Comparison of velocity and power output data derived from an inertial based system and an optical encoder during squat lifts in a weight room setting

R. Squadrone, R. Rodano, E. Preatoni

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • 10 Citations

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study was to assess a new wireless, light and portable inertial measurement system (FreePower; Sensorize, Rome, Italy), by comparing the measures of velocity and power it provides to the same measures derived from a high resolution optical encoder (Ergotest Technology a.s., Langesund, Norway). Methods: Fifteen male tennis and soccer players performed back squat lifts at the Smith Machine at loads ranging from 30% to 90% of their established 1RM load. The two devices measured the kinematics of the barbell simultaneously. The mean and peak velocity of the barbell and the mean and peak power applied to the barbell-body system were extracted and used for the comparison. Results: Measures of velocity and power, both in mean and peak values evidenced significant correlations (P<0.05) between the two systems. Linear regression r-squared values ranged from 0.978 for mean velocity to 0.993 for peak power, showing high-shared variance between the FreePower and the encoder values. Peak velocity, peak power and mean power values showed an absolute percentage difference of 2.8%, 3%, and 3.8%, respectively. The greatest discrepancy between the two systems was found in mean velocity values, where significantly lower values (P<0.05) were measured with the inertial system (-5.3%). Conclusion: The FreePower ® inertial system can provide practitioners with measures of velocity and power that are consistent, within reasonable error limits, with a high resolution optical encoder, when it is used in a standard weight room setting and a significant number of lifts are included in the analysis.
LanguageEnglish
Pages40-46
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness
Volume52
Issue number1
StatusPublished - 1 Feb 2012

Fingerprint

Tennis
Optical Devices
Soccer
Norway
Biomechanical Phenomena
Italy
Linear Models
Technology
Light
Weights and Measures
Equipment and Supplies

Cite this

@article{e738c04e1220497bb35fc17a6948644c,
title = "Comparison of velocity and power output data derived from an inertial based system and an optical encoder during squat lifts in a weight room setting",
abstract = "Aim: The purpose of this study was to assess a new wireless, light and portable inertial measurement system (FreePower; Sensorize, Rome, Italy), by comparing the measures of velocity and power it provides to the same measures derived from a high resolution optical encoder (Ergotest Technology a.s., Langesund, Norway). Methods: Fifteen male tennis and soccer players performed back squat lifts at the Smith Machine at loads ranging from 30{\%} to 90{\%} of their established 1RM load. The two devices measured the kinematics of the barbell simultaneously. The mean and peak velocity of the barbell and the mean and peak power applied to the barbell-body system were extracted and used for the comparison. Results: Measures of velocity and power, both in mean and peak values evidenced significant correlations (P<0.05) between the two systems. Linear regression r-squared values ranged from 0.978 for mean velocity to 0.993 for peak power, showing high-shared variance between the FreePower and the encoder values. Peak velocity, peak power and mean power values showed an absolute percentage difference of 2.8{\%}, 3{\%}, and 3.8{\%}, respectively. The greatest discrepancy between the two systems was found in mean velocity values, where significantly lower values (P<0.05) were measured with the inertial system (-5.3{\%}). Conclusion: The FreePower {\circledR} inertial system can provide practitioners with measures of velocity and power that are consistent, within reasonable error limits, with a high resolution optical encoder, when it is used in a standard weight room setting and a significant number of lifts are included in the analysis.",
author = "R. Squadrone and R. Rodano and E. Preatoni",
note = "MEDLINE{\circledR} is the source for the MeSH terms of this document.",
year = "2012",
month = "2",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "52",
pages = "40--46",
journal = "Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness",
issn = "0022-4707",
publisher = "Edizioni Minerva Medica S.p.A.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of velocity and power output data derived from an inertial based system and an optical encoder during squat lifts in a weight room setting

AU - Squadrone,R.

AU - Rodano,R.

AU - Preatoni,E.

N1 - MEDLINE® is the source for the MeSH terms of this document.

PY - 2012/2/1

Y1 - 2012/2/1

N2 - Aim: The purpose of this study was to assess a new wireless, light and portable inertial measurement system (FreePower; Sensorize, Rome, Italy), by comparing the measures of velocity and power it provides to the same measures derived from a high resolution optical encoder (Ergotest Technology a.s., Langesund, Norway). Methods: Fifteen male tennis and soccer players performed back squat lifts at the Smith Machine at loads ranging from 30% to 90% of their established 1RM load. The two devices measured the kinematics of the barbell simultaneously. The mean and peak velocity of the barbell and the mean and peak power applied to the barbell-body system were extracted and used for the comparison. Results: Measures of velocity and power, both in mean and peak values evidenced significant correlations (P<0.05) between the two systems. Linear regression r-squared values ranged from 0.978 for mean velocity to 0.993 for peak power, showing high-shared variance between the FreePower and the encoder values. Peak velocity, peak power and mean power values showed an absolute percentage difference of 2.8%, 3%, and 3.8%, respectively. The greatest discrepancy between the two systems was found in mean velocity values, where significantly lower values (P<0.05) were measured with the inertial system (-5.3%). Conclusion: The FreePower ® inertial system can provide practitioners with measures of velocity and power that are consistent, within reasonable error limits, with a high resolution optical encoder, when it is used in a standard weight room setting and a significant number of lifts are included in the analysis.

AB - Aim: The purpose of this study was to assess a new wireless, light and portable inertial measurement system (FreePower; Sensorize, Rome, Italy), by comparing the measures of velocity and power it provides to the same measures derived from a high resolution optical encoder (Ergotest Technology a.s., Langesund, Norway). Methods: Fifteen male tennis and soccer players performed back squat lifts at the Smith Machine at loads ranging from 30% to 90% of their established 1RM load. The two devices measured the kinematics of the barbell simultaneously. The mean and peak velocity of the barbell and the mean and peak power applied to the barbell-body system were extracted and used for the comparison. Results: Measures of velocity and power, both in mean and peak values evidenced significant correlations (P<0.05) between the two systems. Linear regression r-squared values ranged from 0.978 for mean velocity to 0.993 for peak power, showing high-shared variance between the FreePower and the encoder values. Peak velocity, peak power and mean power values showed an absolute percentage difference of 2.8%, 3%, and 3.8%, respectively. The greatest discrepancy between the two systems was found in mean velocity values, where significantly lower values (P<0.05) were measured with the inertial system (-5.3%). Conclusion: The FreePower ® inertial system can provide practitioners with measures of velocity and power that are consistent, within reasonable error limits, with a high resolution optical encoder, when it is used in a standard weight room setting and a significant number of lifts are included in the analysis.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84860143219&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.minervamedica.it/en/journals/sports-med-physical-fitness/

M3 - Article

VL - 52

SP - 40

EP - 46

JO - Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness

T2 - Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness

JF - Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness

SN - 0022-4707

IS - 1

ER -