 = 0.94 6 0.05)
relationships.

DISCUSSION
Results from this study demonstrate a high validity and
reliability of the PUSH band, compared with a validated LT,
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2015 |

Copyright 2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association

F4

Validation of the PUSH Band

for measuring movement velocity during the back squat exercise. It was observed that the velocity values obtained with the
PUSH 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 PUSH band
were significantly different than those obtained with the LT
(Peak velocity: 0.7 m$s21 lower; Mean velocity: 0.11 m$s21
higher). Further analysis of the data revealed a very high
reliability of the PUSH 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, PUSH s reliability
values were very close to those obtained with the LT; thus, if
the PUSH 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 forcevelocity spectrum (24,32) were calculated to be equally strong,
irrespective of the system (PUSH 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 with other LTs (9,19); consequently accuracy of this LT has been proposed to be very high (16,19,33).
In fact, LTs 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 (10,11), when
it comes to the measurement of barbell velocity, they seem
less appropriate, because what they measure is the velocity
of the systems center of mass using forward dynamics (10).
Meanwhile, the PUSH 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 2,000 US dollars for
some models, prevents its use for many strength and conditioning coaches. Thus, despite the different calculation
methods each of these systems uses (one measuring directly
vertical velocity at 1 kHz with a cable attached to the barbell,
the other integrating vertical acceleration data at 200 Hz
from a sensor placed in the forearm of the subject), which
lead to a systematic bias, the PUSH 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 PUSH band should not be
used interchangeably with a LT (i.e., the PUSH band one
day, a LT the other day) because of the aforementioned
systematic bias between these devices.
The importance of measuring movement velocity has been
highlighted in many studies, because movement velocity is

the

very highly correlated with relative intensity in terms of its

association with % 1RM (19,33). However, technologies used
to measure movement velocity, such as LTs, 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
(PUSH band, with a price about 15 times lower 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 and conditioning
coaches, because PUSH, like many other smartphone-based
wearable devices to track physical activity (7), are much more
affordable than professional, laboratory-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.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The PUSH band is an easy to use, affordable, smartphonebased 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 PUSH band can be used
to monitor and control movement velocity accurately.
However, the PUSH should not be used interchangeably
with LTs because of the presence of a systematic bias
between these devices. This could have great practical
applications for strength and conditioning coaches, especially for those implementing velocity-based resistance
training programs, because movement velocity can be
monitored with any iOS or Android smartphone and
a nonexpensive wearable device.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Matt Kuzdub (MSc) is a Sport Science advisor at PUSH. To
guarantee the independence of the data analysis, the first
author of the article, who has no connection with PUSH,
analyzed the entire data set and was the sole contributor to
the results section. Mr. Kuzdub contributed significantly to
the introduction and practical applications sections of the
article, but did not collect any data nor had any access to
the data set that was analyzed. The results of this study do
not constitute endorsement of the product by the authors or
the NSCA.

REFERENCES
1. Balsalobre-Fernandez, C, Glaister, M, and Lockey, RA. The validity
and reliability of an iPhone app for measuring vertical jump
performance. J Sports Sci 33: 15741579, 2015.
2. Bazuelo-Ruiz, B, Padial, P, Garca-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 2015. Epub ahead of print.

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright 2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

3. Blazevich, A. Are training velocity and movement pattern important
determinants of muscular rate of force development enhancement?
Eur J Appl Physiol 112: 36893691, 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: 981990, 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.

| www.nsca.com

sets of leg press exercise leading to failure or not. PLoS One 7:

e40621, 2012.
21. Hatfield, DL, Kraemer, WJ, Spiering, BA, Hakkinen, K, Volek, JS,
Shimano, T, et al. The impact of velocity of movement on
performance factors in resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res 20:
760766, 2006.
22. Hill, AV. The heat of shortening and the dynamic constants of
muscle. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 126: 136195, 1938.

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: 31863193, 2010.

23. Izquierdo-Gabarren, M, De Txabarri Exposito, RG, GarcaPallares, J, Sanchez-Medina, L, De Villarreal, ESS, and
Izquierdo, M. Concurrent endurance and strength training not to
failure optimizes performance gains. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42:
11911199, 2010.

7. Chambers, R, Gabbett, TJ, Cole, MH, and Beard, A. The use of

wearable microsensors to quantify sport-specific movements. Sport
Med 2015. Epub ahead of print.

24. Jaric, S. Force-velocity relationship of muscles performing multijoint maximum performance tasks. Int J Sports Med 2015. Epub
ahead of print.

8. Comstock, BA, Solomon-Hill, G, Flanagan, SD, Earp, JE, Luk, HY,

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: 22932297, 2011.

25. Jidovtseff, B, Harris, NK, Crielaard, JM, and Cronin, JB. Using the
load-velocity relationship for 1RM prediction. J Strength Cond Res
25: 267270, 2011.

9. Cormie, P, Deane, R, and McBride, JM. Methodological concerns

for determining power output in the jump squat. J Strength Cond Res
21: 424430, 2007.

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: e69e76, 2012.

10. Cormie, P, McBride, JM, and McCaulley, GO. Validation of power

measurement techniques in dynamic lower body resistance
exercises. J Appl Biomech 23: 103118, 2007.

27. Kraemer, WJ and Ratamess, NA. Fundamentals of resistance

training: Progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc
36: 574688, 2004.

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: 254258, 2011.

28. Pearson, SN, Cronin, JB, Hume, PA, and Slyfield, D. Effects of
a power-focussed resistance training intervention on backward
grinding performance in Americas cup sailing. Sport Biomech 8: 334
344, 2009.

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 submaximal strength test in healthy young adult
males. J Exerc Physiol Online 5: 5459, 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: 841847, 2007.
14. Folland, JP and Williams, AG. The adaptations to strength training.
Sport Med 37: 145168, 2007.
15. Fry, AC. The role of resistance exercise intensity on muscle fibre
adaptations. Sport Med 34: 663679, 2004.
16. Garnacho-Castano, MV, Lopez-Lastra, S, and Mate-Munoz, JL.
Reliability and validity assessment of a linear position transducer. J
Sports Sci Med 14: 128136, 2015.
17. Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ, Pareja-Blanco, F, Rodrguez-Rosell, D, AbadHerencia, JL, Del Ojo-Lopez, JJ, and Sanchez-Medina, L. Effects of
velocity-based resistance training on young soccer players of
different ages. J Strength Cond Res 29: 13291338, 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. Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ and Sanchez-Medina, L. Movement velocity as
a measure of loading intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports Med
31: 347352, 2010.
20. Gorostiaga, EM, Navarro-Amezqueta, I, Calbet, JAL, Hellsten, Y,
Cusso, R, Guerrero, M, et al. Energy metabolism during repeated

29. Peterson, MD, Rhea, MR, and Alvar, BA. Applications of the doseresponse for muscular strength development: A review of metaanalytic efficacy and reliability for designing training prescription. J
Strength Cond Res 19: 950958, 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:
11941200, 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: 196201,
AU6
2008.
32. Samozino, P, Rejc, E, Di Prampero, PE, Belli, A, and Morin, JB.
Optimal force-velocity profile in ballistic movementsaltius: Citius
or fortius? Med Sci Sports Exerc 44: 313322, 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 Sports Med 35: 209216, 2014.
34. Sanudo, B, Rueda, D, Pozo-Cruz, BD, de Hoyo, M, and Carrasco, L.
Validation of a video analysis software package for quantifying
movement velocity in resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res 2014.
AU7
Epub ahead of print.
35. Schoenfeld, BJ. Is there a minimum intensity threshold for resistance
training-induced hypertrophic adaptations? Sports Med 43: 1279
AU8
1288, 2013.
36. Schoenfeld, BJ, Wilson, JM, Lowery, RP, and Krieger, JW. Muscular
adaptations in low- versus high-load resistance training: A metaAU9
analysis. Eur J Sport Sci: 110, 2014.

VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2015 |

Copyright 2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association