Validity of the PUSH band 2.0 and Speed4lifts to measure velocity during upper and lower body free-weight resistance exercises

Dean E. Callaghan, Joshua H. Guy, Nathan Elsworthy, Crystal Kean

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Accuracy and test–retest reliability were assessed for two devices, PUSH Band 2.0 (PUSH) and Speed4lifts. Two identical sessions were performed 6–8 days apart. Twenty rugby league players performed three repetitions with 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% of estimated one repetition maximum for back squat (BS), front squat (FS), and bench press (BP). Velocity was recorded using PUSH, Speed4lifts and 3D motion analysis system (gold standard). Passing-Bablok regression analysis assessed agreement of velocity measures with the gold standard. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and coefficients of variation (CV) assessed test–retest reliability. PUSH and Speed4lifts were accurate for BS velocities <1.00 m/s and FS velocities <0.65 m/s. PUSH was accurate for BP velocities <0.65 m/s. Speed4lifts was accurate for BP velocities between 0.65–1.00 m/s. PUSH was reliable at all loads (ICC = 0.79–0.92; CV = 2.63–6.89%) except for 20% FS and BP (ICC = 0.49–0.64; CV = 3.13–3.62%). Speed4lifts was reliable at all loads (ICC = 0.70–0.96; CV = 2.57–4.26%) except for 20% BP (ICC = 0.59; CV = 4.59%). These results suggest that both devices are unsuitable for measuring the velocity of BS, FS and BP at faster velocities and at lighter loads.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)968-975
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Sports Sciences
Volume40
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2022
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Validity of the PUSH band 2.0 and Speed4lifts to measure velocity during upper and lower body free-weight resistance exercises'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this