<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<italic>Study aim</italic>: This study compared movement velocity and force-velocity profile parameters measured by a free video analysis software program, with the use of a high-speed video recording, and a validated linear position transducer (LPT).
<italic>Material and methods</italic>: Ten team-sports athletes performed double-leg and single-leg ballistic lower limb extensions on a leg press machine against a wide range of resistive loads. Each repetition was recorded by the LPT a high-speed camera (300 fps), and later analysed with a free video analysis software program.
<italic>Results</italic>: Mean and peak movement velocity presented high reliability (ICC: 0.990 and 0.988, p &lt; 0.001) and agreement between the two measuring systems (systematic bias: –0.06 ± 0.04 and –0.01 ± 0.03 m/s, respectively). Force-velocity profile parameters were also similar: maximum velocity at zero load (Vo: 1.79 ± 0.15 vs. 1.78 ± 0.12 m/s, p = 0.64), slope (b: –1585 ± 503 vs. –1562 ± 438 N · s/m, p = 0.43), maximum force at zero velocity (Fo: 2835 ± 937 vs. 2749 ± 694 N, p = 0.41) and maximum power (1274 ± 451 vs 1214 ± 285 W, p = 0.38). Both measuring systems could similarly detect the individual force or velocity deficit (p=0.91).
<italic>Conclusion</italic>: In conclusion, a free video analysis software combined with a high-speed camera was shown to be a reliable, accurate, low bias and cost-effective method in velocity-based testing.
</abstract>

Study aim: This study compared movement velocity and force-velocity profile parameters measured by a free video analysis software program, with the use of a high-speed video recording, and a validated linear position transducer (LPT).
Material and methods: Ten team-sports athletes performed double-leg and single-leg ballistic lower limb extensions on a leg press machine against a wide range of resistive loads. Each repetition was recorded by the LPT a high-speed camera (300 fps), and later analysed with a free video analysis software program.
Results: Mean and peak movement velocity presented high reliability (ICC: 0.990 and 0.988, p < 0.001) and agreement between the two measuring systems (systematic bias: –0.06 ± 0.04 and –0.01 ± 0.03 m/s, respectively). Force-velocity profile parameters were also similar: maximum velocity at zero load (Vo: 1.79 ± 0.15 vs. 1.78 ± 0.12 m/s, p = 0.64), slope (b: –1585 ± 503 vs. –1562 ± 438 N · s/m, p = 0.43), maximum force at zero velocity (Fo: 2835 ± 937 vs. 2749 ± 694 N, p = 0.41) and maximum power (1274 ± 451 vs 1214 ± 285 W, p = 0.38). Both measuring systems could similarly detect the individual force or velocity deficit (p=0.91).
Conclusion: In conclusion, a free video analysis software combined with a high-speed camera was shown to be a reliable, accurate, low bias and cost-effective method in velocity-based testing.

Comparison of movement velocity and force-velocity parameters using a free video analysis software and a linear position transducer during unilateral and bilateral ballistic leg press

School of Physical Education & Sport Science, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens

Biomedical Human Kinetics

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Study aim: This study compared movement velocity and force-velocity profile parameters measured by a free video analysis software program, with the use of a...

Comparison of movement velocity and force-velocity parameters using a free video analysis software and a linear position transducer during unilateral and bilateral ballistic leg press

Published Online: Dec 31, 2021

Page range: 25 - 32

Received: Jun 23, 2021

Accepted: Sep 19, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bhk-2022-0004

Keywords
Force-velocity relationship, Velocity-based training, Power training

© 2022 Klimentini Martinopoulou et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Comparison of movement velocity and force-velocity parameters using a free video analysis software and a linear position transducer during unilateral and bilateral ballistic leg press

Published Online: Dec 31, 2021

Page range: 25 - 32

Received: Jun 23, 2021

Accepted: Sep 19, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bhk-2022-0004

KeywordsForce-velocity relationship, Velocity-based training, Power training

© 2022 Klimentini Martinopoulou et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Keywords
Force-velocity relationship, Velocity-based training, Power training