Perception of changes in bar velocity as a resistance training monitoring tool for athletes.

PURPOSE: To investigate if perception of changes in bar velocity (PCV) can be used as a substitute for velocity tracking devices commonly used to monitor resistance-exercises. METHODS: Twenty-one professional male soccer athletes (21±4 years) first went through a load-power profile assessment to determine their optimal power load in the back-squat. In the next three experimental sessions, athletes completed four sets of six repetitions loaded with optimal power load. Starting from the second repetition, athletes reported their PCV of each repetition as a percentage of the first repetition. Accuracy of PCV was calculated as the absolute difference between PCV and the actual percentage change from the first repetition in bar velocity measured with a linear-encoder. The second and fourth sessions served as the pre- and post-intervention sessions, in which athletes received no feedback about their PCV accuracy. The third session served as the intervention session, in which athletes received verbal and visual feedback about their PCV accuracy levels after each set. RESULTS: The estimated accuracy of PCV decreased from an average error of 7% in the pre-intervention to an average error of 4.7% in the post-intervention session (95% confidence levels of difference: 1.5, 3.0). CONCLUSION: Athletes with velocity based training experience begin with a reasonable PCV accuracy rates which can be meaningfully improved after a single session that includes accuracy feedback. When velocity tracking devices are impractical or absent, PCV can be implemented as a resistance training monitoring tool.

Perception of changes in bar velocity in resistance training: Accuracy levels within and between exercises.

Velocity-based training is a method used to monitor resistance-training programs based on repetition velocities measured with tracking devices. Since velocity measuring devices can be expensive and impractical, trainee's perception of changes in velocity (PCV) may be used as a possible substitute. Here, 20 resistance-trained males first completed 1 Repetition Maximum (RM) tests in the bench-press and squat. Then, in three counterbalanced sessions, participants completed four sets of eight repetitions in both exercises using 60%1RM (two-sessions) or 70%1RM. Starting from the second repetition, participants reported their PCV of each repetition as a percentage of the first repetition. Accuracy of PCV was calculated as the difference between PCV and actual changes in velocity measured with a linear-encoder. Three key findings emerged. First, the absolute error in the bench-press and squat was ≈5.8 percentage-points in the second repetition, and increased to 13.2 and 16.7 percentage-points, respectively, by the eighth repetition. Second, participants reduced the absolute error in the second 60%1RM session compared to the first by ≈1.7 in both exercises (p ≤ 0.007). Third, participants were 4.2 times more likely to underestimate changes velocity in the squat compared to the bench-press. The gradual increments in the absolute error suggest that PCV may be better suited for sets of fewer repetitions (e.g., 4-5) and wider velocity-loss threshold ranges (e.g., 5-10%). The reduced absolute error in the second 60%1RM session suggests that PCV accuracy can be improved with practice. The systematic underestimation error in the squat suggests that a correction factor may increase PCV accuracy in this exercise.