Original Research

Agreement Between the Iron Path App and a Linear

Position Transducer for Measuring Average
Concentric Velocity and Range of Motion of
Barbell Exercises
Jovana Kasovic,1 Benjamin Martin,1 Joseph P. Carzoli,2 Michael C. Zourdos,3 and Christopher A. Fahs4
1
Department of Exercise Science, Lindenwood University Belleville, Belleville Illinois; 2Department of Integrative Physiology, University
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 07/03/2021

of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado; 3Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, Muscle Physiology Laboratory, Florida
Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida; and 4College of Health Sciences, Logan University, Chesterfield, Missouri

Abstract
Kasovic, J, Martin, B, Carzoli, JP, Zourdos, MC, and Fahs, CA. Agreement between the Iron Path app and a linear position
transducer for measuring average concentric velocity and range of motion of barbell exercises. J Strength Cond Res 35(2S):
S95–S101, 2021—The purpose of this study was to compare average concentric velocity (ACV) and range of motion (ROM) values
measured by the Iron Path (IP) app to the previously validated Open Barbell System (OBS) linear position transducer during the front
and back squat and conventional and sumo deadlift. Twenty-seven men and women (21 6 3 years old; 76.7 6 14.5 kg; 1.72 6
0.09 m) with squat and deadlift training experience completed a modified one repetition maximum protocol on 4 separate occasions
in a randomized order. The IP app and OBS device recorded ACV and ROM during each protocol. The level of statistical significant
was set at p # 0.05. Bland–Altman plots showed fairly large limits of agreement for both ACV and ROM. Furthermore, 95%
confidence intervals for the intraclass correlation coefficients indicated the agreement in ACV between the devices for each of the 4
lifts to range from 0.648–0.876 to 0.849–0.930 and for agreement in ROM between devices to range from 20.053–0.480 to
0.545–0.770. Compared with the OBS, the IP app recorded significantly (p , 0.05) lower ACV values for the front squat and back
squat and greater ROM values for the sumo deadlift. We suggest the IP app should not be used in place of a validated linear position
transducer for measuring ACV or ROM for barbell lifts.
Key Words: velocity-based training, squat, deadlift, resistance training, smartphone

Introduction velocity-based to elicit greater strength and power adaptations

The average concentric velocity (ACV) during a resistance ex-
ercise repetition is inversely related to the load lifted (18). Be-
cause of the strong relationship between ACV and load,
measuring ACV during resistance training has potential bene-
fits. Specifically, ACV at submaximal loads can be used to
predict the one repetition maximum (1RM) (13,14). However,
this method is not perfect because it has been shown to over-
estimate the actual 1RM in exercises such as the free-weight
back squat (4). Furthermore, ACV can be used to prescribe
training load (8,19) such as 4 sets of 8 repetitions between 0.40
and 0.60 m·s21. This programming of a velocity zone is known
as velocity-based training and can be used in lieu of percentage
of 1RM (e.g., 4 sets of 8 repetitions at 70% of 1RM). Velocity-
based training can allow subjects to complete repetitions at
faster velocities (as load is adjusted during a training session)
with less mechanical stress than percentage-based training
(when training at a fixed percentage of 1RM) (6). Despite the
potential utility of velocity-based training, its utility has prac-
tical limitations such as taking time to set up as well as addi-
tional equipment required (6). Currently, only study has shown
Address correspondence to Christopher A. Fahs, Christopher.fahs@logan.edu.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 35(2S)/S95–S101
ª 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association
compared with percentage-based training (9).
The utility of the measurement depends upon the accuracy
and accessibility of device used. To determine if a device which
measures ACV is valid, it must be compared with a criterion
device (e.g., three-dimensional motion capture or force plate)
using multiple plots of agreement. Because the criterion
methods can cost tens of thousands of dollars, it is necessary to
examine the validity of cost-effective options for practical
usage. Common linear position transducers such as the Tendo
Weightlifting Analyzer (;$1,500) and GymAware Power
Tool (;$2,000) are still quite expensive. Furthermore, the
Tendo Weightlifting Analyzer compared less favorably to
a three-dimension motion capture system than the more
moderately priced Open Barbell System (OBS) (;$250),
which was shown to be valid for both ACV and peak con-
centric velocity (12). In addition, the OBS is an “open source”
product, and thus, it can be manufactured by the user for an
even lower cost (;$100).
Despite the validity and relative affordability of the OBS,
smart phone applications such as the Iron Path (IP) app are
widely available at minimal cost (,$5). Previous studies have
stated validity low-cost options such as the PowerLift app (3)
and Beast Wearable device (2) for measuring ACV. However,
both studies only compared the measurement devices to the
nonvalidated SmartCoach Power Encoder linear position

S95

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Iron Path App Accuracy (2021) 35:2S
transducer and not a true criterion device. Additional research
that compared the PowerLift app among 7 different commer-
cially available devices found it to be the second most valid
device, with greater validity than wearable devices such as the
PUSH band and Beast sensor (17). Despite the PowerLift app
having a similar cost to the IP app (,$5), the PowerLift app
only provides information related to barbell velocity, while the
IP app provides more information, such as qualitative in-
formation on bar path (i.e., a tracing of the bar path during each
repetition) as well as acceleration and range of motion (ROM)
in addition to barbell velocity. Given the limited cost and lack of
equipment needed to use the IP app, this could potentially be
a useful method for measuring ACV. However, currently, it is
unknown if the IP app provides measures of ACV and ROM
that could be used interchangeably with measures from a linear
position transducer. If the IP app provides similar measures of
ACV and ROM as a linear position transducer, it could provide
an opportunity for individuals to monitor ACV during training
without the need for additional equipment and cost of a linear
position transducer. Both devices (IP app and OBS device)
calculate measures of ACV and ROM rather than measure them
directly which could affect the validity and agreement of these 2
devices. Although the OBS device is not considered a true cri-
terion for measuring ACV, linear position transducers are the
most commonly used devices in this area of research (14).
Furthermore, the OBS has been validated recently against
a criterion three-dimensional motion capture system with small
limits of agreement of 20.03 to 0.04 m·s21 for measures of
ACV between the 2 devices (12). Therefore, the purpose of this
study was to compare ACV and ROM values measured by the
IP app and OBS device during free-weight barbell exercises. We
chose to perform this study using the squat and deadlift exer-
cises, since the former requires that the eccentric portion pre-
cedes the concentric portion of the lift, whereas the latter
exercise begins with a motionless barbell and the concentric
phase precedes the eccentric phase of the lift. We hypothesize
that the IP app will show agreement with the OBS in measuring
ACV and ROM such that if the devices could be used in-
terchangeable for measuring ACV.
Methods
Experimental Approach to the Problem
In a randomized order, subjects completed a modified 1RM
protocol for the front squat, back squat, conventional deadlift,
and sumo deadlift during 4 visits to the laboratory. During the
1RM protocol, a linear position transducer, the OBS, was at-
tached to the barbell while the IP app was simultaneously used to
record barbell movement during each repetition. Barbell ACV
(m·s21) and ROM (m) were recorded during the concentric por-
tion of each repetition from each device.
Subjects
Twenty-seven men and women (21 6 3 years old, age range: 19-35
years old; 76.7 6 14.5 kg; 1.72 6 0.09 m; mean 6 SD) who had
training experience with both the squat (front squat or back squat)
and deadlift (conventional or sumo deadlift) participated in this study.
All subjects were currently training with at least one form of the squat
(FS or BS) and one form of the deadlift (SD or CD) and were familiar
with both styles of each lift. This study was approved by Lindenwood
S96
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
University Belleville’s Institutional Review Board (approval #00065),
and all subjects provided written informed consent to participate.
Procedures
Anthropometrics. Standing height was recorded to the nearest
0.01 m with standard stadiometer (Tanita HR-200; Tanita Cor-
poration, Arlington Heights, IL), and body mass was recorded
with a digital scale (Tanita BWB-800S Doctors Scale; Tanita
Corporation) to the nearest 0.1 kg.
One Repetition Maximum Protocol. Subjects performed a stan-
dardized warm-up on a Monark cycle ergometer (Monark
Ergomedic 828 E) at a self-selected light intensity (i.e., rating of
perceived exertion 9–11) for 5 minutes. Using the subject’s esti-
mated 1RM (e1RM), the loads for the warm-up sets were de-
termined. Following the protocol recommended by Jovanovic
and Flanagan (14), warm-up sets consisted of 2–3 repetitions with
30–40% of the e1RM, 2 repetitions with 40–50% of the e1RM,
1–2 repetitions with 60–70% of the e1RM, and 1 repetition with
70–80% of the e1RM, and 1 repetition with 80–85% of the
e1RM. A minimum of 3 minutes was allotted between warm-up
sets. Subjects were instructed to lift with maximal effort on every
repetition regardless of the load being lifted, and they were en-
couraged to maintain consistent technique for each attempt.
Following the last warm-up attempt, the 1RM was determined as
the heaviest load (kilogram) lifted through a full ROM. Up to 5
attempts were used to determine the 1RM and a minimum of 3-
minute rest was allotted between each attempt.
Open Barbell System. The OBS device (Squats & Science Labs
LLC, Seattle, WA), a linear position transducer, was placed on
the floor with the cable aligned perpendicular to the ground
during the execution of each repetition. For the deadlift exer-
cises (conventional deadlift and sumo deadlift), the device was
placed in the center of the barbell, and for the squat exercises
(front squat and back squat), the device was placed on the
barbell sleeve on the lifter’s right hand side. Average concentric
velocity and ROM were recorded directly from the unit’s
electronic display. The OBS device provides a valid measure-
ment of ACV compared with a three-dimensional motion
capture system (12).
Iron Path App. The IP app (version 1.9; William Bishop,
Bothell, WA) was used to record ACV and ROM using an
iPhone 8 plus at a quality of 1,080 p at the standard video
recording speed of 30 frames per second. This was the default
recording speed for IP app used on the iPhone 8 plus. The
phone was held motionless on a support stand 1.83 m to the left
of the end of the barbell at a height of either 0.21 m (for the
deadlifts) or 1.07 m (for the squats) in line with the barbell in
the sagittal plane. The camera position was based on pilot
testing, which ensured that the full ROM was able to be
recorded for all repetitions. The video recorded of each repe-
tition included both the concentric and eccentric portion of
each repetition. During the video analysis, the highlighted re-
gion of interest to be traced was placed around the plates on the
barbell. Once the trace video process was complete, the file was
saved and exported to Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp,
Redmond, WA), which contained an instantaneous velocity
(m·s21), acceleration (m·s22), and distance (m) value for each
video frame (values from each frame listed sequentially row by
 Iron Path App Accuracy (2021) 35:2S | www.nsca.com

row). From the original video, the approximate time stamps of
the beginning and end of the concentric portion of each repe-
tition were noted for reference during the analysis of each Excel
file. From the Excel file, using the approximate time stamps as
reference, the concentric portion of each repetition was iden-
tified as the first frame (data row) with a positive velocity value
and ending at the frame (data row) immediately before the
frame in which velocity values registered as zero or negative.
All velocity values (all data rows) during the concentric portion
of the repetition were averaged to determine ACV. Range of
motion was determined over the same band of cells as ACV and
calculated as the absolute value of the difference between the
distance value recorded at the beginning and at the end of the
concentric portion of the repetition. Data were not smoothed,
and all data were reported in their raw form.
Statistical Analyses
All data are presented as mean 6 SD. The agreement of the IP app
in relation to the OBS was evaluated using Bland–Altman plots
(7) and folded empirical cumulative distribution plots (mountain
plots), along with Wilcoxon signed-rank paired-samples t-tests,
and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (based on a single-
rater, absolute agreement, two-way mixed-effects model) (15).
SPSS version 25 was used for calculation of the ICC and ICC 95%
confidence interval (CI) while JASP version 9.2 was used for
Wilcoxon signed-rank analyses. Statistical significance was set as
p # 0.05. RStudio (version 1.1.456, Boston MA) was used to
produce the Mountain plots, and Microsoft Excel was used to
produce the Bland–Altman
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Plots. The SEM was calculated as
SEM 5 SD 3 1 2 ICC.
Results
Descriptive Data, t-tests, ICCs, and SEMs
Table 1 presents the descriptive data for all dependent variables as
well as the ICCs and SEMs. The front-squat ACV and back-squat
ACV and ROM were significantly lower (p , 0.05) for the IP app
compared with the OBS device. The sumo deadlift ROM was
significantly greater (p , 0.05) for the IP app compared with the
OBS device.
Bland–Altman and Mountain Plots
Bland–Altman plots depict the mean bias (solid black line) and
limits of agreement (dashed black lines) for AVC (Figure 1) and
ROM (Figure 2) for the front squat (A), back squat (B),
conventional deadlift (C), and sumo deadlift (D). The limits of
agreement were as follows: front-squat ACV 20.17 to 0.23
m·s21, ROM 20.157 to 0.167 m; back-squat ACV 20.13 to
0.20 m·s21, ROM 20.132 to 0.195 m; conventional deadlift
ACV 20.13 to 0.16 m·s21, ROM 20.122 to 0.114 m; and sumo
deadlift ACV 20.15 to 0.17 m·s21, ROM 20.129 to 0.110 m.
The mountain plots for ACV (Figure 3) for front (A) and back
(B) squat depict ACV for IP to not be tightly conformed to the
zero difference line and show long tails (0.30–0.40 m·s21),
which suggests lower agreement between the devices. Figure 3C,
D shows the IP app to be tightly conformed to the zero difference
line for both conventional and sumo deadlift ACV; however, the
tails (.0.20 m·s21) do suggest a small degree of disagreement
between devices. Mountain plots for ROM (Figure 4) illustrate
that conventional deadlift (C) and sumo deadlift (D) ROM are
tightly conformed to the zero difference line (tails ;0.100 m)
suggesting agreement between devices. However, mountain
plots for front squat (A) and back squat (B) ROM show the IP
app ROM is not tightly conformed to the zero difference line
with longer tails (.0.200 m), suggesting lower agreement be-
tween the devices.
Discussion
The main finding of this study is that, compared with a vali-
dated linear position transducer, the IP app yielded significantly
different measures of AVC and ROM, and there was relatively
low agreement between the devices. Specifically, the IP app
underestimates ACV and ROM for the squat while over-
estimating ROM for the sumo deadlift compared with the OBS
device. The agreement of the IP app compared with the OBS
device seems to be affected by the type of lift it is recording with
the IP app demonstrating lower agreement for both ACV and
ROM in both squat exercises compared with both deadlift
exercises. Although the Bland–Altman plots demonstrate small
mean biases between the OBS and IP app in measuring ACV and
ROM, the limits of agreement show a relatively large range for
ACV (;60.20 m·s21) and ROM (;60.200 m) between the 2
devices for all 4 lifts. Consequently, these differences in ACV
could translate into large errors if using ACV to predict the
1RM or for training load prescription. Thus, we reject our
hypothesis that the 2 devices could be used interchangeably for
measuring ACV.
The lower agreement between devices for squat exercises
compared with the deadlift exercises is likely due to the fact
that calculation of ACV with the IP app requires the region of
interest to be traced, and there is greater variability in the bar
path tracing during the squat compared with the deadlift. This

Table 1
Descriptive statistics.*†
N OBS IP p ICC ICC 95% CI SEM
Front squat 49 ACV (m·s21) 0.44 6 0.18 0.41 6 0.14 0.041 0.789 0.648 to 0.876 0.07
ROM (m) 0.515 6 0.067 0.507 6 0.064 0.216 0.231 20.053 to 0.480 0.057
Back squat 65 ACV (m·s21) 0.44 6 0.15 0.43 6 0.23 ,0.001 0.825 0.698 to 0.897 0.06
ROM (m) 0.526 6 0.073 0.502 6 0.098 0.004 0.384 0.156 to 0.574 0.061
Conventional deadlift 98 ACV (m·s21) 0.44 6 0.18 0.42 6 0.15 0.153 0.897 0.849 to 0.930 0.05
ROM (m) 0.548 6 0.048 0.552 6 0.071 0.184 0.502 0.337 to 0.636 0.042
Sumo deadlift 93 ACV (m·s21) 0.39 6 0.18 0.39 6 0.17 0.654 0.866 0.805 to 0.909 0.02
ROM (m) 0.489 6 0.073 0.498 6 0.079 0.037 0.643 0.545 to 0.770 0.027
*ACV 5 average concentric velocity; ROM 5 range of motion; OBS 5 Open Barbell System; IP 5 Iron Path app; ICC 5 intraclass correlation coefficient; ICC 95% CI 5 ICC 95% confidence interval.
†All data shown as mean 6 SD.

S97

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Iron Path App Accuracy (2021) 35:2S

Figure 1. Bland–Altman plots showing agreement in ACV between devices for the front squat (A), back squat (B), conventional
deadlift (C), and sumo deadlift (D). Solid black line represents mean bias, and dashed lines represent limits of agreement. ACV
5 average concentric velocity.

variability is due to the transition between the eccentric and identifying the beginning of the concentric portion of the squat.
concentric phase of the squat. It is possible that the recording By contrast, the stationary bar position before the concentric
frame rate (30 frames per second) added to the error in phase of the deadlift may have allowed the IP app to gauge

Figure 2. Bland–Altman plots showing agreement in ROM between devices for the front squat (A), back squat (B), con-
ventional deadlift (C), and sumo deadlift (D). Solid black line represents mean bias, and dashed lines represent limits of
agreement. ROM 5 range of motion.

S98

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Iron Path App Accuracy (2021) 35:2S | www.nsca.com

Figure 3. Mountain plots showing agreement in ACV between devices for the front squat (A), back squat
(B), conventional deadlift (C), and sumo deadlift (D). ACV 5 average concentric velocity.

ACV and ROM more accurately and thus be in greater
agreement with the OBS. Notably, our sample size was also
lower for the comparison between devices with the squat
compared with our sample size for the deadlift. The lower
sample size for the squat was due to technical difficulty in
obtaining accurate bar path tracings with the IP app from the
squat videos, which was also due to the greater variability in
bar path for the squat. It was especially difficult to obtain ac-
curate bar path tracing if more than one repetition was per-
formed during the video.
The IP app’s accuracy in measuring ROM compared with
the OBS device was lower compared with the agreement be-
tween the 2 devices in measuring ACV. One explanation for
the lower agreement in measuring ROM could be due to the
frame rate (30 frames per second) at which the video was
recorded for the IP app. In the analysis of the excel files with
the IP app data, ACV was derived from the average velocity
over a range of data points, whereas ROM was derived as the
difference between 2 specific data points. Thus, if the limited
frame rate was a source of error for the IP app data, this would
have a larger effect on the ROM measurement calculated from
2 specific data points in time in comparison with the ACV
measurement, which is calculated as an average value over
many data points.
Our study is similar to a number of other recent inves-
tigations on the validity and reliability of different devices in
measuring ACV. The PUSH band wearable device was repor-
ted to have good to excellent (ICC 5 0.907; 95% CI 5
0.872–0.933) agreement in measuring ACV during the back
squat compared with a linear position transducer (1). How-
ever, similar to our study, the Bland–Altman plots revealed
relatively large limits of agreement (;60.20 m·s21) in ACV
between the devices (1), which would suggest a significant er-
ror if using the devices interchangeably for velocity-based
training. Similarly, another study reported good to excellent
agreement based on ICCs (ICC 5 0.923; 95% CI 5
0.889–0.946) between the PUSH band and a criterion three-
dimensional motion capture system. However, the PUSH band
underestimated ACV during the bench press and it was con-
cluded that the PUSH band did not provide a valid measure of
ACV (16). Several studies have also investigated the validity
and reliability of the PowerLift app in measuring ACV
(2,3,17). During the free-weight bench press exercise, the
PowerLift app was reported to have excellent agreement with
a linear position transducer in measuring ACV based on ICCs
(ICC 5 0.965; 95% CI 5 0.952–0.974) with smaller limits of
agreement (;60.11 m·s21) than observed in this study with
the IP app (3). However, the criterion in that study was

S99

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Iron Path App Accuracy (2021) 35:2S

Figure 4. Mountain plots showing agreement in ROM between devices for the front squat (A), back squat
(B), conventional deadlift (C), and sumo deadlift (D). ROM 5 range of motion.

a nonvalidated SmartCoach Power Encoder linear position trans-
ducer (3). Slightly greater (;60.15 m·s21) limits of agreement were
found between the PowerLift app and SmartCoach Power Encoder
in ACV during the hip thrust exercise (2). Furthermore, Perez-
Castilla et al. (17) showed larger limits of agreement (;60.22
m·s21) between the PowerLift app and a three-dimensional motion
capture for ACV during a Smith machine bench press. Another
low-cost video software (Kinovea) was investigated for mean
propulsive velocity during the bench press; however, this study
reported large mean biases and was only compared with a linear
position transducer and not a criterion device (20). Although this
study compared the IP app with a linear position transducer, the
OBS used presently was previously found to be valid (12). Specif-
ically, Goldsmith et al. reported low limits of agreement (20.04 to
0.03 m·s21) for the OBS versus a three-dimensional motion capture
for ACV. In other words, although this study did not compare the
IP app with a true criterion, the IP app was compared with the
linear position transducer, which, to the best of our knowledge, has
been shown to have the best level of agreement with any criterion
device reported in the literature to date (12).
Overall, our study suggests that the IP app does not provide
similar ACV and ROM measurements to the OBS device. Al-
though our study is not the first to show the lack of agreement
between a low-cost app and a linear position transducer, we
believe the present findings are unique because the OBS has been
truly validated against a criterion, and thus, we can be reason-
ably confident that the results of this study would be similar
versus a criterion device. Importantly, we also demonstrated the
type of exercise performed (squat vs. deadlift) may affect the
agreement between the IP app and a linear position transducer.
Although the viewing angle, camera height, and recording speed
used with the IP app in this study were within the recom-
mendations for weightlifting video analysis, the camera distance
from the barbell (,2 m) was less than what is recommended
($10 m) (11). This may have affected the accuracy of the IP app
but was also the largest distance feasible within the physical
constraints of the laboratory. However, we feel this distance
would be comparable with the distance available within most
training facilities, and thus, our setup provided a practical rep-
resentation of how the IP app would be used.

S100

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Iron Path App Accuracy (2021) 35:2S
Practical Applications
The agreement in measuring ACV between the IP app and OBS
device varies depending on the type of lift performed. Based on
the difficulty in obtaining accurate tracings of the bar path with
the IP app and the relatively large limits of agreement between
the 2 devices, we would not recommend the IP app as a tool for
measuring ACV as a means to adjust training loads regardless
of the exercise performed (squat or deadlift). Differences in
measured ACV values of 0.2 m·s21could translate into
15–20% differences in training load for free-weight barbell
exercises (10) if using the 2 devices interchangeably. Further-
more, Banyard et al. (5) reported that a within-individual ve-
locity difference of 0.06 m·s21 from session-to-session is
a worthwhile change. Thus, the 0.20-m·s21 difference between
devices could erroneously suggest improvement or regression in
performance from session-to-session if the devices were used
interchangeably. Although the IP app may be inexpensive and
reduce the requirement for additional equipment to measure
ACV, the data suggest the IP app does not provide similar
measures of ACV as a validated linear position transducer. The
IP app may provide more useful information to quantitate bar
path data under circumstances in which the barbell is motion-
less before the concentric portion.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the subjects who participated in this study for
their time and effort. The authors have no relationships to
disclose. The results of this study do not constitute endorsement
of the product by the authors or the NSCA.
References
1. Balsalobre-Fernandez C, Kuzdub M, Poveda-Ortiz P, Campo-Vecino JD.
Validity and reliability of the PUSH wearable device to measure movement
velocity during the back squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res 30:
1968–1974, 2016.
2. Balsalobre-Fernandez C, Marchante D, Baz-Valle E, et al. Analysis of
wearable and smartphone-based technologies for the measurement of
barbell velocity in different resistance training exercises. Front Physiol 8:
649, 2017.
3. Balsalobre-Fernandez C, Marchante D, Munoz-Lopez M, Jimenez SL.
Validity and reliability of a novel iPhone app for the measurement of
S101
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
barbell velocity and 1RM on the bench-press exercise. J Sports Sci 36:
64–70, 2018.
4. Banyard HG, Nosaka K, Haff GG. Reliability and validity of the load-
velocity relationship to predict the 1RM back squat. J Strength Cond Res
31: 1897–1904, 2017.
5. Banyard HG, Nosaka K, Vernon AD, Haff GG. The reliability of in-
dividualized load-velocity profiles. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 13:
763–769, 2018.
6. Banyard HG, Tufano JJ, Delgado J, Thompson SW, Nosaka K. Com-
parison of the effects of velocity-based training methods and traditional
1RM-percent-based training prescription on acute kinetic and kinematic
variables. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 14: 246–255, 2019.
7. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement be-
tween two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1: 307–310, 1986.
8. Conceicao F, Fernandes J, Lewis M, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Jimenez-Reyes P.
Movement velocity as a measure of exercise intensity in three lower limb
exercises. J Sports Sci 34: 1099–1106, 2016.
9. Dorrell HF, Smith MF, Gee TI. Comparison of velocity-based and tradi-
tional percentage-based loading methods on maximal strength and power
adaptations. J Strength Cond Res 34: 46–53, 2019.
10. Fahs CA, Blumkaitis JC, Rossow LM. Factors related to average con-
centric velocity of four barbell exercises at various loads. J Strength Cond
Res 33: 597–605, 2019.
11. Garhammer J, Newton H. Applied video analysis for coaches: Weight-
lifting examples. Int J Sports Sci Coach 8: 581–593, 2013.
12. Goldsmith JA, Trepeck C, Halle JL, et al. Validity of the open barbell and
Tendo weightlifting analyzer systems versus the optotrak certus 3D mo-
tion capture system for barbell velocity. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 14:
540–543, 2018.
13. Jidovtseff B, Harris NK, Crielaard JM, Cronin JB. Using the load-velocity
relationship for 1RM prediction. J Strength Cond Res 25: 267–270, 2011.
14. Jovanovic M, Flanagan EP. Researched applications of velocity based
strength training. J Aust Strength Cond 21: 58–69, 2014.
15. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass corre-
lation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15: 155–163,
2016.
16. McGrath GA, Flanagan EP, O’Donovan P, Collins DJ, Kenny IC. Velocity
based training: Validity of monitoring devices to assess mean concentric
velocity in the bench press exercise. J Aust Strength Cond 26: 23–30, 2018.
17. Perez-Castilla A, Piepoli A, Delgato-Carcia G, Garrido-Blanca G, Garcia-
Ramos A. Reliability and concurrent validity of seven commercially avail-
able devices for the assessment of movement velocity at different intensities
during the bench press. J Strength Cond Res 33: 1258–1265, 2019.
18. Sanchez-Medina L, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Perez CE, Pallares JG. Velocity-
and power-load relationships of the bench pull vs. bench press exercises.
Int J Sports Med 35: 209–216, 2014.
19. Sanchez-Medina L, Pallares JG, Perez CE, Moran-Navarro R, Gonzalez-
Badillo JJ. Estimation of relative load from bar velocity in the full back
squat exercise. Sports Med Int Open 1: E80–E88, 2017.
20. Sanudo B, Rueda D, Pozo-Cruz BD, de Hoyo M, Carrasco L. Validation
of a video analysis software package for quantifying movement velocity in
resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res 30: 2934–2941, 2016.