Warneke Konstantin, Skratek Josua, Wagner Carl-Maximilian, Wirth Klaus, Keiner Michael
Institute of Human Movement Science, Sport and Health, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Department for Sport and Exercise Science, German University of Health and Sport, Ismaning, Germany.
Front Physiol. 2024 Sep 10;15:1435103. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2024.1435103. eCollection 2024.
While maximum strength diagnostics are applied in several sports and rehabilitative settings, dynamic strength capacity has been determined via the one-repetition maximum (1RM) testing for decades. Because the literature concerned several limitations, such as injury risk and limited practical applicability in large populations (e.g., athletic training groups), the strength prediction via the velocity profile has received increasing attention recently. Referring to relative reliability coefficients and inappropriate interpretation of agreement statistics, several previous recommendations neglected systematic and random measurement bias.
This article explored the random measurement error arising from repeated testing (repeatability) and the agreement between two common sensors (vMaxPro and TENDO) within one repetition, using minimal velocity thresholds as well as the velocity = 0 m/s method. Furthermore, agreement analyses were applied to the estimated and measured 1RM in 25 young elite male soccer athletes.
The results reported repeatability values with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.66-0.80, which was accompanied by mean absolute (percentage) errors (MAE and MAPE) of up to 0.04-0.22 m/s and ≤7.5%. Agreement between the two sensors within one repetition showed a systematic lower velocity for the vMaxPro device than the Tendo, with ICCs ranging from 0.28 to 0.88, which were accompanied by an MAE/MAPE of ≤0.13 m/s (11%). Almost all estimations systematically over/ underestimated the measured 1RM, with a random scattering between 4.12% and 71.6%, depending on the velocity threshold used.
In agreement with most actual reviews, the presented results call for caution when using velocity profiles to estimate strength. Further approaches must be explored to minimize especially the random scattering.
虽然最大力量诊断已应用于多个运动和康复场景，但数十年来，动态力量能力一直是通过一次重复最大负荷（1RM）测试来确定的。由于相关文献存在一些局限性，如受伤风险以及在大量人群（如运动训练群体）中的实际适用性有限，通过速度曲线进行力量预测最近受到了越来越多的关注。鉴于相对可靠性系数以及对一致性统计的不当解释，之前的一些建议忽略了系统和随机测量偏差。
本文探讨了重复测试产生的随机测量误差（重复性），以及在一次重复动作中两个常用传感器（vMaxPro和TENDO）之间的一致性，使用了最小速度阈值以及速度 = 0米/秒的方法。此外，还对25名年轻精英男性足球运动员的估计1RM和测量1RM进行了一致性分析。
结果显示，组内相关系数（ICC）为0.66 - 0.80的重复性值，同时平均绝对（百分比）误差（MAE和MAPE）高达0.04 - 0.22米/秒且≤7.5%。一次重复动作中两个传感器之间的一致性表明，vMaxPro设备的速度系统地低于Tendo，ICC范围为0.28至0.88，同时MAE/MAPE≤0.13米/秒（11%）。几乎所有估计值都系统地高估/低估了测量的1RM，随机散布在4.12%至71.6%之间，具体取决于所使用的速度阈值。
与大多数实际综述一致，本文结果表明在使用速度曲线估计力量时需谨慎。必须探索进一步的方法，以尤其尽量减少随机散布。
