Assessing full body impulsive ability using a range of medicine ball loads for the backward overhead medicine ball throw.

The potential for high performance in many sports can be assessed by quantifying whole-body explosiveness. The backwards overhead medicine ball (BOMB) throw is commonly-used to tests this ability, but the effect of varied loading on test execution is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of different medicine ball (MB) loads on force, velocity, and power output during the BOMB throw. Female collegiate softball and rugby players (n=31) performed the BOMB throw on a force plate using 2.7, 3.6, 4.5, and 5.5 kg MBs, with three throws per load in a randomised order, and 30 seconds rest between throws. A series of Repeated Measures ANOVAs noted no differences (p>0.05) in peak power, peak force, peak velocity, force at the moment of peak power, or velocity at the moment of peak power, across MB loads. The lack of differences among these loads indicates that coaches can likely compare kinetic characteristics of the BOMB throw within this range (2.7-5.5 kg). Therefore, coaches can use the BOMB throw with 2.7-5.5 kg MBs for training or measurement among female athletes to obtain reference data for programming or evaluation.

Reliability and Criterion Validity of the Assess2Perform Bar Sensei.

The Assess2Perform Bar Sensei is a device used to measure barbell velocity for velocity-based training that has not yet been validated. The purpose of this study was to determine criterion validity and reliability of the Assess2Perform Bar Sensei in barbell back squats by comparing it against the GymAware PowerTool, a previously validated instrument. Sixteen injury-free, resistance-trained subjects (eleven males and five females) were recruited. Subjects were tested for their back squat one repetition maximum (1RM). Then, on two separate days, subjects performed two sets of three repetitions at loads of 45%, 60% and 75% 1RM. The GymAware PowerTool and Bar Sensei were attached to the barbell in similar locations for concurrent collection of mean concentric velocity (MCV) and peak concentric velocity (PCV). The Bar Sensei and PowerTool showed generally fair to poor agreement for MCV and PCV when subjects lifted 45% of 1RM (intraclass correlation;ICC 0.4-0.59), and they showed poor agreement when subjects lifted 60% and 75% of 1RM (ICC 0.3-0.4). Inter-repetition/within-set reliability for the Bar Sensei ranged between ICC = 0.273-0.451 for MCV and PCV compared to the far more reliable PowerTool (ICC = 0.651-0.793). Currently, the Bar Sensei is not a reliable or valid tool for measuring barbell velocity in back squats.