Is the EnodePro® a Valid Tool to Determine the Bar Velocity in the Bench Press and Barbell Back Squat? A Comparative Analysis.

IF 3.4 3区 综合性期刊 Q2 CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL
Sensors Pub Date : 2025-01-18 DOI:10.3390/s25020549
Nina Behrmann, Martin Hillebrecht, José Afonso, Konstantin Warneke
{"title":"Is the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> a Valid Tool to Determine the Bar Velocity in the Bench Press and Barbell Back Squat? A Comparative Analysis.","authors":"Nina Behrmann, Martin Hillebrecht, José Afonso, Konstantin Warneke","doi":"10.3390/s25020549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In recent years, the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> device has been one of the most frequently used velocity sensors to track the bar velocity in resistance training, with the aim of providing load-velocity profiles. However, recent articles highlight a lack of reliability and validity in the estimated maximal strength, which can cause a serious health risk due to the overestimation of the bar velocity. With this study, we aimed to investigate whether imprecision in the measurement could explain the variance in this measurement error.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The research question was evaluated by comparing the integrated velocities from the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> with the velocities from a high-resolution displacement sensor for the squat and bench press. The velocity was measured with loads corresponding to 30%, 50%, and 70% of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in moderately trained participants (n = 53, f = 16, m = 37). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for agreement were supplemented by an exploration of the systematic bias and the random error (mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE)).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results indicated movement specificity, with the ICC values for the squat ranging from 0.204 to 0.991 and with ICC = 0.678-0.991 for the bench press. Systematically higher velocities were reported by the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> sensor (<i>p</i> < 0.001-0.176), with an MAE = 0.036-0.198 m/s, which corresponds to an MAPE of 4.09-42.15%.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The EnodePro<sup>®</sup> seems to provide overly high velocities, which could result in the previously reported overestimation of the 1RM. Despite the validity problems of force/load-velocity profiles, we suggest evaluating the bar velocity with accurate measurement devices, which is, contrary to previous reports, not the case with the EnodePro<sup>®</sup>.</p>","PeriodicalId":21698,"journal":{"name":"Sensors","volume":"25 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11769546/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sensors","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/s25020549","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent years, the EnodePro® device has been one of the most frequently used velocity sensors to track the bar velocity in resistance training, with the aim of providing load-velocity profiles. However, recent articles highlight a lack of reliability and validity in the estimated maximal strength, which can cause a serious health risk due to the overestimation of the bar velocity. With this study, we aimed to investigate whether imprecision in the measurement could explain the variance in this measurement error.

Methods: The research question was evaluated by comparing the integrated velocities from the EnodePro® with the velocities from a high-resolution displacement sensor for the squat and bench press. The velocity was measured with loads corresponding to 30%, 50%, and 70% of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in moderately trained participants (n = 53, f = 16, m = 37). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for agreement were supplemented by an exploration of the systematic bias and the random error (mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE)).

Results: The results indicated movement specificity, with the ICC values for the squat ranging from 0.204 to 0.991 and with ICC = 0.678-0.991 for the bench press. Systematically higher velocities were reported by the EnodePro® sensor (p < 0.001-0.176), with an MAE = 0.036-0.198 m/s, which corresponds to an MAPE of 4.09-42.15%.

Discussion: The EnodePro® seems to provide overly high velocities, which could result in the previously reported overestimation of the 1RM. Despite the validity problems of force/load-velocity profiles, we suggest evaluating the bar velocity with accurate measurement devices, which is, contrary to previous reports, not the case with the EnodePro®.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Sensors
Sensors 工程技术-电化学
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
12.80%
发文量
8430
审稿时长
1.7 months
期刊介绍: Sensors (ISSN 1424-8220) provides an advanced forum for the science and technology of sensors and biosensors. It publishes reviews (including comprehensive reviews on the complete sensors products), regular research papers and short notes. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信