JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES, 2017

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2017.1280610

Validity and reliability of a novel iPhone app for the measurement of barbell
velocity and 1RM on the bench-press exercise
Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández a
, David Marchanteb, Mario Muñoz-Lópezb and Sergio L. Jiméneza
a
Department of Sport Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Madrid, Spain; bDepartment of Research & Development, Powerexplosive Center,
Madrid, Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of this study was to analyse the validity and reliability of a novel iPhone app (named: Accepted 4 January 2017
PowerLift) for the measurement of mean velocity on the bench-press exercise. Additionally, the accuracy
KEYWORDS
of the estimation of the 1-Repetition maximum (1RM) using the load–velocity relationship was tested.
Biomechanics; resistance
To do this, 10 powerlifters (Mean (SD): age = 26.5 ± 6.5 years; bench press 1RM · kg−1 = 1.34 ± 0.25) training; performance;
completed an incremental test on the bench-press exercise with 5 different loads (75–100% 1RM), while smartphone
the mean velocity of the barbell was registered using a linear transducer (LT) and Powerlift. Results
showed a very high correlation between the LT and the app (r = 0.94, SEE = 0.028 m · s−1) for the
measurement of mean velocity. Bland–Altman plots (R2 = 0.011) and intraclass correlation coefficient
(ICC = 0.965) revealed a very high agreement between both devices. A systematic bias by which the
app registered slightly higher values than the LT (P < 0.05; mean difference (SD) between
instruments = 0.008 ± 0.03 m · s−1). Finally, actual and estimated 1RM using the app were highly
correlated (r = 0.98, mean difference (SD) = 5.5 ± 9.6 kg, P < 0.05). The app was found to be highly valid
and reliable in comparison with a LT. These findings could have valuable practical applications for
strength and conditioning coaches who wish to measure barbell velocity in the bench-press exercise.

Introduction prescribing training intensity as a percentage of the 1RM (i.e.,

75% 1RM) has a major drawback: it requires performing a maximal
It has been extensively demonstrated that increases in mus-
effort that might increase the risk of injuries or overtraining, espe-
cular strength lead to significant enhancements in several
cially in untrained or weaker populations such as elderly people
physical activities such as jumping, sprinting, throwing, kicking
(Pollock et al., 1991). Therefore, several methodologies have been
or running, among others (Folland & Williams, 2007; Seitz,
developed to estimate 1RM using less invasive protocols, such as
Reyes, Tran, De Villarreal, & Haff, 2014; Suchomel, Nimphius,
performing a number of submaximal repetitions (Julio, Panissa, &
& Stone, 2016). One of the most common methods to increase
Franchini, 2012; Kravitz, Akalan, Nowicki, & Kinzey, 2003), register-
muscular strength is resistance training (Contreras et al., 2016;
ing the rate of perceived exertion (Day, McGuigan, Brice, & Foster,
Gonzalez-Badillo, Gorostiaga, Arellano, & Izquierdo, 2005;
2004; Robertson et al., 2008) or, more recently, measuring the
Schoenfeld, Ogborn, & Krieger, 2016). Thus, quantifying and
barbell’s displacement velocity during the lift (Bazuelo-Ruiz et al.,
prescribing resistance training programmes has been widely
2015; Conceição, Fernandes, Lewis, Gonzaléz-Badillo, & Jimenéz-
investigated in order to optimise the desired adaptations
Reyes, 2016; Gonzalez-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010; Jidovtseff,
(Brandon, Howatson, & Hunter, 2011; Gonzalez-Badillo &
Harris, Crielaard, & Cronin, 2011). Among them, velocity measure-
Sánchez-Medina, 2010; Singh, Foster, Tod, & McGuigan,
ment has been demonstrated to be the best non-invasive metho-
2007). Specifically, the manipulation of training intensity is
dology to estimate the 1RM of the participants thanks to the well-
considered key in the design of resistance training pro-
known load–velocity relationship, for which the velocity at which
grammes (Folland & Williams, 2007; Fry, 2004); in fact, it
the bar is lifted is extremely well correlated (R2 > 0.97) with the load
seems that the neuromuscular adaptations to resistance train-
it represents (Conceição et al., 2016; Gonzalez-Badillo & Sánchez-
ing are highly dependent on the intensity of the training
Medina, 2010; Jidovtseff et al., 2011). Therefore, measuring barbell
stimulus (Cormie, McGuigan, & Newton, 2010; Fry, 2004;
velocity allows us to estimate the 1RM with high accuracy without
Gonzalez-Badillo, Rodriguez-Rosell, Sanchez-Medina,
conducting an actual 1RM test.
Gorostiaga, & Pareja-Blanco, 2014).
Different technologies, such as linear transducers (LT), pro-
Over the last few decades, the measurement of the 1-Repetition
fessional accelerometers or advanced video systems have
maximum (1RM; i.e., the load that can be lifted just once) has been
been used to track barbell velocity (Comstock et al., 2011;
the most widely used methodology to quantify and prescribe
Crewther et al., 2011; Lake, Lauder, & Smith, 2012), with LT
resistance training intensities (McMaster, Gill, Cronin, &
often considered the gold standard by many researchers
McGuigan, 2014; Soriano, Suchomel, & Marín, 2016). However,

CONTACT Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández carlos.balsalobre@icloud.com Department of Sport Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, C/ Tajo, Villaviciosa
de Odón, Madrid 28670, Spain
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 C. BALSALOBRE-FERNÁNDEZ ET AL.
(Cormie, Deane, & McBride, 2007; Gonzalez-Badillo & Sánchez-
Medina, 2010; Jidovtseff et al., 2011). An LT consists of a sensor
with a cable that is attached to the barbell and measures
barbell velocity by (a) recording electrical signals proportional
to cable velocity (i.e., linear velocity transducers) or (b) differ-
entiating cable displacement with respect to time (i.e., linear
position transducers). However, LTs have 1 major drawback:
they are still too expensive for many coaches (about 2000 US
dollars). For this reason, recent studies have analysed the
validity and reliability of more affordable technologies used
to measure barbell velocity in resistance exercises, like low-
cost accelerometers or high-speed cameras (Balsalobre-
Fernández, Kuzdub, Poveda-Ortiz, & Campo-Vecino, 2016;
Sañudo, Rueda, Pozo-Cruz, De Hoyo, & Carrasco, 2016). Other
studies have even demonstrated that smartphones can mea-
sure different physical performance variables, such as vertical
jump height or range of motion (ROM; Balsalobre-Fernández,
Glaister, & Lockey, 2015; Patterson, Amick, Thummar, & Rogers,
2014), without any external device. This is thanks to the
advanced sensors included in the more recent models, making
the measurement process simple, practical and affordable.
However, no study has analysed the use of a smartphone
app to measure barbell velocity in resistance exercises. Thus,
the purpose of the present study was to analyse the concur-
rent validity and reliability of an iPhone app based on high-
speed video recording and Newtonian physics to calculate
barbell mean velocity on the bench-press exercise in compar-
ison with a LT and, subsequently, to compare the estimated
1RM of the athletes using the aforementioned load–velocity
relationship with their actual 1RM. We hypothesised that the
app would be highly valid and reliable for the measurement of
barbell mean velocity and 1RM on the bench-press exercise.
Methods
Participants
The participants in the present study were 10 resistance
trained males with at least 4 years of experience in bench-
press training (mean (SD): age = 26.5 ± 6.5 years,
height = 1.77 ± 0.1 m; body mass = 86.0 ± 24.3 kg; bench-
press 1RM = 111.7 ± 39.7 kg [or 1.34 ± 0.25 when normalising
per kg of body mass]). The study protocol complied with the
Declaration of Helsinki for Human Experimentation and was
approved by the ethics committee at the institutional review
board. Written informed consent was obtained from each
participant in advance.
Experimental approach
Athletes performed 5 sets on the bench-press exercise with
loads ranging 75–100% of their 1RM while barbell mean
velocity was being recorded with the Smartcoach Power
Encoder (Smartcoach Europe, Stockholm, Sweden) LT and an
iPhone app called PowerLift, simultaneously. Each athlete
performed 3 repetitions with the 75%, 80%, 85% and 90%
1RM, and 1 repetition with the 100% 1RM for a total of 13
repetitions. Concentric mean velocities of the resultant 130
repetitions measured with both systems were compared for
validity and reliability purposes using several statistical
analyses. Additionally, the 1RM estimated by the app was
compared to the actual 1RM measured in the aforemen-
tioned incremental test.
Instruments
App. The PowerLift app was developed using Xcode 7.3.1 for
Mac OS X 10.11.5 and the Swift 2.1.1 programming language
(Apple Inc., USA). The AVFoundation and AVKit frameworks
(Apple Inc., USA) were used for capturing, importing and
manipulating high-speed videos. Then, the app (version 2.8)
was installed on an iPhone 6 running iOS 9.3.2 (Apple Inc.,
USA) which has a recording frequency of 240 frames per second
(fps) at a quality of 720 p. To measure mean velocity, PowerLift
was designed to allow calculation of the time (in ms) between 2
frames selected by the user and, subsequently, the velocity of
the barbell using the well-known Newtonian equation (1):
v ¼ d=t; (1)
where v is the mean velocity of the barbell (in m · s−1), d the
vertical distance from the chest of the athlete to the bar in the
final position of the bench press (i.e., the full ROM – which
needs to be entered in the app), and t the time of the
concentric phase of the lift.
To record the videos, a researcher held the iPhone in his
hand in portrait position and recorded each lift from behind
the athlete (i.e., facing the head of the participant) at 1.5 m
from the bench and at the same height of participant’s chest
in order to see the full ROM as close as possible. See Figure 1
for more details.
The beginning of the lift was considered as the first frame
in which the barbell left the chest of the athletes, and the end
of the lift was considered as the first frame in which the
barbell ended its vertical displacement. Since this procedure
requires a manual selection by the researcher, 2 independent
observers analysed the same videos to test the inter-observer
reliability as proposed elsewhere (Balsalobre-Fernández et al.,
2015). After recording each repetition, the app exported the
velocity measure to a spreadsheet for further analysis
Linear transducer. The Smartcoach Power Encoder LT
(Smartcoach Europe, Stockholm, Sweden) was used as the
criterion for measuring barbell velocity. To register mean velo-
city using the Smartcoach LT, its cable was attached to the
barbell following the criteria described by the manufacturer,
which basically require the cable to be aligned with the ver-
tical axis. It should be noted that this LT measures velocity just
in the vertical axis and does not register horizontal displace-
ments that occurs while bench-pressing (Van Den Tillaar &
Ettema, 2009). Then, the LT was connected to the
Smartcoach software 5.0.0 installed on a personal computer
running the Windows 10 operating system. Mean velocity
values in m · s−1 were recorded for each repetition in the
aforementioned software. The LT had a sampling frequency
of 1000 Hz.
1RM incremental test
After conducting a 15-min warm-up consisting of dynamic
stretching and preparatory exercises (i.e., glenohumeral joint
external rotations, scapular retractions and bench presses with

Figure 1. User interface of the PowerLift app showing its main controllers.
the 50% 1RM), participants performed 5 different sets on the
bench-press exercise with increasing loads corresponding
approximately to their 75%, 80%, 85%, 90% and 100% 1RM.
For the first 4 sets (i.e., loads ranging 75–90% 1RM), athletes
performed 3 repetitions, while for the last set athletes per-
formed 1 repetition (i.e., the 1RM). If some participant could
perform more than 1 repetitions with the fifth load, an addi-
tional set with a heavier load was performed in order to reach
the 1RM. Sets were separated by 5 min of passive rest. Athletes
were instructed to perform each repetition as fast as possible,
and all of them were experts on the bench-press exercise.
Estimation of the 1RM using the load–velocity relationship
In addition to barbell velocity measurement, the PowerLift app
was also designed to estimate the 1RM using the well-known
force (load)–velocity relationship (Gonzalez-Badillo & Sánchez-
Medina, 2010; Jidovtseff et al., 2011). To do this, the algorithm
of the app needs 4 different submaximal loads with their
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 3
corresponding barbell velocity and the velocity of the 1RM
(v-1RM) which, as demonstrated elsewhere, is almost identical
for different resistance-trained participants (Conceição et al.,
2016; Gonzalez-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010; Sánchez-
Medina, Gonzalez-Badillo, Perez, & Pallares, 2014). Then, an
individual load–velocity profile is created using least squares
to obtain a linear regression equation as follows (2):
v ¼ sm þ i; (2)
where v is the velocity of the barbell (in m · s−1), m the mass of
the load (in kg), s the slope of the straight-line equation and i
the y-intercept. Thus, if m is isolated (3):
ðv # i Þ
m¼ ; (3)
s
the 1RM (m in this case) can be calculated by replacing v with
the value of v-1RM.
In order to compare the actual 1RM with the 1RM esti-
mated with the app, the loads performed in the test ranging
75–90% 1RM were used for the regression analysis.
Furthermore, for comparison purposes, the same approach
was used to estimate the 1RM with the velocities obtained
from the LT.
Range of motion measurement
As mentioned above, the ROM in the bench-press exercise
needs to be entered in the app to calculate the mean velocity
for the barbell. To measure the athletes’ ROM, participants
held the final position on the bench-press exercise with an
empty barbell (i.e., elbows fully extended) while an experi-
enced researcher measured the vertical distance from the
bar to the chest with a metric tape.
Statistical analyses
First, the app’s concurrent validity was tested using Pearson’s
product–moment correlation coefficient (r) with 90% confi-
dence intervals (CI) via bootstrapping. Second, to analyse the
level of agreement (reliability) of the app to measure mean
velocity in comparison with the LT, the intraclass correlation
coefficient (ICC −2.1) with 90% CI and Cronbach’s alpha were
used. Also, paired samples t-test and Bland–Altman plots
were used to identify potential systematic bias, reported via
mean bias, standard deviations and the analysis of the
regression line on the Bland–Altman plots. Furthermore,
standard error of estimate (SEE) was also used to report the
typical error in the measurements. Third, to test the inter-
observers’ reliability in the measurement of mean velocity
using the app, as well as to identify potential systematic
differences between observers, the ICC (2.1) with 90% CI
and the independent measures t-test were used. Finally, to
compare the actual 1RM of the athletes with the one esti-
mated with the app, the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-
rank test was used. The level of significance was set at 0.01.
All calculations were performed using IBM® SPSS® Statistics
22 software (IBM Co., USA).
4 C. BALSALOBRE-FERNÁNDEZ ET AL.
Results
Concurrent validity of the app
When analysing the whole data set (130 individual velocities),
Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient showed a sig-
nificant, very high relationship between the values of mean
velocity measured with PowerLift and the LT (r = 0.94,
CI = 0.92–0.96, SEE = 0.028 m · s−1, slope of the regression
line = 0.97, P < 0.001). See Figure 2 for more details.
Reliability and accuracy of the measurements with the
app vs. LT
There was a very high agreement between the values of mean
velocity measured with PowerLift and those measured with the
LT as revealed by the ICC, Cronbach’s alpha and Bland–Altman
plots (ICC = 0.965, CI = 0.952–0.974; α = 0.967). See Figure 3
for more details.
The paired samples t-test revealed a systematic bias by
which the values obtained with the app tended to be slightly
higher than those measured with the LT (P < 0.05; mean
difference (SD) between instruments = 0.008 ± 0.03 m · s−1,
90% CI = 0.004–0.014). Moreover, when analysing the value of
R2 between the mean of the 2 instruments vs. the difference
between the 2 instruments (i.e., the X and Y axis on the Bland–
Altman plot, respectively), a null relationship was observed
(R2 = 0.011), indicating that the difference between instru-
ments is similar across the entire range of velocities measured.
Intra-observers’ reliability
Independent measures t-test revealed no significant differ-
ences between the values of mean velocity measured by the
2 observers (P = 0.549; mean (SD) difference between
observers = −0.0007 ± 0.02 m · s−1). Moreover, the ICC
(ICC = 0.941, 90% CI = 0.922–0.955) and the Bland–Altman
plot (R2 = 0.022) showed a very high agreement between both
Figure 2. Concurrent validity between PowerLift’s and linear transducer’s mean
velocity. LT = linear transducer.
observers in the measurement of mean velocity using
PowerLift. See Figure 3 for more details.
Estimated vs. actual 1RM comparison
There was a very high, significant correlation between the
actual 1RM and the 1RM estimated using PowerLift (r = 0.98,
CI = 0.97–0.99, P < 0.001). 1RM values estimated by the app
were significantly different from the actual 1RM values of the
athletes as revealed by Wilcoxon’s signed-rank test (mean (SD):
actual 1RM = 111.7 ± 39.7 kg; estimated 1RM = 106.2 ± 45.2 kg;
mean difference = 5.5 ± 9.6 kg; P = 0.008). Nine out of 10
participants had actual 1RMs higher than the value estimated
from the app, while 1 participant’s actual 1RM was lower than
estimated 1RM. See Figure 4 for more details. However, there
were no significant differences between the 1RM estimated
with the app or with the LT (mean (SD): app’s estimated
1RM = 106.2 ± 45.2 kg; LT’s estimated 1RM = 107.6 ± 48.6 kg;
mean difference = −1.1 ± 5.6 kg; P = 0.45).
Discussion
The app was found to be highly valid and reliable for the
measurement of mean velocity in comparison with a LT.
Data showed a very high correlation between the values
obtained with the app vs. the LT (r = 0.94). Bootstrapping
analysis (N = 1000) calculated a very narrow CI for Pearson’s
product–moment correlation coefficient (CI = 0.92–0.96), high-
lighting the good association between both devices for mea-
suring mean velocity. Moreover, the slope of the regression
line between the velocity values obtained with both devices
(s = 0.97) was very close to the identity line (i.e., the straight
line represented by the equation: y = x), meaning that the
values measured with both devices were very similar.
However, there was a systematic bias (P < 0.05) between the
2 devices as revealed by the paired samples t-test by which
the velocities measured with PowerLift tended to be slightly
higher than those measured with the LT (mean
difference = 0.008 m · s−1). This might be due to the fact
that the LT (which works at 1000 Hz) captured the concentric
vertical displacement of the barbell before it could be visually
detected with the 240 Hz video recorded by the app, making
the final mean velocity slightly lower. This is in line with
previous research that observed that video systems registered
higher velocities than LTs in resistance exercises (Sañudo et al.,
2016). Finally, the level of agreement between PowerLift and
the LT was also very high, as revealed by the ICC (ICC = 0.965)
and the Bland–Altman plot. The analysis of the regression line
between the data points on the Bland–Altman plot showed a
very low R2 value (R2 = 0.011) with a slope very close to 0,
meaning that the differences between instruments were
almost the same across the whole range of velocities (and,
subsequently, loads) analysed. However, since small differ-
ences (i.e., <0.1 m · s−1) in mean velocity could represent
variations of about 5% in training intensity (Gonzalez-Badillo
& Sánchez-Medina, 2010; Sánchez-Medina et al., 2014), it is
recommended not to use PowerLift and a LT interchangeably.
Previous studies have successfully validated low-cost tech-
nologies such as wearable devices or open-source video
 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 5

Figure 3. Bland–Altman plots for the measurement of mean velocity between: (a) instruments and (b) observers. The horizontal thin lines represent the observed
bias with 1.96 standard deviations (SD), while the thick line is the regression line of the data points.

software with LT (Balsalobre-Fernández et al., 2016; Sañudo
et al., 2016). Specifically, 1 previous study showed that video
analysis can provide valid measurements of barbell velocity on
the bench-press exercise (Sañudo et al., 2016); however, the
accuracy of the video software observed in that study was
much lower than that found in our study, with mean differ-
ences ranging from 0.14 to 0.59 m · s−1 compared with a LT.
This was probably due to the fact that these authors used
50 Hz (i.e., normal speed) video recording instead of high-
speed recording, which allows a much better frame-by-frame
measurement (Balsalobre-Fernández et al., 2015).
An additional aim in the present study is the accuracy of
the app to estimate the 1RM of the athletes. The app uses the
well-known load–velocity relationship to predict the 1RM
using least squares as proposed elsewhere (Gonzalez-Badillo
& Sánchez-Medina, 2010; Jidovtseff et al., 2011). Several
investigations have observed that this approach can provide
accurate estimations of the 1RM in different exercises
(Bazuelo-Ruiz et al., 2015; Jidovtseff et al., 2011; Picerno
et al., 2016); however, although we observed very high corre-
lations between actual and estimated 1RM values (r = 0.98),
significant differences between participant’s actual and esti-
mated 1RM were found (P < 0.05). Specifically, 9 from 10
participants’ 1RM values were significantly underestimated.
This might be due to the fact that the app’s algorithm uses
a value of v-1RM equal to 0.17 m · s−1 as reported elsewhere
(Gonzalez-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010; Sánchez-Medina
et al., 2014). As described in the materials and methods sec-
tion, the v-1RM value is needed to estimate the 1RM using the
slope and the y-intercept of the linear regression equation.
However, the value of v-1RM of the athletes on our study was
0.14 m · s−1 on average. For this, the linear regression
6 C. BALSALOBRE-FERNÁNDEZ ET AL.
Figure 4. Actual and PowerLift’s estimated 1RM values of each athlete.
computed by PowerLift underestimated the value of 1RM.
Furthermore, we computed the same linear regression using
velocities from the LT, and we observed that the estimated
1RM was not significantly different from the 1RM estimated
using the app (mean difference = −1.1 kg; P = 0.45). Thus, both
instrumentals underestimated the 1RM very similarly in our
study. In any case, the app was proven to estimate the 1RM in
the bench-press exercise, with levels of precision similar to
those obtained with LT (Bosquet, Porta-Benache, & Blais, 2010;
Jidovtseff et al., 2011) or submaximal repetitions to failure
(Julio et al., 2012; Kravitz et al., 2003) (≈5 kg), as observed in
previous studies. Thus, the app could be used to estimate the
1RM with submaximal loads (i.e., 75–90% 1RM) without the
need to perform an actual 1RM test or repetitions to failure,
which might impair performance and recovery due to its
maximal intensity (Davies, Orr, Halaki, & Hackett, 2016;
Pareja-Blanco et al., 2016).
The major drawback of the app is the manual selection of
the beginning and end of the movement by inspecting the
high-speed videos on the app. However, to address this
issue we compared the reliability of 2 observers who inde-
pendently analysed each video with PowerLift to measure
mean velocity. A very high agreement between observers’
measured velocities was observed, as revealed by the ICC
(ICC = 0.969), the independent measures t-test (P = 0.549)
and the Bland–Altman plot where no systematic bias was
identified (Bias = 0.0007 m · s−1; R2 = 0.022). These results
confirm the good inter-observers agreement when analysing
high-speed videos (Balsalobre-Fernández et al., 2015). Also, it
is worth noting that the app, due to the very simple method
used to calculate velocity, cannot provide measures of peak
or mean propulsive velocity (MPV), the latter being espe-
cially relevant since it can better detect the neuromuscular
capabilities of the participant (Sanchez-Medina, Perez, &
Gonzalez-Badillo, 2010). However, if medium to high sub-
maximal loads are used (i.e., 75–90% approximately), the
braking phase on the bench-press exercise drops to 0%
and, therefore, mean velocity equals MPV (Sanchez-Medina
et al., 2010); thus, if coaches want to calculate MPV with the
app, medium to high loads should be used.
In conclusion, the PowerLift app was proven to be a highly
valid, reliable and accurate instrument to measure mean velo-
city and, subsequently, to estimate the 1RM on the bench-
press exercise. However, since a systematic bias was observed,
the PowerLift app should not be used interchangeably with a
LT. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study
analysing the validity of an iPhone app for measuring mean
velocity in resistance exercises.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors want to thank the participants and the observers for their
involvement in the present study.
Disclosure statement
The first author of the article is the developer of the app mentioned. The
data from the app were obtained from two independent observers not
related to the app development.
ORCID
Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8329-1581
References
Balsalobre-Fernández, C., Glaister, M., & Lockey, R. A. (2015). The validity
and reliability of an iPhone app for measuring vertical jump perfor-
mance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 33(15), 1574–1579. doi:10.1080/
02640414.2014.996184
Balsalobre-Fernández, C., Kuzdub, M., Poveda-Ortiz, P., & Campo-Vecino, J.
D. (2016). Validity and reliability of the push wearable device to mea-
sure movement velocity during the back squat exercise. Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research, 30(7), 1968–1974. doi:10.1519/
JSC.0000000000001284
Bazuelo-Ruiz, B., Padial, P., García-Ramos, A., Morales-Artacho, A. J.,
Miranda, M. T., & Feriche, B. (2015). Predicting maximal dynamic
strength from the load-velocity relationship in squat exercise. Journal
of Strength & Conditioning Research, 29(7), 1999–2005. doi:10.1519/
JSC.0000000000000821
Bosquet, L., Porta-Benache, J., & Blais, J. (2010). Validity of a commercial
linear encoder to estimate bench press 1 RM from the force-velocity
relationship. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 9(3), 459–463.
Brandon, R., Howatson, G., & Hunter, A. (2011). Reliability of a combined
biomechanical and surface electromyographical analysis system during
dynamic barbell squat exercise. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29(13), 1389–
1397. doi:10.1080/02640414.2011.588956
Comstock, B. A., Solomon-Hill, G., Flanagan, S. D., Earp, J. E., Luk, H.-Y.,
Dobbins, K. A., . . . Kraemer, W. J. (2011). Validity of the Myotest® in
measuring force and power production in the squat and bench press.
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25(8), 2293–2297. https://
doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e318200b78c
Conceição, F., Fernandes, J., Lewis, M., Gonzaléz-Badillo, J. J., & Jimenéz-
Reyes, P. (2016). Movement velocity as a measure of exercise intensity
in three lower limb exercises. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(12), 1099–
1106. doi:10.1080/02640414.2015.1090010
Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A. D., Schoenfeld, B. J., Beardsley, C., McMaster, D.
T., Reyneke, J., & Cronin, J. (2016). Effects of a six-week hip thrust versus
front squat resistance training program on performance in adolescent
males. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. https://doi.org/10.
1519/JSC.0000000000001510

Cormie, P., Deane, R., & McBride, J. M. (2007). Methodological concerns for
determining power output in the jump squat. Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 21(2), 424–430. https://doi.org/10.1519/r-19605.1
Cormie, P., McGuigan, M. R., & Newton, R. U. (2010). Adaptations in athletic
performance after ballistic power versus strength training. Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise, 42(8), 1582–1598. Journal Article https://doi.
org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181d2013a
Crewther, B. T., Kilduff, L. P., Cunningham, D. J., Cook, C., Owen, N., & Yang,
G. Z. (2011). Validating two systems for estimating force and power.
International Journal of Sports Medicine, 32(4), 254–258. doi:10.1055/s-
0030-1270487
Davies, T., Orr, R., Halaki, M., & Hackett, D. (2016). Effect of training leading
to repetition failure on muscular strength: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Sports Medicine, 46(4), 487–502. doi:10.1007/s40279-015-0451-3
Day, M. L., McGuigan, M. R., Brice, G., & Foster, C. (2004). Monitoring
exercise intensity during resistance training using the session RPE
scale. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 18(2), 353–358.
https://doi.org/10.1519/r-13113.1
Folland, J. P., & Williams, A. G. (2007). The adaptations to strength training.
Sports Medicine, 37(2), 145–168. doi:10.2165/00007256-200737020-00004
Fry, A. C. (2004). The role of resistance exercise intensity on muscle fibre
adaptations. Sports Medicine, 34(10), 663–679. doi:10.2165/00007256-
200434100-00004
Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J., Gorostiaga, E. M., Arellano, R., & Izquierdo, M. (2005).
Moderate resistance training volume produces more favorable strength
gains than high or low volumes during a short-term training cycle.
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 19(3), 689–697.
Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J., Rodriguez-Rosell, D., Sanchez-Medina, L.,
Gorostiaga, E. M., & Pareja-Blanco, F. (2014). Maximal intended velocity
training induces greater gains in bench press performance than delib-
erately slower half-velocity training. European Journal of Sport Science,
14(8), 772–781. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2014.905987
Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J., & Sánchez-Medina, L. (2010). Movement velocity as
a measure of loading intensity in resistance training. International
Journal of Sports Medicine, 31(5), 347–352. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1248333
Jidovtseff, B., Harris, N. K., Crielaard, J.-M., & Cronin, J. B. (2011). Using the
load-velocity relationship for 1RM prediction. Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 25(1), 267–270. doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e3181b62c5f
Julio, U. F., Panissa, V. L. G., & Franchini, E. (2012). Prediction of one
repetition maximum from the maximum number of repetitions with
submaximal loads in recreationally strength-trained men. Science &
Sports, 27(6), e69–e76. doi:10.1016/j.scispo.2012.07.003
Kravitz, L., Akalan, C., Nowicki, K., & Kinzey, S. J. (2003). Prediction of 1
repetition maximum in high-school power lifters. Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 17(1), 167–172.
Lake, J. P., Lauder, M. A., & Smith, N. A. (2012). Barbell kinematics should
not be used to estimate power output applied to the Barbell-and-body
system center of mass during lower-body resistance exercise. Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(5), 1302–1307. doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e31822e7b48
McMaster, D., Gill, N., Cronin, J., & McGuigan, M. (2014). A brief review of
strength and ballistic assessment methodologies in sport. Sports
Medicine, 44(5), 603–623. doi:10.1007/s40279-014-0145-2
View publication stats
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 7
Pareja-Blanco, F., Rodríguez-Rosell, D., Sánchez-Medina, L., Sanchis-Moysi,
J., Dorado, C., Mora-Custodio, R., . . . González-Badillo, J. J. (2016). Effects
of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance,
strength gains and muscle adaptations. Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine & Science in Sports. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12678
Patterson, J. A., Amick, R. Z., Thummar, T., & Rogers, M. E. (2014). Validation
of measures from the smartphone sway balance application: A pilot
study. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 9(2), 135–139.
Picerno, P., Iannetta, D., Comotto, S., Donati, M., Pecoraro, F., Zok, M., . . .
Piacentini, M. F. (2016). 1RM prediction: A novel methodology based on
the force–velocity and load–velocity relationships. European Journal of
Applied Physiology, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-016-3457-0
Pollock, M. L., Carroll, J. F., Graves, J. E., Leggett, S. H., Braith, R. W.,
Limacher, M., & Hagberg, J. M. (1991). Injuries and adherence to walk/
jog and resistance training programs in the elderly. Medicine & Science
in Sports & Exercise, 23(10), 1194–1200. doi:10.1249/00005768-
199110000-00014
Robertson, R. J., Goss, F. L., Aaron, D. J., Gairola, A., Kowallis, R. A., Ying, L.,
. . . White, B. (2008). One repetition maximum prediction models for
children using the omni rpe scale. Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 22(1), 196–201. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31815f6283
Sánchez-Medina, L., Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J., Perez, C. E., & Pallares, J. G.
(2014). Velocity- and power-load relationships of the bench pull vs.
Bench press exercises. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 35(3),
209–216. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1351252
Sanchez-Medina, L., Perez, C. E., & Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J. (2010). Importance
of the propulsive phase in strength assessment. International Journal of
Sports Medicine, 31(2), 123–129. doi:10.1055/s-0029-1242815
Sañudo, B., Rueda, D., Pozo-Cruz, B. D., De Hoyo, M., & Carrasco, L. (2016).
Validation of a video analysis software package for quantifying move-
ment velocity in resistance exercises. Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 30(10), 2934–2941. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000563
Schoenfeld, B. J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2016). Effects of resistance
training frequency on measures of muscle hypertrophy: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 46(11), 1689–1697.
doi:10.1007/s40279-016-0543-8
Seitz, L. B., Reyes, A., Tran, T. T., De Villarreal, E. S., & Haff, G. G. (2014).
Increases in lower-body strength transfer positively to sprint perfor-
mance: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 44(12),
1693–1702. doi:10.1007/s40279-014-0227-1
Singh, F., Foster, C., Tod, D., & McGuigan, M. R. (2007). Monitoring different
types of resistance training using session rating of perceived exertion.
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2(1), 34–45.
doi:10.1123/ijspp.2.1.34
Soriano, M. A., Suchomel, T. J., & Marín, P. J. (2016). The optimal load for
maximal power production during upper-body resistance exercises: A
meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 45(8), 1191–1205. doi:10.1007/s40279-
015-0341-8
Suchomel, T. J., Nimphius, S., & Stone, M. H. (2016). The importance of
muscular strength in athletic performance. Sports Medicine, 46(10),
1419–1449. doi:10.1007/s40279-016-0486-0
Van Den Tillaar, R., & Ettema, G. (2009). A comparison of successful and
unsuccessful attempts in maximal bench pressing. Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise, 41(11), 2056–2063. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.
0b013e3181a8c360