Validity and Reliability of a Commercially Available Inertial Sensor for Measuring Barbell Mechanics during Weightlifting
, Ingo Sandau 3, Chris Bishop 1, Jiaqing Xu 1, Anthony N. Turner 1 and Jason P. Lake 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript sought to determine the validity and reliability of a sensor for measuring barbell mechanics. This type of research is critical for the field as new technology emerges. The authors should be applauded for a well-designed, clearly written manuscript that uses real-world loading with athletes. There are no significant issues with this article. I will provide brief feedback below in a line-by-line format.
Major issues: N/A
Minor issues:
Title: minor formatting, but you can make “a” lowercase and the “f” in for.
Line 12: you can remove this section heading “Featured application……………….”
Line 83: While common, this is the first instance of 1RM. Please spell it out for the reader before the acronym.
Line 90: can you please provide the n for both males and females before the demographics
Iine 98-99: what was the minimum and maximum days between sessions? Was it two to seven days between sessions?
Procedures section: while assumed, did all lifters wear weightlifting shoes? Please include it for replication purposes in future.
Line 103: What were the loads for the warm-ups? Was it a 20kg barbell, or were they allowed to load at that time progressively?
Line 112: space between 2-3 and minute
Line 383- would help drive the point home if you put the range of overestimation for the horizontal displacement here.
Author Response
This manuscript sought to determine the validity and reliability of a sensor for measuring barbell mechanics. This type of research is critical for the field as new technology emerges. The authors should be applauded for a well-designed, clearly written manuscript that uses real-world loading with athletes. There are no significant issues with this article. I will provide brief feedback below in a line-by-line format.
- Many thanks for your time and efforts on reviewing our manuscript. We value your feedback. All changes within the amended manuscript have been made in red to ease your review process of changes.
Major issues: N/A
Title: minor formatting, but you can make “a” lowercase and the “f” in for.
- This has now been changed.
Line 12: you can remove this section heading “Featured application……………….”
- This has now been removed.
Line 83: While common, this is the first instance of 1RM. Please spell it out for the reader before the acronym.
- We have now added one-repetition maximum prior to the abbreviation, 1RM.
Line 90: can you please provide the n for both males and females before the demographics
- This has now been added after male and female.
Iine 98-99: what was the minimum and maximum days between sessions? Was it two to seven days between sessions?
- I have now added 2 to 7. This now implies any time period between 2 and 7 with at least 48 hours recovery prior.
Procedures section: while assumed, did all lifters wear weightlifting shoes? Please include it for replication purposes in future.
- I have now added the following for clarity; Participants wore their normal training attire of weightlifting shoes and tight-fitting leggings or a singlet. Male participants lifted without a shirt whilst women were required to wear a sports bra or weightlifting singlet.
Line 103: What were the loads for the warm-ups? Was it a 20kg barbell, or were they allowed to load at that time progressively?
- I have added with a 20kg barbell for men and 15kg barbell for women on line 106. The specific loading is already outlined on line 114-117.
Line 112: space between 2-3 and minute
- This has been rectified.
Line 383- would help drive the point home if you put the range of overestimation for the horizontal displacement here.
- Thank you for the suggestion, however, the RSD shows this in the validity table and therefore we believe we would be repeating information. Additionally, given that there are multiple horizontal measures, it would be difficult to display within text in a coherent manner. Based on this we have decided to not add the overestimation range.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe development of a measuring device is a major effort. In the introduction part, they should indicate the difference with mobile APPs on the market such as MyJumpLab to establish the difference and the advantage it would bring, so that it would not be considered as just another resource.
You should indicate the code of acceptance of the ethical committee.
In methodology, instead of saying identify the validity of variables, it would be more logical to say the validity of Enode's measurement of these variables.
It is indicated that the subjects will work according to the last known 1RM, they should add the mode of attainment (pyramid, encoder, etc), as it is not the same.
In addition to the mathematical calculation model, there is a lack of a real image of the device so that the reader can see the context (size, weight, ease of use), in figure 1 could good.
I don't know if you have considered statistically linking the variables resulting from Qualisys with Enode to see the correspondence in those horizontal vectors that generate the conflict you indicate.
It would be interesting to differentiate between men and women, to be able to see if there are technical differences, as it does not appear in your work.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
- Many thanks for your time and efforts on reviewing our manuscript. We value your feedback. All changes within the amended manuscript have been made in red to ease your review process of changes.
The development of a measuring device is a major effort. In the introduction part, they should indicate the difference with mobile APPs on the market such as MyJumpLab to establish the difference and the advantage it would bring, so that it would not be considered as just another resource.
- Thank you for your suggestion. We don’t believe this would add value to the introduction and would detract from the focus of analysing barbell mechanics.
You should indicate the code of acceptance of the ethical committee.
- This has now been added on line 96
In methodology, instead of saying identify the validity of variables, it would be more logical to say the validity of Enode's measurement of these variables.
- We believe you were referring to line 80-81, which now reads; validity of Enode's measurement of various kinematic and kinetic variables during the snatch
It is indicated that the subjects will work according to the last known 1RM, they should add the mode of attainment (pyramid, encoder, etc), as it is not the same.
- We have added using ascended loading at the end of the sentence on line 114.
In addition to the mathematical calculation model, there is a lack of a real image of the device so that the reader can see the context (size, weight, ease of use), in figure 1 could good.
- We have adapted figure 1 as per your suggestion. It now includes dimension and weight of the Enode.
I don't know if you have considered statistically linking the variables resulting from Qualisys with Enode to see the correspondence in those horizontal vectors that generate the conflict you indicate.
- Apologies, but we are not clear on what you mean by this statement? The relationship between the 3D and Enode is reported using CCC, which includes all variables as outlined in figure 4. Again, apologies if we have misunderstood your comment.
It would be interesting to differentiate between men and women, to be able to see if there are technical differences, as it does not appear in your work.
- I believe this would be interesting also. However, it is an entirely new question that requires investigation. The present manuscript is focusing on the device and thus we have kept it independent on technical differences between gender, training experience, weight category, etc.
