IMR Press / JOMH / Volume 15 / Issue 3 / DOI: 10.22374/jomh.v15i3.162

Journal of Men’s Health (JOMH) is published by IMR Press from Volume 17 Issue 1 (2021). Previous articles were published by another publisher on a subscription basis, and they are hosted by IMR Press on imrpress.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with Dougmar Publishing Group.

Original Research

ACCELEROMETER-BASED INSTANTANEOUS FEEDBACK TECHNOLOGY IS AS EFFECTIVE AS COACH’S SUPERVISION ON THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF RESISTANCE TRAINING SESSIONS FOR UNIVERSITY WRESTLING ATHLETES

Show Less
1 Laboratory of Exercise Biochemistry, Department of Physical Education, College of Arts and Physical Education, Dong-A University, Busan, Republic of Korea

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

J. Mens. Health 2019, 15(3), 89–98; https://doi.org/10.22374/jomh.v15i3.162
Submitted: 16 June 2019 | Accepted: 3 October 2019 | Published: 4 November 2019
Abstract

Background and Objective

We investigated how VBT devices’ instantaneous feedback affects resistance training efficiency under different intensities.

Material and Methods

Eight university wrestling athletes were recruited (21±0.42 years) and three separated experiments were conducted under no-supervision (NSUP), coach supervision (CSUP), and instantaneous velocity feedback (VBT) conditions on 10 days apart. Maximal repetition to failure back squat on 65%1RM and 85%1RM was performed on 1080 quantum smith machine.

Results

Repetition and volume were significantly greater in CSUP (Rep: p=0.034, Vol: p=0.020) and VBT (Rep: p=0.003, Vol: p=0.001) than NSUP group at 65%1RM, but VBT group only showed statistically greater outcomes at 85%1RM than NSUP (Rep: p=0.015, Vol: p=0.020). However, total work was only significantly greater in VBT group regardless of intensity, and it showed identically greater at 65%1RM than both NSUP (p=0.001) and CSUP groups (p=0.036). While peak force remained as no difference between any groups and trials, peak velocity and power was significantly greater in VBT group than NSUP (pVel 65%1RM: p=0.018 and 85%1RM: p=0.007, pPow 65%1RM: p=0.004 and 85%1RM: p=0.006) and CSUP groups (pVel 65%1RM: p=0.008 and 85%1RM: p=0.023, pPow 65%1RM: p=0.001 and 85%1RM: p=0.015) regardless of intensity.

Conclusion

The present study, therefore, concluded that the instantaneous feedback from VBT device encouraged wrestling athletes to perform longer and harder than coach’s encouragement in the resistance training. This may suggest that velocity-based training effectively assisted resistance training session even if the strength coach or team coach is not available.

Keywords
auditory feedback
training efficiency
VBT
velocity-based training
visual feedback
Share
Back to top