See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/360856873

Level of agreement and reliability of ADR encoder to monitor mean propulsive

velocity during the bench press exercise

Article in Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part P Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology · May 2022
DOI: 10.1177/17543371221100395

CITATION READS

1 477

5 authors, including:

Adrian Moreno Villanueva Markel Rico-González

University Isabel I Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
21 PUBLICATIONS 89 CITATIONS 125 PUBLICATIONS 1,172 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Guillermo Rodríguez Valero Jose Pino Ortega

University of Murcia University of Murcia
1 PUBLICATION 1 CITATION 250 PUBLICATIONS 3,335 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Adrian Moreno Villanueva on 26 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Article

Proc IMechE Part P:

J Sports Engineering and Technology
1–12
Level of agreement and reliability of Ó IMechE 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
ADR encoder to monitor mean sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17543371221100395

propulsive velocity during the bench journals.sagepub.com/home/pip

press exercise

Adrián Moreno-Villanueva1 , Markel Rico-González2,3 , Carlos Esteban

Pérez-Caballero1, Guillermo Rodrı́guez-Valero1 and José Pino-Ortega1,2

Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and the level of agreement of the ADR encoder to measure the mean propul-
sive velocity (MPV) of the bar in the bench press (BP) exercise on the Smith machine. Eleven males (21.6 6 1.5 years;
body mass 76.05 6 9.73 kg) performed the protocol with isometric phase prior to concentric muscle action (PP) and the
protocol in the absence of isometric phase (N-PP) for BP exercise on Smith machine. ADR encoder reported reliability
values with almost perfect correlations in all training zones and protocols (PP: ICC = 0.940–0.999, r = 0.899–0.997,
CV = 1.56%–4.05%, SEM = 0.0022–0.0153,and MDC = 0.006–0.031 m/s; N-PP: ICC = 0.963–0.999, r = 0.946–0.998,
CV = 0.70%–3.01%, SEM = 0.0012–0.0099, and MDC = 0.003–0.027 m/s). Although the levels of agreement were high in
both protocols (PP: SEM = 0.0024–0.0204 m/s, MDC = 0.007–0.057 m/s; N-PP: SEM = 0.0034–0.0288 m/s, MDC = 0.009–
0.080 m/s), ADR encoder considerably underestimated the MPV values in both protocols (PP: t = 22.239 to 29.486, p
\ 0.001–0.01; N-PP: t = 26.901 to 217.871, p \ 0.001) with respect to the gold standard (T-Force). In conclusion,
ADR encoder offers high reliability for the measurement of MPV in bench press exercise performed on Smith machine
regardless of their execution mode, in the entire range of intensities. However, this device is not interchangeable with T-
Force since it considerably underestimates the MPV values, especially at low loads (0%–40%). Furthermore, the use of
too wide load ranges suggests that the data be interpreted with caution, pending further research to corroborate the
findings presented.

Keywords
Reproducibility, repeatability, exercise testing, velocity-based training, resistance training, bench press, barbell, velocity-
based resistance training, ADR encoder

Date received: 28 July 2021; accepted: 23 April 2022

Introduction practical, and effective way.6,13,14 In addition, the possi-

The ability to quickly overcome a certain load conti-
nuum causes an improvement in muscle performance,
with its consequent increase in athletic and sports per-
formance.1,2 Previously, the existence of a strong corre-
lation between execution velocity and the different
relative loads based on the one-repetition maximum
(1RM) has been demonstrated.3–5 Therefore, in recent
years, velocity-based resistance training (VBT) has been
postulated as one of the main methods of quantifica-
tion and monitoring of training loads.6–8 This method
allows creating individualized force-velocity profiles,9,10
as well as knowing the physiological state6,11 and the
level of fatigue8,12 of an athlete in a non-invasive,
bility of measuring the speed of the bar in real time
1
Faculty of Sports Sciences, University of Murcia, San Javier, Spain
2
BIOVETMED & SPORTSCI Research Group, Department of Physical
Activity and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Murcia, San
Javier, Murcia
3
Department of Physical Education and Sport, University of the Basque
Country, UPV/EHU, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
Corresponding author:
Adrián Moreno-Villanueva, BIOVETMED & SPORTSCI Research Group,
Department of Physical Activity and Sport, Faculty of Sports Sciences,
University of Murcia, C/ Argentina, Campus de San Javier, Murcia 30720,
Spain.
Email: more_adri@hotmail.com
2 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 00(0)
provides instant knowledge of the results to the athletes
themselves, improving their motivation, involvement,
and the quality of the data collected.15–17 VBT also
allows an athlete to set different training zones based
on a predetermined work goal.6 However, the practical-
ity and efficiency of VBT depends directly on the
degree of precision and reliability of the devices used to
measure the required kinetic data.
Force platforms and 3D motion capture systems
have been widely used as ‘‘gold standard’’ devices for
the measurement of variables related to force and
power.18–20 However, the use of these devices is often
not affordable or practical, so they are usually limited
to laboratory work.21,22 Faced with these limitations,
linear transducers (LT) are presented as a valid and reli-
able alternative to measure execution velocity in resis-
tance training.23,24 Within this branch of devices, linear
velocity transducers (LVT) directly calculate velocity
measurements through a precision tachometer,8,25 by
recording electrical signals proportional to the exten-
sion velocity of a cable attached to the bar.25,26 These
calculation procedures aid in the minimization of mea-
surement errors from data processing by derivation,
which is why its implementation as a gold standard cri-
terion is currently growing.8,26 On the other hand, lin-
ear position transducers (LPT) are composed of an
isoinertial dynamometer, and unlike LVT, they directly
measure the vertical displacement of the cable.27,28 This
displacement time data is derived using the inverse
dynamics approach to obtain velocity.27,28 However,
these devices have some inherent limitations to their
technology. There is also evidence that their ability to
detect the actual onset of movement is reduced in plyo-
metric movements without a previous isometric phase,
as well as in light loads.29,30 This fact, together with the
double processing of the data to obtain the velocity
data through the displacement of the cable, makes the
LPTs underestimate the velocity data compared to
LVT devices, with a direct velocity calculation proce-
dure.27,28,31 Therefore, both the nature of the exercise
(i.e. plyometric or non-plyometric) and the way it is
performed (e.g. with or without isometric phase) and
the load applied, are factors that can alter the reliability
and agreement of the LPTs.20,28,32
The increasing use of LPTs for VBT monitoring has
led to the manufacture of these devices by various
brands, each with their own technological characteris-
tics, such as sampling frequency and calculation algo-
rithms. Consequently, there is a need to independently
and objectively carry out agreement and reliability tests
of these emerging instruments, in order to guarantee
their efficiency and quality for the monitoring of velo-
city measurements. ADR encoder (Toledo, Spain) is a
new LPT that has burst onto the sports market recently,
as a tool that allows the user to measure velocity vari-
ables instantly. However, there are no studies evaluat-
ing the reliability and level of agreement of this device.
Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate
the reliability and the level of agreement of the ADR
encoder to measure the velocity of the movement in the
bench press exercise on the Smith machine, throughout
the load spectrum, with and without isometric phase
prior to the concentric contraction regime. The main
hypotheses were that the reliability levels would be
slightly lower in the protocol without a previous iso-
metric phase.29,33 On the other hand, the ADR devices
would meet the requirements according to both inter-
vention protocols, but would be interchangeable with
respect to their gold standard due to underestimating
the measurement results.24,25 Furthermore, we also
hypothesized that the lowest agreement and reliability
values would occur at higher execution velocities (i.e. at
light loads).34
Method
Experimental approach to the problem
Two devices of different technologies (LPT and LVT)
were used simultaneously to analyze a barbell’s velocity
during mean propulsive velocity (MPV) based resis-
tance bench press exercise, with two different execution
protocols: with isometric phase prior to concentric
muscle action (PP) and in the absence of it (N-PP). The
data between ADR encoder (LPT encoder) and T-
Force (LVT device, highlighted as a gold standard),
were compared to assess the level of agreement inter-
device. In addition, the reliability of ADR encoder was
assessed.
Subjects
Eleven male subjects (age 21.6 6 1.5 year; body
mass 76.05 6 9.73 kg; height 1.75 6 0.07 m; BMI 24.3 6
1.8 kg/m2; percentage of body fat 15.2% 6 3.9%), with
an average experience of 2.38 6 1.08 year in the practice
of the bench press exercise (2–3 times per week), volun-
tarily participated in this study. Their 1RM for the
standing and non-standing bench press exercise was
90.4 6 18.9 and 96.1 6 19 kg, respectively. No previous
musculoskeletal pathologies were reported that could
affect the tests developed in the present study. An
information sheet was provided to the participants,
indicating the duration, objective of the study, type of
participation, and possible contraindications. To
express their agreement, the participants signed an
informed consent form in writing. The study was car-
ried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki
and was approved by the Research Ethics Commission
of the University of Murcia (3075/2020).
Procedures
For each participant, the tests were carried out during
two sessions in random order, with a previous session
of familiarization with the exercise to be carried out
along with different modes of execution (with and with-
out pause). All sessions were separated by at least 48 h
Moreno-Villanueva et al.
Figure 1. Execution protocol of the bench press exercise in
Smith Machine.
of recovery and were carried out at the same time
(8:00 AM). In addition, the subjects were deprived of
ingesting caffeine or similar substances due to their
ergogenic effect.35
The warm-up was identical in each session and con-
sisted of 5 min of stationary bike (50 W with a cadence
of 65 revolutions per minute), followed by performing
10 bench press repetitions with progressively increasing
velocity using the initial load (5 kg). As previously men-
tioned, each subject performed series along the entire
load spectrum (from 5 kg of the bar to 1RM), perform-
ing the bench press exercise. The description of the
bench press execution protocol has been widely
reported in previous research (see Figure 1).25,36 The
participants lay supine on a flat bench (Peroga Fitness,
Murcia, Spain), with their feet resting on the floor and
their hands on the bar. The position of the bench was
carefully adjusted for each participant, to ensure that
the vertical projection of the bar corresponded to the
intermammary line of each participant. The width of
the bar grip was self-selected by each participant, pro-
vided it was slightly wider than shoulder width, and
was replicated identically in all repetitions and inter-
vention protocols. In each intervention test, the partici-
pants started with a neutral load (only the 5 kg
corresponding to the bar) and progressively 5 kg loads
were implemented. About 3–5 repetitions were executed
with loads between 5% and 45% 1RM estimated for
the same load and with a 3-min rest between series,
while from the 50% 1RM estimated one repetition was
executed per load, with a recovery between sets of
5 min. This system of 17–20 incremental loads allowed
each subject to reach the full load spectrum while being
observed. By standardization and safety criteria, the
participants were instructed to lower the bar in a slow
and controlled manner at an average velocity of 0.5–
0.7 m/s, up to the chest, just above the nipples.
However, there were differences in the mode of subse-
quent execution, inherent in each study protocol. Thus,
while the N-PP continued with the performance of an
explosive concentric phase, the PP established the per-
formance of an isometric phase lasting 2 s, prior to the
3
explosive concentric phase. In both cases, the subjects
were not allowed to bounce the bar off the chest in the
eccentric phase, nor were they allowed to separate the
trunk or shoulders from the bench during the con-
centric phase.
Measurement equipment and data acquisition
To carry out all sessions and exercises, a Smith machine
(Multipower Fitness, Peroga, Murcia, Spain) without
counterweight (isoinertial load) was used. This machine
only allows the vertical movement of the bar through-
out the entire path of the movement, with minimal fric-
tion between the bar and the support rails. The bar
integrated into the Smith machine was made of carbon
fiber (total weight of 5 kg) and had an available grip
length of 1.3 m. Additional loads were added by sliding
calibrated weight disks (Powerkan, Valladolid, Spain)
at both ends of the bar.
Encoders
The concentric MPV of the bar of each repetition was
measured and recorded, simultaneously, with four
devices from two different brands and technologies, as
follows:
– Two T-Force Dynamic Measurement Systemä
units (Ergotech Consulting, Murcia, Spain). This sys-
tem consists of an LVT connected to a personal com-
puter via an analog-to-digital data acquisition board
with 14-bit resolution and custom software (version
3.60). The concentric velocity of the instantaneous bar
was sampled at a frequency of 1000 Hz and subse-
quently smoothed with a fourth order low-pass
Butterworth digital filter with no phase shift and a cut-
off frequency of 10 Hz. The specific software (TFDMS
version 2.35) calculates the kinematic and kinetic para-
meters of each repetition, and stores and provides all
information from the results obtained in real time.
Installation and calibration time is estimated at
2.4 min. The number of repetitions lost per 100 cases is
0.8.
– Two ADR encoder units (Toledo, Spain). This
device consists of an LPT technology that transfers the
concentric and eccentric velocity data instantly via
Bluetooth to a portable device with customized soft-
ware (version 5.2). It has a sampling frequency of
1000 Hz, with a calculation error of 62.5 mm of displa-
cement and a spring tension of 150 g (data provided by
the company). In addition, it has a digital filter with no
phase shift and a cut-off frequency of 10 Hz. Specific
software (ADR encoder version 5.2) calculates kine-
matic and kinematic data in real time. The estimated
installation and calibration time is 3.1 min. The number
of repetitions lost per 100 cases is 0.9. No further infor-
mation was provided by the company.
4 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 00(0)
Figure 2. Distribution of the ADR encoders and T-Force
devices on the bar.
Each device was assembled and calibrated before each
session, following the manufacturer’s technical instruc-
tions. The T-Force devices were interconnected with
personal computers running the Windows 10 operating
system (version 20.04), while the ADR encoder devices
were connected to an external power supply (2200 mAh
capacity; 5 V electrical voltage). Both T-Force and
ADR encoder were used with the most recent versions
(version 3.60 and 5.2 respectively). On the other hand,
the retractable cables of the four devices were placed
homogeneously on the right and left side of the bar,
3 cm from the vertical displacement axis, with 5 cm
separation between devices, avoiding variations of a
technological nature. In this way, on the right side of
the bar, ADR encoder was placed in the inner zone and
T-Force in the outer face, and vice versa (see Figure 2).
The reliability of the inter-device was evaluated by
comparing the MPV results obtained simultaneously
by the devices, in both action protocols (with pause
and without pause). The agreement of the ADR enco-
der was obtained by individualized comparison of each
ADR device with respect to each T-Force device.
Device units were numbered randomly (#1 and #2 for
each technology).
In this study, only MPV was analyzed, defined as
the part of the concentric phase during which the accel-
eration of the bar is greater than the acceleration due
to gravity.31 Previous research has shown that LPT
devices have difficulty detecting the actual onset of the
concentric phase of movement.29,33 Consequently, add-
ing time points prior to the actual start of the con-
centric phase can alter the resulting velocity data if
measured through the mean velocity.37,38 This risk is
minimized through MPV data, defined as the part of
the concentric phase during which the acceleration of
the bar is greater than the acceleration due to gravity,
discarding polluting time points.31,38 Also, the full load
spectrum was divided and filtered into four training
zones in percentages of 1RM (Zone 1: 0%–40% 1RM;
Zone 2: 40%–60% 1RM; Zone 3: 60%–80% 1RM;
Zone 4: 80%–100% 1RM). Despite the fact that most
studies focus their VBT analysis on three training zones
that start from loads of 40% 1RM,28,31,39 in the present
investigation it was chosen to include a lower training
zone (0%–40% 1RM) (i) to fully include the speed-
strength training zone6,40 and (ii) to study the behavior
of the ADR encoder in the entire spectrum of speeds
and loads. Finally, the load percentage data were
reconverted to displacement velocity data, based on
previous recommendations for the bench press exercise6
for its interpretation through the data provided by the
linear transducers. In this way, training zone 1 (0%–
40% 1RM) corresponded to a VMP equal to or greater
than 1.10 m/s, training zone 2 to a VMP of 0.80–
1.09 m/s, training zone 3 at a VMP of 0.50–0.79 m/s,
and training zone 4 at a VMP of 0.18–0.49 m/s.6
Statistical analyses
The Shapiro-Wilk test and Q-Q graphs were performed
to check the normality and homoscedasticity of the
data. Bland-Altman plots were also used to analyze the
level of agreement inter-device pair results, with their
corresponding calculation of systematic bias and 95%
limits of agreement (see Figures 3 and 4). The post-hoc
statistical power for the intra-device design (Cohen’s f
effect size) was calculated using G* Power software ver-
sion 3.41 Significance was set at p 4 0.05. Value ranges
of small = 0.10, medium = 0.25, and large = 0.40 were
considered.42
The standard error of measurement (SEM) was cal-
culated from the square root of the mean square error
term in a repeated measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to determine the amount of variability
caused by the measurement error, expressed in absolute
terms.43 By derivation, the results were calculated in
relative terms (%) to obtain the coefficient of variation
(CV = 100 3 SEM/mean). In most sports and physical
performance modalities, the CV should be less than
5%.44 The minimum detectable change (MDC), a sensi-
tivity measure derived from the SEM
(O2 3 SEM 3 1.96), was calculated to establish a quan-
titative limit from which the change of a variable as a
determinant or not, can be determined.45
For the reliability analysis, the intraclass correlation
coefficient (ICC) was calculated according to the indi-
cations of Koo and Li,46 with a 95% confidence inter-
val. ICC values between 0.95 and 0.99 are adequate for
the evaluation of technological devices oriented to
research and clinical practice.47 On the other hand,
Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was calculated to
evaluate the degree of linear relationship between the
paired MPV data between pairs of devices. The magni-
tude of the relationships was linked to Pearson’s values
Moreno-Villanueva et al.
Figure 3. Between-device agreement in mean propulsive velocity (MPV) for bench press with pause (pause protocol).
based on previous evidence as follows: trivial: 0.10,
small: 0.10–0.29, moderate: 0.30–0.49, high: 0.50–0.69,
very high: 0.70–0.90, and almost perfect: . 0.90.48
Levels of disagreement were established taking into
account the evidence revealed and supported by previ-
ous studies.6,36 Therefore, it was determined that a dif-
ference inter-device in the bench press MPV data of
between 0.07 and 0.09 m/s corresponds to a moderate
level of disagreement, between 0.10 and 0.13 m/s. a high
level and between 0.14 and 0.18 m/s a very high level,
with a load estimation error of 5%, 7%, and 10% of
1RM, respectively.
Statistical calculations and figures were carried out
using SPSS statistical software (IBM Corp. Released
2020. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0.
Armonk, NY: IBM Corp).
5
Results
The post hoc statistical power calculation for intra-
devices showed ‘‘medium’’ effect size values and statisti-
cal significance in all values (Cohen’s f = 0.203–0.224;
p \ 0.05).42
The MPV data paired with T-Force 1 from both
ADR devices for the evaluation of agreement in the
training zones Z3 and Z4 were excluded from the study
because they did not meet the homoscedasticity require-
ments for the N-PP. In order to give homogeneity and
rigor to the remaining data set, the logarithmic trans-
formation of the previously mentioned excluded data
was discarded.
Table 1 shows the inter-device reliability results and
the confidence interval (95% CI) for the ADR encoder
6 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 00(0)

Figure 4. Between-device agreement in mean propulsive velocity (MPV) for bench press without pause (non-pause protocol).

Table 1. Inter-device reliability of ADR encoder for Smith machine bench press test, measured through MPV in both pause and non-
pause protocol.

Pause protocol Non-pause protocol

ICC r Confidence CV (%) SEM SDC ICC r Confidence CV (%) SEM SDC
interval (95% CI) (m/s) (m/s) interval (95% CI) (m/s) (m/s)
Lower Upper Lower Upper

Zone 1 0.940 0.899 0.901 0.964 3.43 0.0153 0.042 0.963 0.946 0.942 0.977 3.01 0.0099 0.027
Zone 2 0.968 0.946 0.938 0.983 4.05 0.0111 0.031 0.997 0.994 0.994 0.998 1.52 0.0029 0.008
Zone 3 0.998 0.997 0.997 0.999 1.65 0.0028 0.008 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.96 0.0015 0.004
Zone 4 0.999 0.997 0.998 0.999 1.56 0.0022 0.006 0.999 0.997 0.998 0.999 0.70 0.0012 0.003

CV: coefficient of variation; ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient; m/s: meters per second; r: Pearson’s correlation coefficient; SDC: smallest
detectable change; SEM: standard error of measurement; %: percentage.

LPTs. The data reflected adequate reliability values, r = 0.946–0.997, CV = 1.56%–4.05%, SEM = 0.0022–
with an almost perfect correlation in all the training 0.0111, and MDC = 0.006–0.031 m/s) as in the N-PP
zones evaluated, both in the PP (ICC = 0.968–0.999, (ICC = 0.963%–0.999%, r=0.946–0.998, CV=
Moreno-Villanueva et al.
0.70%–3.01%, SEM = 0.0012–0.0099 m/s, MDC =
0.003–0.027 m/s), except in zone 1 of the PP, which
exhibited a very high correlation (ICC = 0.940,
r = 0.899, CV = 3.43%, SEM = 0.0153, and
MDC = 0.0042 m/s).
Table 2 reflects the agreement results of each ADR
encoder device compared to each of the gold standard
devices, in each evaluated training zone, both in the PP
and the N-PP. In the PP, both ADR devices demon-
strated high levels of repeatability with respect to the
gold standard device, in all training zones, with lower
measurement errors as progress was made through
them (Z1: SEM = 0.0133–0.0204 m/s, MDC=0.037–
0.057 m/s; Z2: SEM = 0.0084–0.0105 m/s, MDC=
0.023–0.029 m/s; Z3: SEM=0.0029–0.0042 m/s, MDC
= 0.008–0.012 m/s; Z4: SEM = 0.0024–0.0040 m/s,
MDC = 0.007–0.011 m/s). However, the ADR devices
considerably underestimated the MPV values measured
through T-Force (gold standard), with differences of
greater magnitude as one advanced in the training
zones (Z1: t = 22.239 to 22.677, p \ 0.01–0.05; Z2:
t = 24.935 to 25.769, p \ 0.001; Z3: t = 28.627 to
29.486, p \ 0.001; Z4: t = 25.830 to 28.104, p
\ 0.001). In the N-PP, the ADR devices presented
adequate agreement values, with a tendency to reduce
measurement errors from training zone 1 to zone 4 (Z1:
SEM = 0.0125–0.0288 m/s; MDC = 0.035–0.080 m/s;
Z2: SEM = 0.0089–0.0173 m/s; MDC = 0.02 5–
0.048 m/s; Z3: SEM = 0.0060–0.0063 m/s; MDC=
0.017 m/s; Z4: SEM=0.0034–0.0038 m/s; MDC =
0.009–0.011 m/s). This trend was also reflected in the
evolution of the effect size of the ADR differences with
respect to T-Force, with higher underestimation values
by ADR in training zones 1 and 2 (Z1: t = 26.901 to
217.871, p \ 0.001; Z2: t = 28.908 to 214.747; p
\ 0.001) with respect to zones 3 and 4 (Z3: t = 28.651
to 29.909, p \ 0.001; Z4: t = 27.985 to 29.212;
p \ 0.001).
Discussion
The present study was designed to analyze the reliabil-
ity and level of agreement of an LPT device (ADR
encoder) for the measurement of concentric MPV dur-
ing bench press exercise on the Smith machine, both
with isometric phase prior to concentric contraction
and in the absence of it, across the entire load spec-
trum. The findings of the present investigation sug-
gested that ADR encoder is a valid and reliable device
for the evaluation and monitoring of the velocity of
movement in bench press exercise performed on the
Smith machine, throughout the entire load spectrum.
These results partially ratify our previous hypotheses,
since (i) moderate levels of disagreement were found in
zone 1 of the protocol without isometric phase, and (ii)
although the lowest values of agreement and reliability
occurred at high execution velocities, these differences
were not significant with respect to the rest of the
7
training areas, with the exception of the situation men-
tioned previously.
The evaluation of the reliability of a device is an
essential requirement to determine the degree and mag-
nitude of the variations in the results it offers.25 In this
way, it is possible to objectively and rigorously quantify
the degree of repeatability offered by the device under
study, given a specific execution protocol and under
well-defined intervention conditions.25,44 This fact will
allow us to assess whether the degree of variation
offered by a certain device falls within the accepted lim-
its, which will be smaller or larger depending on the
intended data use.24,49 Therefore, the first step to verify
the rigor of a device is to analyze its reliability, since a
device that is not reliable cannot be considered valid.25
The reliability results of the present study for the
measurement of MPV are in line with the reported
results of previous low-cost LPTs validation investiga-
tions1,25 that performed the bench press exercise under
similar conditions, both with isometric phase
(Chronojump device; ICC = 0.995%, CV = 5% and
2%, SEM = 0.04 m/s)25 as without it (GymAware
device; ICC=0.999, CV=1.80%, and SEM=0.02 m/s).1
Previous scientific evidence, such as the studies by
Cormie et al.29 and Król and Go1aś33 suggests that
monitoring concentric velocity without a prior isometric
phase leads to greater measurement errors.29,33 This is
partly due to the limitation of this type of device to detect
the real start of the thrust phase, maximizing measure-
ment errors the higher the sampling frequency (amount
of data reported per second and expressed in Hertz
(Hz)).38,50 However, the evidence from the aforemen-
tioned studies, together with the results obtained from
the present investigation, refutes this idea, at least when
the exercises are performed on a Smith machine.1,25 This
suggests that the reliability values are more affected by
other limiting factors inherent to the linear transducer
technology, such as the high sensitivity when the exercise
is performed in the free weight condition, reported by
previous research.29,33 In this sense, future research
should analyze the behavior of the ADR device during
exercises with free weight, to verify the degree of compe-
tence in the face of this new kinematic requirement.
Furthermore, to adequately assess the reliability of a
device, it is necessary to separate technological errors
from biological errors, so that its true precision can be
determined.25 In the present study, errors of a biological
nature were minimized to the maximum, since the proto-
col was carried out on a Smith machine (avoiding the 3D
plane), with a previous isometric phase (PP) and with the
execution of an exercise of non-plyometric nature,
according to previous methodological recommenda-
tions.1,29,33 This fact, together with the performance of
the N-PP with the same sample of subjects, allowed the
researchers to objectively conclude that the ADR device
maintains adequate conditions of reliability regardless of
the mode of execution of the movement.
Despite evaluating the reliability of a specific device,
it is also important to determine whether or not there is
 8
Table 2. Level of agreement of the MPV data of ADR encoder with respect to T-force, both in the pause protocol and non-pause protocol, in the performance of bench press in Smith machine.

With pause protocol No pause protocol

t p SEM (m/s) SDC (m/s) Bias 6 SD 95% Bias t p SEM (m/s) SDC (m/s) Bias 6 SD 95% Bias
Lower Upper Lower Upper

Zone 1 ADR 1 – T-Force 1 22.534 \ 0.05 0.0204 0.057 20.0519 6 01626 20.0928 20.0110 26.901 \ 0.001 0.0288 0.080 20.1988 6 02512 20.2562 20.1414
ADR 1 – T-Force 2 22.514 \ 0.05 0.0186 0.052 20.0467 6 01474 20.0838 20.0095 213.633 \ 0.001 0.0166 0.046 20.2264 6 01448 20.2595 20.1934
ADR 2 – T-Force 1 22.677 \ 0.01 0.0137 0.038 20.0367 6 01123 20.0641 20.0093 27.538 \ 0.001 0.0262 0.073 20.1978 6 02318 20.2501 20.1456
ADR 2 – T-Force 2 22.239 \ 0.05 0.0133 0.037 20.0297 6 01086 20.0562 20.0032 217.871 \ 0.001 0.0125 0.035 20.2237 6 01106 20.2486 20.1988
Zone 2 ADR 1 – T-Force 1 25.384 \ 0.001 0.0090 0.025 20.0487 6 00557 20.0670 20.0303 28.908 \ 0.001 0.0173 0.048 20.1544 6 01082 20.1894 20.1193
ADR 1 – T-Force 2 25.300 \ 0.001 0.0084 0.023 20.0447 6 00519 20.0617 20.0276 211.949 \ 0.001 0.0095 0.026 20.1138 6 00595 20.1331 20.0946
ADR 2 – T-Force 1 25.769 \ 0.001 0.0097 0.027 20.0558 6 00596 20.0753 20.0362 210.105 \ 0.001 0.0170 0.047 20.1720 6 01063 20.2065 20.1376
ADR 2 – T-Force 2 24.935 \ 0.001 0.0105 0.029 20.0518 6 00646 20.0730 20.0305 214.747 \ 0.001 0.0089 0.025 20.1315 6 00557 20.1496 20.1135
Zone 3 ADR 1 – T-Force 1 29.291 \ 0.001 0.0031 0.009 20.0291 6 00203 20.0354 20.0228 – – – – 20.0491 6 02220 20.1174 0.0192
ADR 1 – T-Force 2 29.486 \ 0.001 0.0029 0.008 20.0279 6 00190 20.0338 20.0219 28.651 \ 0.001 0.0063 0.017 20.0542 6 00411 20.0668 20.0415
ADR 2 – T-Force 1 28.980 \ 0.001 0.0042 0.012 20.0374 6 00267 20.0458 20.0290 – – – – 20.0542 6 02239 20.1231 0.0147
ADR 2 – T-Force 2 28.627 \ 0.001 0.0042 0.012 20.0366 6 00272 20.0452 20.0280 29.909 \ 0.001 0.0060 0.017 20.0593 6 00392 20.0714 20.0472
Zone 4 ADR 1 – T-Force 1 28.104 \ 0.001 0.0024 0.007 20.0196 6 00179 20.0244 20.0147 – – – – 0.0470 6 01473 0.0038 0.0903
ADR 1 – T-Force 2 26.947 \ 0.001 0.0029 0.008 20.0202 6 00214 20.0261 20.0144 27.985 \ 0.001 0.0038 0.011 20.0304 6 00261 20.0381 20.0228
ADR 2 – T-Force 1 26.600 \ 0.001 0.0034 0.009 20.0226 6 00255 20.0295 20.0158 – – – – 0.0462 6 01468 0.0031 0.0893
ADR 2 – T-Force 2 25.830 \ 0.001 0.0040 0.011 20.0234 6 00295 20.0314 20.0153 29.212 \ 0.001 0.0034 0.009 20.0313 6 00233 20.0381 20.0244

m/s: meters per second; p: statistical significance; SD: standard deviation; SDC: smallest detectable change; SEM: standard error of measurement; t: difference size.
Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 00(0)
Moreno-Villanueva et al.
a concordance between the LPTs and the gold standard
used, to check whether they produce similar velocity
values.27 In this way, it is possible to provide strength
and conditioning coaches and other associated profes-
sionals, with information that allows them to objec-
tively assess the real precision of a certain device, and
whether they are interchangeable with respect to
others.51
The agreement results of the present study corrobo-
rate the ability of ADR to accurately measure MPV
values throughout the entire load spectrum, both in the
PP and the N-PP (see Table 2). However, it is worth
highlighting the trend of decreasing measurement
errors as MPV decreases, in line with previous research
performed with mean values such as Askow et al.32
(GymAware device; SEE = 0.03–0.04 m/s), Courel-
Ibáñez et al.25 (Chronojump device; ICC = 0.984–
0.993; SEE = 0.04–0.05 m/s), and McGrath et al.39
(FitroDyne device; ICC = 0.958–0.977). In this way,
two fundamental agreement thresholds can be dis-
cerned depending on whether the margins of error are
of a magnitude to be taken into account or not, consid-
ering the MDC values reported by previous
research.6,13,36 Consequently, it is observed that the
ADR has non-significant measurement errors in all
training zones (SEM = 0.0024–0.0204 m/s,
MDC = 0.007–0.057 m/s) in the PP. These results are
lower than those reported by Courel-Ibáñez et al.25
with an execution protocol identical to that of the pres-
ent study (SEE = 0.06 m/s; MDC = 0.15 m/s). In this
sense, authors such Weakley et al.52 support the
hypothesis that a higher sampling frequency favors
greater precision of the data obtained. Therefore, the
difference in the sampling frequencies of both devices
involved (Chronojump = 500 Hz, ADR = 1000 Hz)
can be one of the factors to take into account, as long
as it is carried out with a previous isometric phase and
on a Smith machine.1,25,29 On the other hand, the N-PP
reflects moderate levels of disagreement6,13,36 in train-
ing zone 1 (SEM = 0.0125–0.0288 m/s; MDC = 0.035–
0.080 m/s), lacking significance in the rest of subsequent
training zones (SEM = 0.0034–0.0173 m/s;
MDC = 0.048–0.009 m/s). These results cannot be
objectively compared in any existing work in the previ-
ous literature, since to our knowledge, no study has
evaluated the measurement errors in absolute statistical
terms (SEE, SEM, MDC) of an upper body exercise
without an isometric phase prior to the concentric
phase. However, these differences with respect to the
results obtained from the PP are certainly predictable,
considering that the absence of an isometric pause
accentuates the inherent technical error of LPTs in
detecting the real start of the concentric phase of move-
ment.29,33 In turn, the magnitude of the error is directly
proportional to the sampling frequency of the LPT
device (1000 Hz in the case of ADR encoder), as indi-
cated by previous research.38,50
Despite the optimal results obtained in the measure-
ment errors of technological origin, it is important to
9
note that the ADR device significantly underestimates
the MPV values with respect to T-Force, both in the
PP (t = 22.239 to 29.486; p \ 0.001–0.05) and N-PP
(t = 26.901 to 217.871; p \ 0.001). These results are
in line with previous studies such as Mitter et al.53 and
Perez-Castilla et al.54 that reported significant differ-
ences (p \ 0.001) in different LPT devices with respect
to their gold standards (GymAware vs Vicon 3D and
Speed4Lifts vs Trio OptiTrack, respectively), in the
quantification of mean velocity. However, there are dif-
ficulties in extrapolating these results with the present
study, since in one of the previous studies the exercise
was carried out in the free weight condition53 and in
both studies28,53 the data was used mean velocity.
Furthermore, the extent of these differences in absolute
terms is unknown. All this means that the data col-
lected in this study should be treated with caution.
However, regardless of the magnitude of the differ-
ences, the results obtained in the present investigation
join a body of evidence that assumes a clear underesti-
mation in the data collected by the LPT devices with
respect to the T-Force.24,25 One of the main explana-
tions is due to the data processing system inherent in
each technology. While LVTs provide velocity mea-
surements directly, recording electrical signals that are
proportional to cable extension velocity.8,26 LPTs
derive velocity data from cable displacement data.27,28
Manipulation of raw data by derivation has previously
been shown to increase the measurement errors of the
resulting calculations.8,26 Therefore, this factor consti-
tutes an insurmountable disadvantage of LPT com-
pared to LVT, which will increase as more data
processing processes are required to calculate variables
derived from velocity, such as MPV.31,55 The fact that
the differences are greater in the N-PP compared to the
PP can be explained, again, by the sampling frequency
and the limited ability to detect the actual onset of the
concentric phase of movement by the LPTs.29,33 The
absence of an isometric phase prior to the push phase
favors the addition of time points prior to the actual
start of the movement to be evaluated, increasing the
magnitude of the technological error.38,50
Despite being the only study that has compared two
execution protocols with the same sample of subjects to
assess the reliability and level of agreement of a LT
device, the present investigation is not without its lim-
itations. First, the results can only be extrapolated to
the male population, so the reliability of the ADR
encoder in the female population is unknown. Second,
the reported findings can only be extrapolated to non-
plyometric upper body exercises performed on the 2D
plane (Smith machine). Third, the use of too wide load
ranges, together with the use of a single gold standard
device, constitutes two limitations that can lessen the
impact of the current findings. The use of an additional
gold standard device could have contributed to give
greater robustness, if possible, in the validation process.
To conclude, it is very common for device companies
to update their complementary analytics software to
10
continually adapt and improve their products. These
updates can alter some algorithms for calculating vari-
ables, with their consequent variations with respect to
previous versions. In this sense, our results may not
accurately reflect the most recent versions that appear.
However, the present investigation offers valuable
information on the behavior of this type of device in
different protocols of action throughout the entire load
spectrum.
Conclusion
ADR encoder is an LPT device that provides reliable
results for the evaluation and monitoring of MPV in
the concentric phase, for bench press exercises per-
formed on the Smith machine throughout the entire
spectrum loading. Regarding the degree of agreement,
ADR encoder reported minimal measurement errors
with respect to T-Force throughout the entire load
spectrum, both in the PP and in N-PP, except in train-
ing zone 1 (0%–40% of 1RM) of the latter protocol.
These measurement errors were positively related to
the velocity of execution of the movement. In addition,
it is important to note that the ADR encoder consider-
ably and systematically underestimated all MPV results
compared to T-Force, so these devices are not inter-
changeable with each other. In addition, more sensitive
load ranges should be established to corroborate the
high reliability demonstrated by ADR encoder during
the present investigation.
Practical applications
The ADR encoder device offers reliable measures of
execution velocity in non-plyometric exercises per-
formed on the Smith machine, throughout the entire
range of load intensities, regardless of whether the exe-
cution is performed with a previous isometric phase or
not. These findings postulate the ADR encoder as a
practical and low-cost device ($207), endowed with a
high sensitivity to detect changes in performance, what-
ever the purpose of the VBT training program.
However, the underestimation of velocity values must
be taken into account when compared to a gold stan-
dard device, so this device is not interchangeable with
T-Force. The fact that the ADR encoder complies with
the values of agreement and reliability in exercises per-
formed in the 3D plane and/or in plyometric exercises
is a topic that should be investigated. Lastly, the exer-
cise performed on a Smith machine with an isometric
phase prior to concentric muscle action, seems to be
the most effective action protocol to minimize measure-
ment errors of a biological nature. It is important to
optimize devices of this nature to the maximum.
Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 00(0)
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical approval
The study was carried out in accordance with the
Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the
Research Ethics Commission of the University of
Murcia (3075/2020).
ORCID iDs
Adrián Moreno-Villanueva https://orcid.org/0000-
0002-7301-0619
Markel Rico-González https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
9849-0444
José Pino-Ortega https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9091-
0897
References
1. Martı́nez-Cava A, Hernández-Belmonte A, Courel-Ibá-
ñez J, et al. Correction: reliability of technologies to mea-
sure the Barbell velocity: implications for monitoring
resistance training. PLoS One 2020; 15: e0236073.
2. Pareja-Blanco F, Rodrı́guez-Rosell D, Sánchez-Med-
ina L, et al. Effects of velocity loss during resistance
training on athletic performance, strength gains and
muscle adaptations. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2017;
27(7): 724–735.
3. Garcı́a-Ramos A, Pestaña-Melero FL, Pérez-Castilla A,
et al. Differences in the load–velocity profile between 4
bench-press variants. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2018;
13: 326–331.
4. Muñoz-López M, Marchante D, Cano-Ruiz MA, et al.
Load-, force-, and power-velocity relationships in the
prone pull-up exercise. Int J Sports Physiol Perform
2017; 12: 1249–1255.
5. Pérez-Castilla A, Garcı́a-Ramos A, Padial P, et al. Load-
velocity relationship in variations of the half-squat exer-
cise: influence of execution technique. J Strength Cond
Res 2020; 34(4): 1024–1031.
6. González-Badillo JJ and Sánchez-Medina L. Movement
velocity as a measure of loading intensity in resistance
training. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 347–352.
7. Izquierdo M, Ibañez J, González-Badillo JJ, et al. Differ-
ential effects of strength training leading to failure versus
not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and mus-
cle power gains. J Appl Physiol 2006; 100: 1647–1656.
8. Sánchez-Medina L and González-Badillo JJ. Velocity loss
as an indicator of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance
training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011; 43: 1725–1734.
Moreno-Villanueva et al.
9. Alcazar J, Rodriguez-Lopez C, Ara I, et al. The force-
velocity relationship in older people: reliability and valid-
ity of a systematic procedure. Int J Sports Med 2017; 38:
1097–1104.
10. Banyard HG, Nosaka K, Vernon AD, et al. The reliabil-
ity of individualized load-velocity profiles. Int J Sports
Physiol Perform 2018; 13: 763–769.
11. Conceic xão F, Fernandes J, Lewis M, et al. Movement
velocity as a measure of exercise intensity in three lower
limb exercises. J Sports Sci 2016; 34: 1099–1106.
12. Garcı́a-Ramos A, Torrejón A, Feriche B, et al. Predic-
tion of the maximum number of repetitions and repeti-
tions in reserve from Barbell velocity. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform 2018; 13(3): 353–359.
13. Martı́nez-Cava A, Morán-Navarro R, Sánchez-Medina
L, et al. Velocity- and power-load relationships in the
half, parallel and full back squat. J Sports Sci 2019; 37:
1088–1096.
14. Morán-Navarro R, Martı́nez-Cava A, Sánchez-Medina
L, et al. Movement velocity as a measure of level of effort
during resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res 2019; 33:
1496–1504.
15. Jiménez-Alonso A, Garcı́a-Ramos A, Cepero M, et al.
Effect of augmented feedback on velocity performance
during strength-oriented and power-oriented resistance
training sessions. J Strength Cond Res. Epub ahead of
print 7 July 2020. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003705.
16. Weakley JJS, Wilson KM, Till K, et al. Visual feedback
attenuates mean concentric barbell velocity loss and
improves motivation, competitiveness, and perceived
workload in male adolescent athletes. J Strength Cond
Res 2019; 33: 2420–2425.
17. Pérez-Castilla A, Jiménez-Alonso A, Cepero M, et al.
Velocity performance feedback during ballistic training:
which is the optimal frequency of feedback administra-
tion? Motor Control 2020; 25(1): 19–32.
18. Dorrell HF, Moore JM, Smith MF, et al. Validity and
reliability of a linear positional transducer across com-
monly practised resistance training exercises. J Sports Sci
2019; 37: 67–73.
19. Giroux C, Rabita G, Chollet D, et al. What is the best
method for assessing lower limb force-velocity relation-
ship? Int J Sports Med 2015; 36: 143–149.
20. Lorenzetti S, Lamparter T and Lüthy F. Validity and
reliability of simple measurement device to assess the
velocity of the barbell during squats. BMC Res Notes
2017; 10: 707.
21. Cronin JB, Hing RD and McNair PJ. Reliability and
validity of a linear position transducer for measuring
jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 2004; 18:
590–593.
22. Walsh MS, Ford KR, Bangen KJ, et al. The validation of
a portable force plate for measuring force-time data dur-
ing jumping and landing tasks. J Strength Cond Res 2006;
20: 730–734.
23. Garcı́a-Ramos A, Jaric S, Pérez-Castilla A, et al. Reliabil-
ity and magnitude of mechanical variables assessed from
unconstrained and constrained loaded countermovement
jumps. Sports Biomech 2017; 16: 514–526.
24. Garnacho-Castaño MV, López-Lastra S and Maté-
Muñoz JL. Reliability and validity assessment of a linear
position transducer. J Sports Sci Med 2015; 14: 128–136.
11
25. Courel-Ibáñez J, Martı́nez-Cava A, Morán-Navarro R,
et al. Reproducibility and repeatability of five different
technologies for bar velocity measurement in resistance
training. Ann Biomed Eng 2019; 47: 1523–1538.
26. McMaster DT, Gill N, Cronin J, et al. A brief review of
strength and ballistic assessment methodologies in sport.
Sports Med 2014; 44: 603–623.
27. Harris NK, Cronin J, Taylor K-L, et al. Understanding
position transducer technology for strength and condi-
tioning practitioners. Strength Cond J 2010; 32: 66–79.
28. Pérez-Castilla A, Piepoli A, Delgado-Garcı́a G, et al.
Reliability and concurrent validity of seven commercially
available devices for the assessment of movement velocity
at different intensities during the bench press. J Strength
Cond Res 2019; 33: 1258–1265.
29. Cormie P, McBride JM and McCaulley GO. Validation
of power measurement techniques in dynamic lower body
resistance exercises. J Appl Biomech 2007; 23: 103–118.
30. Swinton PA, Stewart A, Agouris I, et al. A biomechanical
analysis of straight and hexagonal barbell deadlifts using
submaximal loads. J Strength Cond Res 2011; 25: 2000–
2009.
31. Sanchez-Medina L, Perez CE and Gonzalez-Badillo JJ.
Importance of the propulsive phase in strength assess-
ment. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 123–129.
32. Askow AT, Stone JD, Arndts DJ, et al. Validity and
reliability of a commercially-available velocity and power
testing device. Sports. Epub ahead of print 10 December
2018. DOI: 10.3390/sports6040170.
33. Król H and Go1aś A. Effect of Barbell weight on the
structure of the flat bench press. J Strength Cond Res
2017; 31: 1321–1337.
34. Crewther BT, Kilduff LP, Cunningham DJ, et al. Vali-
dating two systems for estimating force and power. Int J
Sports Med 2011; 32: 254–258.
35. Beck TW, Housh TJ, Schmidt RJ, et al. The acute effects
of a caffeine-containing supplement on strength, muscu-
lar endurance, and anaerobic capabilities. J Strength
Cond Res 2006; 20: 506–510.
36. Sánchez-Medina L, González-Badillo JJ, Pérez CE, et
al. Velocity- and power-load relationships of the bench
pull vs. bench press exercises. Int J Sports Med 2014; 35:
209–216.
37. Hori N, Newton RU, Nosaka K, et al. Comparison of
different methods of determining power output in weigh-
tlifting exercises. Strength Cond J 2006; 28: 34–40.
38. Linthorne NP. Analysis of standing vertical jumps using
a force platform. Am J Phys 2001; 69: 1198–1204.
39. McGrath G, Flanagan EP, O’Donovan P, et al. Velocity
based training: validity of monitoring devices to assess
mean concentric velocity in a multi joint bench press exer-
cise. UL – University of Limerick, https://www.ul.ie/
research/velocity-based-training-validity-monitoring-
devices-assess-mean-concentric-velocity-multi-joint (2017,
accessed 7 March 2021).
40. Sánchez-Medina L, Pallarés JG, Pérez CE, et al. Estima-
tion of relative load from bar velocity in the full back
squat exercise. Sports Med Int Open 2017; 1: E80–E88.
41. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, et al. G*Power 3: a flex-
ible statistical power analysis program for the social,
behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods
2007; 39: 175–191.
12
42. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates,
1988.
43. Atkinson G and Nevill AM. Statistical methods for asses-
sing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant
to sports medicine. Sports Med 1998; 26: 217–238.
44. Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine
and science. Sports Med 2000; 30: 1–15.
45. Beckerman H, Roebroeck ME, Lankhorst GJ, et al.
Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility
and responsiveness. Qual Life Res 2001; 10: 571–578.
46. Koo TK and Li MY. A guideline of selecting and report-
ing intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability
research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15: 155–163.
47. Martins WP and Nastri CO. Interpreting reproducibility
results for ultrasound measurements. Ultrasound Obstet
Gynecol 2014; 43(4): 79–480.
48. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, et al. Pro-
gressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exer-
cise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41: 3–13.
49. Smart DJ, Hopkins WG and Gill ND. Differences and
changes in the physical characteristics of professional and
amateur rugby union players. J Strength Cond Res 2013;
27: 3033–3044.
View publication stats
Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 00(0)
50. Hori N, Newton RU, Andrews WA, et al. Comparison
of four different methods to measure power output dur-
ing the hang power clean and the weighted jump squat. J
Strength Cond Res 2007; 21: 314–320.
51. Gonzalez AM, Mangine GT, Spitz RW, et al. Agreement
between the Open Barbell and Tendo linear position
transducers for monitoring barbell velocity during resis-
tance exercise. Sports. Epub ahead of print 23 May 2019.
DOI: 10.3390/sports7050125.
52. Weakley J, Morrison M, Garcı́a-Ramos A, et al. The
validity and reliability of commercially available resis-
tance training monitoring devices: a systematic review.
Sports Med 2021; 51: 443–502.
53. Mitter B, Hölbling D, Bauer P, et al. Concurrent validity
of field-based diagnostic technology monitoring move-
ment velocity in powerlifting exercises. J Strength Cond
Res 2021; 35: 2170–2178.
54. Pérez-Castilla A, Feriche B, Jaric S, et al. Validity of a
linear velocity transducer for testing maximum vertical
jumps. J Appl Biomech 2017; 33: 388–392.
55. Garcı́a-Ramos A, Pestaña-Melero FL, Pérez-Castilla A, et
al. Mean velocity vs. mean propulsive velocity vs. peak velo-
city: which variable determines bench press relative load with
higher reliability? J Strength Cond Res 2018; 32: 1273–1279.