This study investigated the validity and reliability of the GymAware PowerTool (GPT). Thirteen resistance trained participants completed three visits, consisting of three repetitions of free-weight back squat, bench press, deadlift (80% one repetition maximum), and countermovement jump. Bar displacement, peak and mean velocity, peak and mean force, and jump height were calculated using the GPT, a three-dimensional motion capture system (Motion Analysis Corporation; 150 Hz), and a force plate (Kistler; 1500 Hz). Least products regression were used to compare agreeability between devices. A within-trial one-way ANOVA, typical error (TE; %), and smallest worthwhile change (SWC) were used to assess reliability. Regression analysis resulted in R² values of >0.85 for all variables excluding deadlift mean velocity (R² = 0.54–0.69). Significant differences were observed between visits 3-2 for bench press bar displacement (0.395 ± 0.055 m; 0.383 ± 0.053 m), and deadlift bar displacement (0.557 ± 0.034 m; 0.568 ± 0.034 m). No other significant differences were found. Low to moderate TE (0.6–8.8%) were found for all variables, with SWC ranging 1.7–7.4%. The data provides evidence that the GPT can be used to measure kinetic and kinematic outputs, however, care should be taken when monitoring deadlift performance.

This study compared the effects of dictating load using individual (ILVP) or group (GLVP) load-velocity profiles on lower-body strength and power. Nineteen trained males (23.6 ± 3.7 years) completed a back squat one-repetition maximum (1-RM), load-velocity profiling (LVP), and countermovement (CMJ), static-squat (SSJ) and standing-broad (SBJ) jump tests before and after 6 weeks of resistance training. Participants were randomly assigned to an ILVP, or GLVP intervention with intra-session load dictated through real-time velocity monitoring and prediction of current relative performance using either the participant’s LVP (ILVP) or a LVP based on all participant data (GLVP). Training resulted in significant increases in back squat 1-RM for the ILVP and GLVP group (p < 0.01; 9.7% and 7.2%, respectively), with no group-by-time interaction identified between training groups (p = 0.06). All jump performance significantly increased for the ILVP group (p < 0.01; CMJ: 6.6%; SSJ: 4.6%; SBJ: 6.7%), with only CMJ and SSJ improving for the GLVP group (p < 0.05; 4.3%). Despite no significant group-by-time interaction across all variables, the ILVP intervention induced a greater magnitude of adaptation when compared to a GLVP approach. Additionally, an individualised approach may lead to greater positive transfer to power-based movements, specifically vertical and horizontal jumps.

Kinesio‐tape^®has been suggested to increase blood circulation and lymph flow and might influence the muscle's ability to maintain strength during fatigue. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the influence of gluteal Kinesio‐tape^®on lower limb muscle strength in non‐fatigued and fatigued conditions. A total of 10 male rugby union players performed 20‐m sprint and vertical jump tests before and after a rugby‐specific fatigue protocol. The 20‐m sprint time was collected using light gates (SMARTSPEED). A 9‐camera motion analysis system (VICON, 100 Hz) and a force plate (Kistler, 1000 Hz) measured the kinematics and kinetics during a counter movement jump and drop‐jump. The effect of tape and fatigue on jump height, maximal vertical ground reaction force, reactivity strength index as well as lower limb joint work were analysed via a two‐way analysis of variance. The fatigue protocol resulted in significantly decreased performance of sprint time, jump heights and alterations in joint work. No statistical differences were found between the taped and un‐taped conditions in non‐fatigued and fatigued situation as well as in the interaction with fatigue. Therefore, taping the gluteal muscle does not influence the leg explosive strength after fatiguing in healthy rugby players.

Different relative loads during resistance training movements are considered to result in varying physiological adaptions. The challenge facing coaches and athletes is how to determine what absolute load relates to the prescribed relative load and how to account for changes in strength. Velocity based training may offer a solution to this problem. Currently there are limited guidelines for coaches to follow and the proposed methods are associated with increased burden. Therefore, this article provides simple evidence based guidelines and an online application to support the use of velocity based training as a method of auto-regulation during resistance training.

It is possible to create illusions of limb movements using vibrations over the skin. If a muscle is vibrated it can feel as if the limb is moving while it remains still. These illusions have been studied for decades but it is not yet entirely clear how to create them effectively and repeatedly. In this study, three parameters were varied; the frequency of the vibration, the stimulation site and the arm position. A closed loop control of the vibration frequency was used to ensure a fixed frequency over the stimulation time and across the participants. The experiment included twenty-five able-bodied participants (mean age 32±7 years, 9 females). A hanging arm position was introduced with the aim to increase the success rate of illusions compared to other studies. Twenty-four participants felt an illusion across all scenarios. The results highlight that tactile feedback affects the illusion.