I VALIDITY and RELIABILITY of HUMAC360 to MEASURE
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF HUMAC360 TO MEASURE VELOCITY DURING BACK SQUAT AND BENCH PRESS A thesis submitted to the Kent State University College of Education, Health, and Human Services in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science By Modesto A. Lebron May 2021 i © Copyright, 2021 by Modesto A. Lebron All Rights Reserved ii Thesis written by Modesto A. Lebron B.S., Kent State University, 2019 Approved by , Director, Master’s Thesis Committee Adam R. Jajtner , Member, Master’s Thesis Committee Jacob E. Barkley , Member, Master’s Thesis Committee J. Derek Kingsley Accepted by , Director, School of Health Sciences Ellen L. Glickman , Dean, College of Education, Health and Human James C. Hannon Services iii LEBRON, MODESTO A., M.S., 2021 Health and Human Services VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF HUMAC360 TO MEASURE VELOCITY DURING BACK SQUAT AND BENCH PRESS (97 pp.) Director of Thesis: Adam R. Jajtner, Ph.D. The purpose of this investigation will be to assess the validity and reliability of the HUMAC360 and its ability to measure velocity during submaximal loads for the barbell back squat and bench press. Twenty healthy men and women will be asked to report laboratory on three separate occasions, with at least 48 hours separating each visit. During Visit 1, anthropometrics will be obtained followed by a one-repetition maximum assessment for both the barbell back squat and bench press. During Visit 2 and Visit 3, participants will be asked to complete two sets of three repetitions for relative loads of 30, 50, 60 and 70% of their previously determined 1-RM, for the purpose of assessing velocity. To assess validity of the HUMAC 360, dependent T-tests will be used in comparison to the criterion Tendo unit. Additionally, relationships between these variables will be assessed by Pearson product- moment correlation. To assess reliability of the HUMAC360, dependent T-tests will be used to compare velocity data at each submaximal load from Visits 2 and 3. Additionally, test-retest reliability will be assessed using intraclass coefficients (ICC’s 3,1). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Adam Jajtner for his help and mentorship throughout this project. I would also like to thank my colleagues, friends, and family for their consistent support. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................iv CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 Specific Aims ...................................................................................................................... 3 II. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................... 5 Velocity-Based Training ..................................................................................................... 5 Velocity-Based Training Summery ............................................................................... 14 Load-Velocity Relationship .............................................................................................. 15 Load-Velocity Relationship Summery .......................................................................... 20 Velocity Assessment Tools ............................................................................................... 21 Velocity Assessment Tools Summery .......................................................................... 30 III. METHODS ................................................................................................................. 32 Experimental Approach .................................................................................................... 32 Participants ........................................................................................................................ 34 Procedures ......................................................................................................................... 34 1-Repetition Maximum Assessment ............................................................................. 34 Velocity Assessment ..................................................................................................... 35 Statistical Analysis ........................................................................................................ 37 IV. FUTURE STUDY BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 38 Rationale ........................................................................................................................... 38 Specific Aims .................................................................................................................... 41 V. FUTURE STUDY METHODS ................................................................................... 44 Participants ........................................................................................................................ 44 Sample Size Estimates .................................................................................................. 44 Experimental Approach .................................................................................................... 45 Procedures ......................................................................................................................... 48 Anthropometric Measures ............................................................................................. 48 1-Repetition Maximum Assessment ............................................................................. 48 Velocity Assessment ..................................................................................................... 49 Velocity Curve Analysis ............................................................................................... 50 Statistical Analysis ........................................................................................................ 51 Potential Limitations and Contingencies .......................................................................... 51 Potential Limitations ..................................................................................................... 51 v Contingencies ................................................................................................................ 52 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 54 APPENDIX A. FUTURE STUDY ABSTRACT ......................................................... 55 APPENDIX B. KENT STATE APPROVED IRB........................................................ 58 APPENDIX C. INFORMED CONSENT ..................................................................... 76 APPENDIX D. MEDICAL HEALTH HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE ...................... 82 APPENDIX E. RECRUITMENT FLYER.................................................................... 87 APPENDIX F. RECRUITMENT SCRIPT ................................................................... 89 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 91 vi 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Resistance training is as an exercise method that is commonly employed to provide improvements in hypertrophy, maximal strength, and muscular power. Traditionally, load may be dictated as a percent of an individual’s one-repetition maximum (1-RM), known as percent- based training (PBT (Orange et al., 2020). Prior researchers have established that specific submaximal loads may correlate to a total number of repetitions completed before failure (Mayhew et al., 1992). Although this method has been shown to improve strength and hypertrophy (Baker, Wilson, and Carlyon, 1994), PBT fails to allow for autoregulation. Autoregulation is defined as the ability to increase or decrease load, with respect to performance within a specific training session. This may be necessary, as performance may vary between training sessions due to a variety of influences (Dankel et al., 2017, Leveritt & Abernethy, 1999, Reilly & Piercy, 1994, Mann et al., 2016)), potentially requiring alteration of training load beyond the pre-prescribed intensity. Traditional autoregulation methods include rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and repetitions in reserve (RIR) (Shattock and Tee, 2020), however, there is an increasing popularity in velocity-based training (VBT). Velocity-based training is an autoregulation method that uses movement velocity to dictate intensity (Dorrell et al., 2020). Various velocity measurements have been demonstrated to have a strong relationship (r2 ≥ 0.96) with relative loads (%1-RM), including mean velocity (MV) (Pestana-Melero et al., 2018), mean propulsive velocity (MPV) (Gonzalez-Badillo & Sanchez-Medina, 2010, Loturco et al., 2017), and mean concentric velocity (MCV) (Pestana- Melero et al., 2018). As a result, utilizing movement velocity allows for an accurate estimation 2 of %1-RM, as well as maximal strength, as measured through 1-RM (Jidovtseff et al., 2011). Therefore, velocity measurements may be used to detect fluctuations in maximal strength within and between training sessions (Dorrell et al, 2020, Orange et al., 2020). Gonzalez-Badillo and Sanchez-Medina (2010) observed that a significant increase in maximal strength did not alter MPV at specific %1-RM, indicating each %1-RM has a specific movement velocity range. As previously stated, velocity at specific