Why the study?
Are commercially available velocity sensors and velocity-based 1RM prediction models valid and reliable?
Population
101 studies evaluating load-velocity relationships
Design
Meta-analysis
Key result
Commercially available velocity sensors demonstrated good-to-excellent pooled validity and device agreement (ICC 0.91-0.92), though substantial heterogeneity exists depending on sensor technology and exercise type.
Authors
Loading...
Supports velocity-based training protocols; confirms pooled sensor validity while leaving technology- and exercise-specific heterogeneity unresolved.
Meta-Analysis (n=101)
Are commercially available velocity sensors and velocity-based 1RM prediction models valid and reliable?
Effect estimate: ICC 0.91-0.92 (95% CI 0.83-0.97)
Commercial velocity sensors and velocity-based 1RM prediction models demonstrate high average validity and reliability, but substantial heterogeneity and exercise-specific variability require cautious interpretation.
Claassen et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Healthy participants undergoing resistance training (n=101). Commercially available velocity sensors and velocity-based 1RM prediction models vs. Gold standard systems (e.g., 3D motion capture) or reference sensors was evaluated on Validity and device agreement of velocity sensors (ICC 0.91-0.92, 95% CI 0.83-0.97). Commercially available velocity sensors demonstrated good-to-excellent pooled validity and device agreement (ICC 0.91-0.92), though substantial heterogeneity exists depending on sensor technology and exercise type.