Comparison of the FitroDyne and GymAware Rotary Encoders for Quantifying Peak and Mean Velocity During Traditional Multijointed Exercises

John F T Fernandes, Kevin L Lamb, Cain C T Clark, Jason Moran, Ben Drury, Amador Garcia-Ramos, Craig Twist

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The FitroDyne and GymAware rotary encoders are being increasingly used in resistance training to monitor movement velocity, but how closely their velocity outcomes agree is unknown. Consequently, this study aimed to determine the level of agreement between the FitroDyne and GymAware for the assessment of movement velocity in 3 resistance training exercises. Fifteen men performed 3 repetitions of bench press, back squat, and bent-over-row exercises at 10% 1 repetition maximum increments (from 20 to 80%). For each repetition, the FitroDyne and GymAware recorded peak and mean barbell velocity (cm·s). Although strongly correlated (r = 0.79-1.00), peak velocity values for the GymAware were significantly lower than the FitroDyne for all exercises and loads. Importantly, the random errors between the devices, quantified through Bland and Altman's 95% limits of agreement, were unacceptable, ranging from ±3.8 to 25.9 cm·s. Differences in mean velocity were smaller (and nonsignificant for most comparisons) and highly correlated (r = 0.86-1.00) between devices. Notwithstanding smaller random errors than for the peak values, mean values still reflected poor agreement (random errors between ±2.1 and 12.0 cm·s). These findings suggest that the FitroDyne and GymAware cannot record peak or mean velocity with acceptable agreement and should neither be used interchangeably nor their data compared.

Original languageEnglish
Article number30399117
Pages (from-to)(In-Press)
JournalJournal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Volume(In-Press)
Early online date5 Nov 2018
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 5 Nov 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Resistance Training
Exercise
Equipment and Supplies

Bibliographical note

Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively
from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

Keywords

  • Velocity
  • validity
  • agreement
  • bench press
  • squat
  • bent-over-row

Cite this

Comparison of the FitroDyne and GymAware Rotary Encoders for Quantifying Peak and Mean Velocity During Traditional Multijointed Exercises. / Fernandes, John F T; Lamb, Kevin L; Clark, Cain C T; Moran, Jason; Drury, Ben; Garcia-Ramos, Amador; Twist, Craig.

In: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, Vol. (In-Press), 30399117 , 05.11.2018, p. (In-Press).

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fernandes, John F T ; Lamb, Kevin L ; Clark, Cain C T ; Moran, Jason ; Drury, Ben ; Garcia-Ramos, Amador ; Twist, Craig. / Comparison of the FitroDyne and GymAware Rotary Encoders for Quantifying Peak and Mean Velocity During Traditional Multijointed Exercises. In: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2018 ; Vol. (In-Press). pp. (In-Press).
@article{c210759f683e402db3f231c33caf407a,
title = "Comparison of the FitroDyne and GymAware Rotary Encoders for Quantifying Peak and Mean Velocity During Traditional Multijointed Exercises",
abstract = "The FitroDyne and GymAware rotary encoders are being increasingly used in resistance training to monitor movement velocity, but how closely their velocity outcomes agree is unknown. Consequently, this study aimed to determine the level of agreement between the FitroDyne and GymAware for the assessment of movement velocity in 3 resistance training exercises. Fifteen men performed 3 repetitions of bench press, back squat, and bent-over-row exercises at 10{\%} 1 repetition maximum increments (from 20 to 80{\%}). For each repetition, the FitroDyne and GymAware recorded peak and mean barbell velocity (cm·s). Although strongly correlated (r = 0.79-1.00), peak velocity values for the GymAware were significantly lower than the FitroDyne for all exercises and loads. Importantly, the random errors between the devices, quantified through Bland and Altman's 95{\%} limits of agreement, were unacceptable, ranging from ±3.8 to 25.9 cm·s. Differences in mean velocity were smaller (and nonsignificant for most comparisons) and highly correlated (r = 0.86-1.00) between devices. Notwithstanding smaller random errors than for the peak values, mean values still reflected poor agreement (random errors between ±2.1 and 12.0 cm·s). These findings suggest that the FitroDyne and GymAware cannot record peak or mean velocity with acceptable agreement and should neither be used interchangeably nor their data compared.",
keywords = "Velocity, validity, agreement, bench press, squat, bent-over-row",
author = "Fernandes, {John F T} and Lamb, {Kevin L} and Clark, {Cain C T} and Jason Moran and Ben Drury and Amador Garcia-Ramos and Craig Twist",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
day = "5",
doi = "10.1519/JSC.0000000000002952",
language = "English",
volume = "(In-Press)",
pages = "(In--Press)",
journal = "Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research",
issn = "1064-8011",
publisher = "Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of the FitroDyne and GymAware Rotary Encoders for Quantifying Peak and Mean Velocity During Traditional Multijointed Exercises

AU - Fernandes, John F T

AU - Lamb, Kevin L

AU - Clark, Cain C T

AU - Moran, Jason

AU - Drury, Ben

AU - Garcia-Ramos, Amador

AU - Twist, Craig

N1 - Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

PY - 2018/11/5

Y1 - 2018/11/5

N2 - The FitroDyne and GymAware rotary encoders are being increasingly used in resistance training to monitor movement velocity, but how closely their velocity outcomes agree is unknown. Consequently, this study aimed to determine the level of agreement between the FitroDyne and GymAware for the assessment of movement velocity in 3 resistance training exercises. Fifteen men performed 3 repetitions of bench press, back squat, and bent-over-row exercises at 10% 1 repetition maximum increments (from 20 to 80%). For each repetition, the FitroDyne and GymAware recorded peak and mean barbell velocity (cm·s). Although strongly correlated (r = 0.79-1.00), peak velocity values for the GymAware were significantly lower than the FitroDyne for all exercises and loads. Importantly, the random errors between the devices, quantified through Bland and Altman's 95% limits of agreement, were unacceptable, ranging from ±3.8 to 25.9 cm·s. Differences in mean velocity were smaller (and nonsignificant for most comparisons) and highly correlated (r = 0.86-1.00) between devices. Notwithstanding smaller random errors than for the peak values, mean values still reflected poor agreement (random errors between ±2.1 and 12.0 cm·s). These findings suggest that the FitroDyne and GymAware cannot record peak or mean velocity with acceptable agreement and should neither be used interchangeably nor their data compared.

AB - The FitroDyne and GymAware rotary encoders are being increasingly used in resistance training to monitor movement velocity, but how closely their velocity outcomes agree is unknown. Consequently, this study aimed to determine the level of agreement between the FitroDyne and GymAware for the assessment of movement velocity in 3 resistance training exercises. Fifteen men performed 3 repetitions of bench press, back squat, and bent-over-row exercises at 10% 1 repetition maximum increments (from 20 to 80%). For each repetition, the FitroDyne and GymAware recorded peak and mean barbell velocity (cm·s). Although strongly correlated (r = 0.79-1.00), peak velocity values for the GymAware were significantly lower than the FitroDyne for all exercises and loads. Importantly, the random errors between the devices, quantified through Bland and Altman's 95% limits of agreement, were unacceptable, ranging from ±3.8 to 25.9 cm·s. Differences in mean velocity were smaller (and nonsignificant for most comparisons) and highly correlated (r = 0.86-1.00) between devices. Notwithstanding smaller random errors than for the peak values, mean values still reflected poor agreement (random errors between ±2.1 and 12.0 cm·s). These findings suggest that the FitroDyne and GymAware cannot record peak or mean velocity with acceptable agreement and should neither be used interchangeably nor their data compared.

KW - Velocity

KW - validity

KW - agreement

KW - bench press

KW - squat

KW - bent-over-row

U2 - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002952

DO - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002952

M3 - Article

VL - (In-Press)

SP - (In-Press)

JO - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

JF - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

SN - 1064-8011

M1 - 30399117

ER -