4.4 Article

VALIDATION OF A VIDEO ANALYSIS SOFTWARE PACKAGE FOR QUANTIFYING MOVEMENT VELOCITY IN RESISTANCE EXERCISES

期刊

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
卷 30, 期 10, 页码 2934-2941

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000563

关键词

training intensity; validity; resistance training; bench press

资金

  1. University of Seville

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to establish the validity of a video analysis software package in measuring mean propulsive velocity (MPV) and the maximal velocity during bench press. Twenty-one healthy males (21 +/- 1 year) with weight training experience were recruited, and the MPV and the maximal velocity of the concentric phase (Vmax) were compared with a linear position transducer system during a standard bench press exercise. Participants performed a 1 repetition maximum test using the supine bench press exercise. The testing procedures involved the simultaneous assessment of bench press propulsive velocity using 2 kinematic (linear position transducer and semi-automated tracking software) systems. High Pearson's correlation coefficients for MPV and Vmax between both devices (r = 0.473 to 0.993) were observed. The intraclass correlation coefficients for barbell velocity data and the kinematic data obtained from video analysis were high (>0.79). In addition, the low coefficients of variation indicate that measurements had low variability. Finally, Bland-Altman plots with the limits of agreement of the MPV and Vmax with different loads showed a negative trend, which indicated that the video analysis had higher values than the linear transducer. In conclusion, this study has demonstrated that the software used for the video analysis was an easy to use and cost-effective tool with a very high degree of concurrent validity. This software can be used to evaluate changes in velocity of training load in resistance training, which may be important for the prescription and monitoring of training programmes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据