Nina Behrmann, Martin Hillebrecht, José Afonso, Konstantin Warneke
{"title":"EnodePro®是一个有效的工具,以确定在卧推和杠铃后蹲杆速度?比较分析。","authors":"Nina Behrmann, Martin Hillebrecht, José Afonso, Konstantin Warneke","doi":"10.3390/s25020549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In recent years, the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> device has been one of the most frequently used velocity sensors to track the bar velocity in resistance training, with the aim of providing load-velocity profiles. However, recent articles highlight a lack of reliability and validity in the estimated maximal strength, which can cause a serious health risk due to the overestimation of the bar velocity. With this study, we aimed to investigate whether imprecision in the measurement could explain the variance in this measurement error.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The research question was evaluated by comparing the integrated velocities from the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> with the velocities from a high-resolution displacement sensor for the squat and bench press. The velocity was measured with loads corresponding to 30%, 50%, and 70% of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in moderately trained participants (n = 53, f = 16, m = 37). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for agreement were supplemented by an exploration of the systematic bias and the random error (mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE)).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results indicated movement specificity, with the ICC values for the squat ranging from 0.204 to 0.991 and with ICC = 0.678-0.991 for the bench press. Systematically higher velocities were reported by the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> sensor (<i>p</i> < 0.001-0.176), with an MAE = 0.036-0.198 m/s, which corresponds to an MAPE of 4.09-42.15%.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The EnodePro<sup>®</sup> seems to provide overly high velocities, which could result in the previously reported overestimation of the 1RM. Despite the validity problems of force/load-velocity profiles, we suggest evaluating the bar velocity with accurate measurement devices, which is, contrary to previous reports, not the case with the EnodePro<sup>®</sup>.</p>","PeriodicalId":21698,"journal":{"name":"Sensors","volume":"25 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11769546/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> a Valid Tool to Determine the Bar Velocity in the Bench Press and Barbell Back Squat? A Comparative Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Nina Behrmann, Martin Hillebrecht, José Afonso, Konstantin Warneke\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/s25020549\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In recent years, the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> device has been one of the most frequently used velocity sensors to track the bar velocity in resistance training, with the aim of providing load-velocity profiles. However, recent articles highlight a lack of reliability and validity in the estimated maximal strength, which can cause a serious health risk due to the overestimation of the bar velocity. With this study, we aimed to investigate whether imprecision in the measurement could explain the variance in this measurement error.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The research question was evaluated by comparing the integrated velocities from the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> with the velocities from a high-resolution displacement sensor for the squat and bench press. The velocity was measured with loads corresponding to 30%, 50%, and 70% of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in moderately trained participants (n = 53, f = 16, m = 37). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for agreement were supplemented by an exploration of the systematic bias and the random error (mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE)).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results indicated movement specificity, with the ICC values for the squat ranging from 0.204 to 0.991 and with ICC = 0.678-0.991 for the bench press. Systematically higher velocities were reported by the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> sensor (<i>p</i> < 0.001-0.176), with an MAE = 0.036-0.198 m/s, which corresponds to an MAPE of 4.09-42.15%.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The EnodePro<sup>®</sup> seems to provide overly high velocities, which could result in the previously reported overestimation of the 1RM. Despite the validity problems of force/load-velocity profiles, we suggest evaluating the bar velocity with accurate measurement devices, which is, contrary to previous reports, not the case with the EnodePro<sup>®</sup>.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sensors\",\"volume\":\"25 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11769546/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sensors\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/s25020549\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sensors","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/s25020549","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
近年来,EnodePro®设备已成为最常用的速度传感器之一,用于跟踪阻力训练中的杆速度,目的是提供负载-速度剖面。然而,最近的文章强调,估计最大强度缺乏可靠性和有效性,这可能导致严重的健康风险,由于对杆速度的高估。在这项研究中,我们的目的是研究测量的不精确是否可以解释这种测量误差的方差。方法:通过比较EnodePro®的综合速度与高分辨率位移传感器的深蹲和卧推速度来评估研究问题。在中等训练的参与者(n = 53, f = 16, m = 37)中,以对应于单次重复最大值(1RM)的30%,50%和70%的负荷测量速度。通过探索系统偏差和随机误差(平均绝对误差(MAE),平均绝对百分比误差(MAPE))来补充一致性的类内相关系数(ICC)。结果:结果显示运动特异性,深蹲的ICC值为0.204 ~ 0.991,卧推的ICC值为0.678 ~ 0.991。EnodePro®传感器报告了系统更高的速度(p < 0.001-0.176), MAE = 0.036-0.198 m/s,对应的MAPE为4.09-42.15%。讨论:EnodePro®似乎提供了过高的速度,这可能导致先前报道的1RM高估。尽管存在力/负载-速度剖面的有效性问题,但我们建议使用精确的测量设备评估杆速度,这与之前的报告相反,而不是使用EnodePro®。
Is the EnodePro® a Valid Tool to Determine the Bar Velocity in the Bench Press and Barbell Back Squat? A Comparative Analysis.
In recent years, the EnodePro® device has been one of the most frequently used velocity sensors to track the bar velocity in resistance training, with the aim of providing load-velocity profiles. However, recent articles highlight a lack of reliability and validity in the estimated maximal strength, which can cause a serious health risk due to the overestimation of the bar velocity. With this study, we aimed to investigate whether imprecision in the measurement could explain the variance in this measurement error.
Methods: The research question was evaluated by comparing the integrated velocities from the EnodePro® with the velocities from a high-resolution displacement sensor for the squat and bench press. The velocity was measured with loads corresponding to 30%, 50%, and 70% of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in moderately trained participants (n = 53, f = 16, m = 37). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for agreement were supplemented by an exploration of the systematic bias and the random error (mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE)).
Results: The results indicated movement specificity, with the ICC values for the squat ranging from 0.204 to 0.991 and with ICC = 0.678-0.991 for the bench press. Systematically higher velocities were reported by the EnodePro® sensor (p < 0.001-0.176), with an MAE = 0.036-0.198 m/s, which corresponds to an MAPE of 4.09-42.15%.
Discussion: The EnodePro® seems to provide overly high velocities, which could result in the previously reported overestimation of the 1RM. Despite the validity problems of force/load-velocity profiles, we suggest evaluating the bar velocity with accurate measurement devices, which is, contrary to previous reports, not the case with the EnodePro®.
期刊介绍:
Sensors (ISSN 1424-8220) provides an advanced forum for the science and technology of sensors and biosensors. It publishes reviews (including comprehensive reviews on the complete sensors products), regular research papers and short notes. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced.