Is the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> a Valid Tool to Determine the Bar Velocity in the Bench Press and Barbell Back Squat? A Comparative Analysis
In recent years, the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> device has been one of the most frequently used velocity sensors to track the bar velocity in resistance training, with the aim of providing load–velocity profiles. However, recent articles highlight a lack of reliability and validity in the esti...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Sensors |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/25/2/549 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832587513993101312 |
|---|---|
| author | Nina Behrmann Martin Hillebrecht José Afonso Konstantin Warneke |
| author_facet | Nina Behrmann Martin Hillebrecht José Afonso Konstantin Warneke |
| author_sort | Nina Behrmann |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In recent years, the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> device has been one of the most frequently used velocity sensors to track the bar velocity in resistance training, with the aim of providing load–velocity profiles. However, recent articles highlight a lack of reliability and validity in the estimated maximal strength, which can cause a serious health risk due to the overestimation of the bar velocity. With this study, we aimed to investigate whether imprecision in the measurement could explain the variance in this measurement error. Methods: The research question was evaluated by comparing the integrated velocities from the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> with the velocities from a high-resolution displacement sensor for the squat and bench press. The velocity was measured with loads corresponding to 30%, 50%, and 70% of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in moderately trained participants (n = 53, f = 16, m = 37). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for agreement were supplemented by an exploration of the systematic bias and the random error (mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE)). Results: The results indicated movement specificity, with the ICC values for the squat ranging from 0.204 to 0.991 and with ICC = 0.678–0.991 for the bench press. Systematically higher velocities were reported by the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> sensor (<i>p</i> < 0.001–0.176), with an MAE = 0.036–0.198 m/s, which corresponds to an MAPE of 4.09–42.15%. Discussion: The EnodePro<sup>®</sup> seems to provide overly high velocities, which could result in the previously reported overestimation of the 1RM. Despite the validity problems of force/load–velocity profiles, we suggest evaluating the bar velocity with accurate measurement devices, which is, contrary to previous reports, not the case with the EnodePro<sup>®</sup>. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-9c4e5678a1fb44f28791dffb6ad26435 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1424-8220 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Sensors |
| spelling | doaj-art-9c4e5678a1fb44f28791dffb6ad264352025-01-24T13:49:18ZengMDPI AGSensors1424-82202025-01-0125254910.3390/s25020549Is the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> a Valid Tool to Determine the Bar Velocity in the Bench Press and Barbell Back Squat? A Comparative AnalysisNina Behrmann0Martin Hillebrecht1José Afonso2Konstantin Warneke3Institute of Sport Science, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, 26129 Oldenburg, GermanyUniversity Sport Center, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, 26129 Oldenburg, GermanyCentre of Research, Education, Innovation, and Intervention in Sport (CIFI<sub>2</sub>D), Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, 4200-450 Porto, PortugalInstitute of Human Movement Science, Sport and Health, University of Graz, 8010 Graz, AustriaIn recent years, the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> device has been one of the most frequently used velocity sensors to track the bar velocity in resistance training, with the aim of providing load–velocity profiles. However, recent articles highlight a lack of reliability and validity in the estimated maximal strength, which can cause a serious health risk due to the overestimation of the bar velocity. With this study, we aimed to investigate whether imprecision in the measurement could explain the variance in this measurement error. Methods: The research question was evaluated by comparing the integrated velocities from the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> with the velocities from a high-resolution displacement sensor for the squat and bench press. The velocity was measured with loads corresponding to 30%, 50%, and 70% of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in moderately trained participants (n = 53, f = 16, m = 37). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for agreement were supplemented by an exploration of the systematic bias and the random error (mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE)). Results: The results indicated movement specificity, with the ICC values for the squat ranging from 0.204 to 0.991 and with ICC = 0.678–0.991 for the bench press. Systematically higher velocities were reported by the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> sensor (<i>p</i> < 0.001–0.176), with an MAE = 0.036–0.198 m/s, which corresponds to an MAPE of 4.09–42.15%. Discussion: The EnodePro<sup>®</sup> seems to provide overly high velocities, which could result in the previously reported overestimation of the 1RM. Despite the validity problems of force/load–velocity profiles, we suggest evaluating the bar velocity with accurate measurement devices, which is, contrary to previous reports, not the case with the EnodePro<sup>®</sup>.https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/25/2/549EnodeProvelocity-based trainingbar velocitybench pressdeep squat1RM |
| spellingShingle | Nina Behrmann Martin Hillebrecht José Afonso Konstantin Warneke Is the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> a Valid Tool to Determine the Bar Velocity in the Bench Press and Barbell Back Squat? A Comparative Analysis Sensors EnodePro velocity-based training bar velocity bench press deep squat 1RM |
| title | Is the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> a Valid Tool to Determine the Bar Velocity in the Bench Press and Barbell Back Squat? A Comparative Analysis |
| title_full | Is the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> a Valid Tool to Determine the Bar Velocity in the Bench Press and Barbell Back Squat? A Comparative Analysis |
| title_fullStr | Is the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> a Valid Tool to Determine the Bar Velocity in the Bench Press and Barbell Back Squat? A Comparative Analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Is the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> a Valid Tool to Determine the Bar Velocity in the Bench Press and Barbell Back Squat? A Comparative Analysis |
| title_short | Is the EnodePro<sup>®</sup> a Valid Tool to Determine the Bar Velocity in the Bench Press and Barbell Back Squat? A Comparative Analysis |
| title_sort | is the enodepro sup r sup a valid tool to determine the bar velocity in the bench press and barbell back squat a comparative analysis |
| topic | EnodePro velocity-based training bar velocity bench press deep squat 1RM |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/25/2/549 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ninabehrmann istheenodeprosupsupavalidtooltodeterminethebarvelocityinthebenchpressandbarbellbacksquatacomparativeanalysis AT martinhillebrecht istheenodeprosupsupavalidtooltodeterminethebarvelocityinthebenchpressandbarbellbacksquatacomparativeanalysis AT joseafonso istheenodeprosupsupavalidtooltodeterminethebarvelocityinthebenchpressandbarbellbacksquatacomparativeanalysis AT konstantinwarneke istheenodeprosupsupavalidtooltodeterminethebarvelocityinthebenchpressandbarbellbacksquatacomparativeanalysis |