ABSTRACT
Introduction: The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the existing literature on performance in resistance training (RT) by addressing how a phenomenological perspective on experiences with inter kinaesthetic affectivity can illuminate experience of practicing RT with non-verbal, visual feedback provided through laser lights attached to the barbell. Method: The material is created from qualitative interviews and using inter-kinaesthetic affectivity as analytical lenses. Results: The findings show how participants interpret the feedback in the moment and explain how they adjust their movement in dialogue with the feedback and enable the "uptake" of feedback in their embodied experience. The findings show how the participants developed an awareness of how they can equalize the balance on their feet. Discussion: We discuss what this means for the understanding of the training process in terms of how practitioners can use the uptake of non-verbal, visual feedback to immediately adjust the quality of their performance by responding kinaesthetically and bodily. The discussion contributes to the question of what kind of role a practitioner's own kinaesthetic and bodily experiences have in the development and organization of RT. Perspectives that include the lived and intersubjective body as a knowledge position are promising for illuminating the whole bodied engagement that is necessary to understand how to perform RT.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Recently, a novel method for improving movement quality called open-ended augmented feedback has been introduced. However, the effects of using such feedback in a training intervention have not yet been examined. The aim of this study was to assess the changes in performance and movement quality following a five-week resistance-training program with either (1) technological feedback or (2) traditional, verbal feedback from an experienced trainer. METHODS: Nineteen untrained females (age: 21.84 ± 2.24 years, height: 169.95 ± 5.92 cm, body mass: 65.05 ± 7.93 kg) randomly allocated to one of the two conditions completed five weeks of training with two weekly sessions. Pre- and post-intervention, participants were tested for physical performance (i.e., back squat and isometric mid-thigh pull strength) and movement quality parameters (weight distribution, center of gravity variation, and subjective rating of the back squat technique). RESULTS: Both groups similarly increased the training resistance throughout the intervention (p < 0.01), as well as strength in the back squat (technological feedback group: effect size (ES) = 1.31, p = 0.002; traditional feedback group: ES = 1.48, p = 0.002). Only the traditional feedback group increased isometric mid-thigh pull strength (ES = 1.11, p = 0.008) and subjectively rated lifting technique at the same load (p = 0.046). No changes in force distribution (p = 0.062-0.993) or center of gravity variation (p = 0.160-0.969) occurred in either group when lifting the same absolute loads at post-test. However, both groups displayed a greater variation in center of gravity when lifting the same relative load at post-test (technological feedback group: p < 0.001; traditional feedback group: p = 0.006). No differences were found between the groups for any of the observed changes (p = 0.205-0.401). CONCLUSIONS: Five weeks of back-squat training with verbal feedback increased isometric mid-thigh pull strength and subjectively rated lifting technique from pre- to post-test, whereas technological feedback did not. Both methods improved back squat strength and training resistance. For resistance-training beginners, the choice between feedback methods should be based on the desired outcomes and the availability of expertise and equipment.
