- Movement Health
- High Performance
-
Professionals
-
Technology
-
Resources
- Contact Us
Nothing beats a visual, that's why this short is right up top and the best way to share the compelling MFX feature called the Velocity Sequence. Take a look at these two Squat Jump reps, along with the MFX-Sport app display. Below the video we will explain our class-leading velocity-based training (VBT) instant metrics.
The monitoring assessment is straight forward and widely used, a 95 LBS Squat Jump. The lower load (at least for this for this Stanford football linebacker) is ideal because it allows a higher velocity (speed) expression of movement performance while overcoming a lite amount of external resistance.
The MoveFactorX (MFX) sensor module is attached to the barbell and acquires the acceleration data, which is then transmitted to the iPad and the MFX-Sport app for the near real-time information. By the time the athlete has landed from the jump, the values are displayed, that's instant rep-by-rep performance feedback!
The MFX-Sport app is displaying:
What does this information mean and how may it be applied? Key questions and topics we will soon share more about. But what we do know, the Velocity Sequence concept is the modernization of movement performance feedback for barbell and body weight tracking and will replace some traditional VBT metrics.
Interested to learn more? The MFX product page is where you may view additional video and photo content. By putting our pioneering utility to work, less than 1 oz of movement sensor technology can be a movement performance improvement game-changer for your athletes and program.
by Everett Ridderbos, Director S&C, Holy Family (Broomfield, Colorado)
This article shares my 16 months of experience with velocity-based training and the MoveFactorX product within a high school setting. As the title of this article suggests, I wanted to start out by explaining why I went with MoveFactorX (MFX).
I felt that writing this series was important because the communication of experiential coaching education within high school strength & conditioning seems to be lacking. We see a lot of social media splashes of “hey, look at this new product...” but the follow up and substance is hardly there. Or I will try to engage on a Twitter thread and ask questions, then get met with vague or empty suit confusing responses.
There is so much to learn and share in our coaching community, and since sport technology feedback (especially VBT) is such a hot area I wanted to share my experiences, coach to coach. Setting the tone for the younger and emerging athlete is a responsibility for all of us high school strength coaches, and I hope my words help create better communication, awareness, and results. We need to learn from each other.
A little bit about myself and situation
I am the Director of S&C at Holy Family High School in Broomfield, CO. I am responsible for all the S&C that takes place either before or after school and the summer S&C camp. A lot of the time I only see athletes when they are in season for their sport. This can make programming a little tricky at times, but I feel like I have figured out a good system for managing their workload while still working on filling the “strength bucket” for the in-season athletes. My primary focus for in-season training is to focus on speed and power development. This means we need to focus on moving weight fast through specific ranges of motion. I like to focus on joint angles and ranges of motion that they will see in their sport in order to get the most transfer to the field of play as possible. I also want to use a familiar movement that has a short learning curve, so we are able to progress a little faster than if they weren’t in season.
Coach Ridderbos shares how Holy Family uses the Trap Bar Jump exercise protocol to instantly assess movement performance feedback with objective information. The athlete's interaction with the MFX sensor & mobile application is often described within coaching circles as increasing focus and intention during each repetition. The evidence-based approach is found to be engaging and motivating to the developing athlete.
Why I ended up choosing MoveFactorX out of all of the other VBT companies out there
I first started researching the different options for VBT in early 2021. I was listening to podcasts, reading articles, talking with other S&C coaches to try and figure out which product would work best for me and my situation. One of the options that was suggested to me was Bar Sensei.
After some poking around I found that the Bar Sensei had been discontinued and was being upgraded to a next-generation velocity-based training product called MoveFactorX. This product option checked a couple of boxes for me right off the bat:
I reached out to the company to get more information and since the company was based out of Colorado, I was able to schedule a meeting with Scott Damman to come by the school to demonstrate the product.
Scott came out to my school in August of 2021 to demo the product. I am glad he made the visit because had I not seen the MoveFactorX (MFX) firsthand I probably would have went with another product. At that time I was all but set on picking a device that was a linear position transducer (LPT). From what I had heard from coaches the LPT style gives you more accurate results on barbell speed, so naturally, I figured that would be the best way to go.
The MoveFactorX sensor is a wireless ultra-portable footprint, weighing less than 30 grams. The sensor is secured and protected with a neoprene sleeve (image shows attached [red area] to the barbell) and can be placed on various areas of the barbell. Also shown in this image is a LPT style product, a string-based option which is attached to the bar and extends to an encoder box.
In retrospect, I almost made an incorrect decision based on a point I want to try to get across to fellow coaches, please be careful of what you hear and make sure you are really understanding what you need. This point ties right back to what I mentioned above about vagueness, we really need to dig a bit deeper to understand the richness of the soil, not be satisfied with what we hear and see on the surface.
During the demo I was very impressed with the MoveFactorX ability to produce consistent readings that were very close to the readings I was getting from the LPT product. The side-by-side comparison was a confidence builder. Then, Scott and I talked about the expanded utility of the MFX product and my eyes got a bit bigger. This product offers advanced metrics that I had no idea a low cost and tiny product could do. I knew I had found a VBT product that offered what I was looking for today, and I knew this product allowed me to grow as I became more educated about VBT application.
Even though seeing the future added utility was interesting, making sure this product was a practical fit for today was very important to me. I really liked the balance of future proofing my VBT investment and enabling myself to grow with the product, but I needed to make sure I was buying something to solve my needs today.
With that being said, the three points that really sold me on MoveFactorX were:
Developing the Complete Athlete: turning the instant performance feedback into insights to help understand the athlethowe is progressing, along with areas to consider for improvement. Basic reporting, including this graph example, are not an added cost. When you make your up-front MoveFactorX purchase, you gets piles of team utility with no added subsciption fee requirements.
Implementing with the athletes, intuitive nature
When we put the modules into action I had zero issues with athletes learning how to log in and use the device. Even if an athlete hasn’t used it for several months, since it is so intuitive, they are able to log back in with no issues. As I mentioned earlier the cost allowed me to make one purchase instead of making multiple purchases over the course of several years. Not having to pay a subscription fee is also great because I don’t have to budget for that cost each year. The insights dashboard, which is currently in beta, has been a great tool. It has allowed me to be able to quickly look at athletes rolling averages on specific metrics, so I don’t need to spend hours combing through the data to find what I need. It is also easy to understand from an athlete or coach's standpoint. I can show the athletes how they are improving over time with just one picture. There have been some issues accessing some of the data but I know that the company is doing everything they can to resolve those issues and improve the dashboard even more.
Overall, I have really enjoyed being part of this expanding platform and have been an eyewitness to watch it develop over the 16 months we have used MFX. I try to be an active participant in the process and engage to provide feedback and suggestions. The MFX guys listen and are honest about what is feasible. It’s really cool when working together and a partnership really is just that, and I hope this first article installment was helpful to you.
By Tim Kettenring, Founder of Real Human Performance
Lots of chatter from the Dunning-Kruger club about “Zone 2” training. Zone 2 is just above Zone 1, right? Obviously! End of post.
Or maybe it’s more complex than that…
Let’s dive into all things heart rate zones.
There are several HR zone systems; the most popular being the 5 zone system and the 7 zone system.
The two main variations of the 5 zone system look like this:
Zone 1 - Very Light: 50-60% of max heart rate
Zone 2 - Light: 60-70% of MHR
Zone 3 - Moderate: 70-80% of MHR
Zone 4 - Hard: 80-90% of MHR
Zone 5 - Maximum: 90-100% of MHR
Zone 1 - Recovery: 55-65% MHR
Zone 2 - Aerobic/Base: 65-75% MHR
Zone 3 - Tempo: 80-85% MHR
Zone 4 - Lactate Threshold: 85-88% MHR
Zone 5 - Anaerobic: > 90% MHR
Zone 1 - Recovery: <65% MHR
Zone 2 - Aerobic: 65-75% MHR
Zone 3 - Extensive Endurance: 75-80% MHR
Zone 4 - Intensive Endurance: 80-85% MHR
Zone 5 - Anaerobic Threshold: 85-90% MHR
Zone 6 - Maximum Aerobic: > 90% MHR
Zone 7 - Speed: ~100% MHR
As heart rate monitors proliferated in the 1980s and endurance coaches started prescribing heart rate-based training to their athletes, they estimated different zones based on how much blood lactate was being accumulated, leading to the discovery of the “lactate threshold” (LT).
The first training zone system was based on the adaptations elicited in each range and had 7 zones (bottom) and was simplified to 5 zones (middle) which are generally in alignment. The 5 zone system was then distilled further to a percentage-based - as opposed to adaptation-based - 5 zone model (top).
Much of this oversimplification is due to the now mass consumption of heart rate monitoring devices, many grossly inaccurate.
For the purposes of this conversation, we will use the original 5 zone model.
I hate this phrase almost as much as I hate people using the term “cardio” and “lactic acid.” The ubiquitous nature of each in casual exercise circles denotes how poorly those of us in exercise science have communicated fundamental physiological principles.
When training at higher heart rates - think Zone 4 from above - the breakdown of glucose to make ATP produces pyruvate within muscle cells; a process which yields lactic acid, but LA by itself does very little as it’s quickly separated within the cell into hydrogen ions and lactate. The hydrogen ions cause the “burning” sensation within the muscle fibers themselves.
Mitochondria within slow-twitch muscle cells use pyruvate to generate more ATP at lower intensities - zone 2-3 - and can also efficiently convert pyruvate to lactate where it can also regenerate ATP.
The point at which lactate production exceeds lactate utilization is called the lactate threshold, colloquially recognized in the endurance sports community as the point at which the burning becomes nearly intolerable - after all, they wouldn’t be athletes if they couldn’t tolerate this discomfort…
Most endurance competitions take place at or slightly above lactate threshold and is probably where most of the misconceptions come from for everyday trainees.
In the last two decades, exercise physiologists have been researching how endurance athletes can most efficiently train for high outputs with the least metabolic stress, Dr. Stephen Seiler, an American expat living in Norway, being the most prominent. Dr. Seiler coined the term “polarized training” after watching Norwegian cross country skiers walk up hills on long training runs. The theory being that they wanted consistent exposure to the same low heart rate zone - Zone 2 - for long durations to improve muscle cells’ ability to produce and use oxygen instead of lactate and also to improve the athletes’ ability to use fat as a primary energy source instead of carbohydrate.
More efficient fat oxidation allows athletes to delay burning precious carbohydrates at higher intensities in training and in competition. This concept is critically important, even for coaches of speed/power athletes like soccer, football, and basketball.
The other end of the “polarized” concept is small doses of very high intensity training - usually zone 5.
After Dr. Seiler published a few of his studies, other exercise physiologists and coaches around the world starting to implement his polarized model to fantastic results.
An under-appreciated aspect of polarized training is reduced exposure to high levels of lactate. While lactate can be utilized as a fuel by skeletal muscle, cardiac muscle, and the brain, chronically high levels due to training or cognitive stress cause a cascade of negative effects from mitochondrial degeneration to dementia.
Another benefit of Zone 2 training is its effect on the autonomic nervous system (ANS). Modern society provides us with more “threats” than our evolutionarily-primed autonomic nervous system can deal with, leading to chronic sympathetic nervous system - “fight, flight, freeze” - arousal.
Zone 2 training is not “threatening” enough from an evolutionary perspective to lead to sympathetic arousal, and after training, elicits a parasympathetic nervous system response, acting as a reset for the autonomic nervous system - possibly the most important advantage given how sympathetic-dominant modernity is.
Next week we’ll discuss how to find your maximum heart rate, set subsequent heart rate zones, and the adaptations that take place in each zone so you can maximize your training.
It has been often noted that within the past five years the adoption of velocity-based training sport tech purchases has grown. Lower cost, higher utility, and easier to use products like our MoveFactorX barbell tracker and wearable have reduced cost and complexity barriers associated with legacy VBT technologies. But, even though more are in the VBT game, the application of the sport tech (the methodology) appears to be taking extra time to evolve.
The title of this article is specific to mainstream, meaning the majority group, not all. We recognize that many teams, coaches, and performance centers have evolved to a more modernized approach to VBT sport tech application. It has been our pleasure to work with many of those coaches and programs domestically and internationally. Being at ground-zero, taking the calls from coaches interested to step into VBT for the first time, and asking about their application plans, we see education still has a ways to go from the old methodology (i.e. the generic “zones”).
It would be easy enough for us not to care. Whether you elect to use old mertics, or are still thinking percentage of 1RM velocity zones, you still are using (and buying) a VBT sport tech product. But that is not how we roll, we are not a business-as-usual company. For years we have advocated about the unnecessary wheel-spinning that often occurs applying old VBT methodology that is now going on three plus decades within the mainstream.
Our Co-Founder Scott Damman wrote an article a few years back related to the topic of the need to modernize the approach to VBT sport tech application. Since many of the points are still an open issue, we thought it may be worthwhile to revisit and continue to examine the topic.
Below is the text from his 2016 article about modernizing the approach to velocity-based training and VBT barbell tracking.
Over the years I have had the opportunity and pleasure to work with some of the best coaches internationally, and we get into both macro and micro conversations related to practical and meaningful feedback metrics. These in-depth conversations include a lot of “why’s”: why do we and why don’t we. With the increased buzz and adoption surrounding the various technology options for Velocity-Based Training (VBT) used with the barbell, I think we are overdue in exploring a lot of “why’s.”
From my perspective, much of the way VBT tech feedback is utilized today is rather stale, uncreative, and possibly not very transferable. More and more coaches, at all levels, are hungry for VBT tech solutions—seeking to improve outcomes—yet today’s mainstream guidance is dated. The majority of questions related to barbell tracking technology that I get asked by coaches were already answered in the 1980s. This is certainly not a knock on those coaches, as if you do not know you need to ask; rather, the thing that is troubling is that the answers have not changed.
We have seen the most progress for barbell tracking in the recent and rapid evolution of the technology: wireless and ultra-portable sensors that report to apps sitting on smart devices. The result is a significant reduction in cost to the coaches, which opens the door for wider adoption because cost is no longer an issue. This is great. With less-expensive options now available, and systems that utilize the smart device you are already carrying, the technology progression makes a lot of sense.
The fresh sport tech options have no doubt increased buzz around barbell tracking, but we need to be cognizant of conveniently blending the new tech with the old methods. I understand your intent in using VBT tools and methods to develop better athletes. Since you are taking the time, spending the often-limited resources, introducing change, and putting in a lot of overall effort, my plea is a simple one: Read our scientific and coach-friendly argument to train with a purpose instead of training within potentially flawed fundamentals.
As the co-founder of our company, I knew that we had two paths to choose from: (1) roll into what is popular to get quicker sales; or (2) build for those that are aware of the true needs of athlete development. The second road was clearly going to be tougher—a longer and bumpier road in terms of product development and market acceptance—but it’s worth it now, as coaches are understanding the “why.” We chose to design a system that provides professionals with the right information delivered in a way that makes training better, and not hampered by too many steps or a time burden.
Please understand, this is all a balance, and many pros and cons are evaluated. What I share may ruffle some feathers and may make some coaches and even some sports scientists uncomfortable. But I am committed to ensuring the improved solution is available for those in the iron and athlete craft. Our product development goal and vision is to offer what you know and understand, while leading with innovation.
There are often two primary mistakes made with training with velocity: (1) training at specific speeds for the purpose of hitting strength qualities, and (2) training to optimize power within the force velocity curve. I will explain why we moved away from speed zones and why the promotion of excessive force velocity by social media needs to simmer a bit. Reaching a peak or average speed on a snatch or clean is not overly meaningful without the load of the bar being relative to the athlete’s bodyweight. Barbell velocity hits a terminal speed barrier from the mechanics of many exercises, including most Olympic lifts where coaches use VBT tools to measure. Terminal speed is represented by the metric peak speed, the point of the movement where acceleration essentially hits zero, and the bar is no longer accelerating or gaining speed.
Due to the specific timing sequence of weightlifting exercises, bar speed doesn’t provide room to hit sufficient-enough velocities to be meaningful beyond successful attempts or an indication of just using a lighter load. Put simply, a light and heavy clean or snatch will not vary much in velocity because of the technical limitations of the exercise, so slightly faster or slower speeds will not mean anything beyond the athlete selecting a different load on the bar. In summary, bar speed for Olympic lifting is important to keep the athlete sharp, but the exercise speed range is much more narrow than coaches are aware.
Bar speed does matter, no doubt, with the intent of bar velocity being essential during lifts that help drive power down the road from greater gains in maximal strength. Much of the improvement in power comes from low-velocity lifts that recruit more of the “high threshold motor units,” and those lifts are slow, such as heavy squatting. Other activities that are much faster, like plyometrics, are significantly more rapid than barbell exercises. When the movements are unloaded, coaches often prefer to do those actions on the field and save VBT for heavier weights. Barbell velocity should be about selecting the right load with the right exercise in order to get a desired training effect in activities that team coaches want results in on the field or court.
Earlier in the article I mentioned how most coaches ask me the same question. To elaborate more, that question is related to average zones and, often, on applying these zones to Olympic lifts. Whether the question is centered around Olympic lifts or a squat, I ask “Why are you interested in average versus peak?”
Bryan Mann is currently doing a great job migrating coaches away from the earlier suggested average velocity ranges to peak velocity ranges. We would like to see the coaching conversation evolve from simply recording a bar speed/hitting a zone target, to asking questions like how (or which) barbell metrics transfer to body performance.
Unless you are a competitive bar speed lifter, isn’t transference what we are really trying to get at? By displaying how specific measurements of exercises help transfer and identify improvement from training, coaches are more empowered to make decisions that really show up later in sport, not just on weight room record board walls. Like coaches in the past understanding the balance of blending maximum strength into power and speed training, we are concerned about the carryover to athletic actions.
When we develop a product, we work backwards, anticipating the user needs and working them into the technology platform (there are many layers to this). The same holds true for performance enhancement: work backwards, understanding athletic actions and seeing what is necessary to improve those abilities. Approaches often start with strength and power training and forcing a hit-or-miss agenda with concepts that might make an athlete test better in the weight room, but the results may not show up outside of the complex. Coaches that chase a certain barbell measurement will inevitably get frustrated later when that training “improvement” does not manifest anywhere in the game or event that the athlete competes in. Whereas, when using the right metrics package, coaches can hone in on the right movements, the right overload, and the right timing to stress the system.
We certainly provide legacy barbell measurements like average and peak velocity, and estimated force and power values, as they still have a place, but we are committed to providing a better measurement menu to coaches and athletes.
Mean Propulsive Velocity (MPV): In the research, a braking force occurs with some movements at lighter velocities. If you do not plan to jump, you “force” yourself to slow down. Even at heavier loads where the research backs acceleration throughout the full range-of-motion (ROM), our field data collection from elite power lifting shows this isn’t always the case. Advanced athletes consciously don’t lock out a rep, as they fear hyperextension or, if they are squatting, don’t want barbell rapid compression on the upper spine. As the loads get more and more impressive, including the speeds performed, the technique changes from what we typically see at lower level athletes who are using much lighter loads and sometimes even a Smith machine.
The bottom line is that different athletes move weight a different way, and we all know that. There are explosive lifters and there are grinders. That is why speed and power zones based off a percentage of 1RM really bug me. The art of coaching is determining the demands of your athlete and getting them trained to the right place. MPV is not a replacement for peak velocity; it acts like a watchdog to technique variance that will sometimes occur with unique training circumstances.
RFD (POP-100): Rate of Force Development is not very reliable in some sport actions. It is a moving target, and a controversial measurement due mostly to the procedures of the test. The conversation around RFD has turned it into a wide-open term, as most people do not understand its true definition, making it a complicated metric. But the context of what RFD represents to sport transfer is important, as the most explosive athletes are not always differentiated via full ROM metrics.
Finding a reproducible time frame within the movement to display results is key. Enter POP-100, defined as the speed produced at the 100-millisecond point of the concentric phase. Whereas Athlete #1 and Athlete #2 record a very similar full ROM peak bar speed for the squat, Athlete #2 has a 40% greater POP-100. Who is the explosive athlete? Using pin press exercises (squat, pulls, and bench press variations—coming very soon) in combination with POP-100 creates a firm starting point to test the rate of force generation trends.
Distance: One area that is neglected with bar tracking technology is joint angle estimations. A quarter squat may have sport-specific connections, but without knowing how deep one is, making a comparison is nearly impossible. The distance (or displacement) of any defined squat depth (1/4, half, parallel, full) will vary among athletes. Reinforcing full range of motion, consistency, and even exploiting sport-specific joint angles are all possible when distance of motion is measured.
We estimate distance from careful calculations, and the data is precise enough for solid decision-making in real-world scenarios. In addition, once the athlete learns their intended squat distance, the instant rep-by-rep feedback keeps them honest. As we refine our algorithms for higher levels of precision, coaches and athletes can start adding another level of evaluation with popular training lifts.
Eccentric Action: Popular outputs like peak and average force, velocity, and power are all concentric scores of movement. While I thankfully sense, by attending conferences, that eccentric training is growing in understanding, rarely does the VBT discussion come into play. Rather, the conversation still sits on counts, which are often deliberate and slow.
Eccentric training isn’t about speed in isolation; it is about overload and how speed is lost or gained later. Eccentric strength is very specific and a priority to coaches, and it is limiting to only look at the contributions from concentric actions. In fact, if you want to see your concentric values improve, consider VBT applications on the eccentric side.
Composite metrics, or combined measurements, will come down the road eventually, and exporting these aforementioned measures can further inform the coach and sports scientist of the true cause and effect of training. As the science evolves, my team and I will explore these opportunities, provided they are practical to coaches in the trenches. All of the above-mentioned measurements center around being a guide to help the coaches achieve human performance improvements with their athletes, not just as a means to collect barbell movement numbers.
In 2007, when I was hired by Myotest (in the pre-smartphone days), bar velocity was just starting to gain mainstream traction, and the measurements of more complex movements like jumping were more popular. Randy Huntington, a USATF Master Coach, used the Myotest to creatively evaluate very demanding bounds (hurdle jumps) with Olympic-level jumpers. The project we worked on together to fuse the force curve into the video was a big eye-opener for my education.
Here was a guy applying this brand-new tool in his own manner to analyze the muscle stiffness of athletes. This kind of blew away the value of vertical jump testing; drilling down into what really counts. I had recently transitioned from the medical device space—surgical precision is where I came from and what I wanted to bring to coaches. After seeing this surgical breakdown to get at stride-to-stride muscle stiffness, I caught the bug.
Yet, what was happening in the majority of sports was just the opposite—a lack of precision with the technologies and a lack of movement discipline during the assessments. There were many ways to cheat the tests, and the athletes were well aware of them. Without getting into the engineering details, some of these testing products flat out had way too much variability introduced by movement technique differences, while others were too loose in function to simply provide a number over data efficacy. Is the number valid and/or precise and can we trust the data?
Most of the challenge of calculating barbell performance is knowing the exercise in infinite detail, not using statistical modeling or other convenient ways to get estimates quickly. A lot of testing is required, as well as defining what a repetition truly is. Coaches badly want each repetition to be measured, but the system is looking for what it is programmed to pick up. We certainly are not perfect, but most of the coaching comments about the system “missing reps” are due to user error, not the technology. There are the issues of following the movement instructions, and the intended use of the product, along with proper execution of the lift. For example, during the deadlift the system is expecting the concentric phase followed by a lock-out. If you start the lift but don’t lock out, the system errors the rep and resets for the next one.
My job is to dissect a repetition and know when the sensors need to measure and when the motion is not to be counted. This is the hardest part of developing a bar tracking device. A box squat to an accelerometer is radically different than a jump squat, but detecting the difference between a quarter squat and racking a heavy full squat often results in some sensors adding a false rep, commonly referred to in some circles as the “phantom rep.”
Missing reps are not the fault of the sensor; it’s usually the sensor being so precise that a few centimeters of motion are lost, so it doesn’t count the rep at all. Like a very-demanding judge at a powerlifting meet, those that have been a little lax in training will have a rude awakening. It’s not the judge’s fault; it’s the athlete not knowing the rules or definitions of what is counted and what is not allowed. If you prefer to coast through the stop sign, you will probably struggle with our system.
Why so much discussion of what a rep means, you may ask. In short, the answer is that coaches that demand quality, research-grade data have to do their part in the data collection process. Strict technique based on the common definition of the movement must be adhered to or it’s technically a different exercise and the sensor may not pick up the repetition. Research that tests athletes with simple exercises or with Smith machines may have good intentions, but when the rubber hits the road in the weight room, much of the validity is lost.
I have been a staunch advocate for creating measurements “in the wild,” or in collaboration with athletes who are training properly, not from machine learning or similar. I would rather have calculations based on valid movements versus allowing too much slack, and thus delivering inaccurate data. In this scenario, what’s the point?
The military work we do is the inspiration for what I call “Barbell Discipline,” or the ability to follow instructions time after time. Last year, I had a product training meeting with a Special Ops Division head performance coach. We talked about the system movement requirements, and he said “no problem, my guys follow instructions.” Strict execution while allowing for natural style is necessary for testing reliability. Unfortunately, coaches sometimes don’t like strict procedures, but a bodyweight squat jump test with a small countermovement is not a squat jump test. The point of the test is to see what you can do without any stretch reflex.
If you have the proper squat jump assessment and the countermovement jump assessment, then you can properly look at eccentric utilization ratio (EUR), which is a powerful metric to consider. Coaches demand accuracy and validity from the devices, but the engineers need the same from movements protocols being conducted in the field. How many times do we allow athletes to cheat or get away with compliance of a protocol just to get a number? Strength coaches promote discipline and obedience because it sounds nice to the head coach, but in order to benefit from that philosophy in the weight room, they need to start with accountability in testing and measuring.
The combination of multiple methods of training using barbell data as feedback is a phenomenal opportunity in training. Some examples of the reason we use the rep-by-rep flash and alert sound are to reduce drift error (common with accelerometers) and leverage the athlete’s inter rep recovery period. The amount of time between bouts of effort is part of the equation of cluster sets, or lifting sets that manipulate recovery times between single or low repetition ranges. Our system is not for cranking out reps, which is counterintuitive to the purpose of using VBT methodology.
“Using barbell data as feedback on multiple training methods is a phenomenal opportunity in training.”
During power/speed training, every rep needs to count, with full reset by the athlete and full concentration for each rep. Maximizing effort is emphasized. You would be amazed what the total power output looks like over a five-rep set using our system method versus free forming through the reps. Sure, sometimes you may want the athlete to crank out reps, with a different training goal, so go for it. Keep in mind, just because you have a VBT measuring tool, it does not mean you need to use it all the time. I actually advocate for less assessment time, as there’s no need to create numbers for numbers’ sake. Pick your spots and do it right. Make the days the VBT tool is on the barbell competitive days, not part of a daily routine.
With all the science and support by coaches, you would think cluster sets would be a trend and popular request with us, but they’re not. Obviously, the logistical factors of sharing a rack with other athletes is one thing, but we have not encountered as many coaches performing autoregulation and cluster-style training because managing it with teams is far different than using it for your own training. How hard, how much, and when to stop are the things coaches have a thirst for. Cluster sets are perfect options for teams when athletes can share similar loads, but also great for organized groups as long rest periods can include partnered training if instructed properly.
Autoregulation is great on paper, but it really is nothing more than adjusting on the fly versus what is planned. One of the strongest arguments for VBT is the use of the immediate feedback of data to add or lower the weight based on how the athlete is feeling at that particular time. Combined with a good training plan, autoregulation can be part of warm-up and work sets for a true optimal load.
Finally, we get to motivation, which can be a double-edged sword; meaning VBT feedback is great to utilize for higher levels of effort, but it can drive athletes into the ground if they are not supervised properly. Nobody wants to be the bad guy and pull them away from a motivational challenge, but injuries are real. Warning signs must be acknowledged and acted upon.
I realize some coaches reading this article will likely want to argue the science to continue what they do, and not change what they do or believe. Change can be painful and uncomfortable, but it is necessary to be competitive. Uncomfortable change has been part of our process. If you want better results, you must look at things differently, with a fresh lens.
Ask the tough questions and challenge your own beliefs and preferences in training. We are on the same side—working together to help athletes—and exploring the concepts shared here will move training forward.
By Scott Damman, Co-Founder
There is no doubt each year seems to be a big year for the discussion and adoption of sport performance feedback technology. For some, the talk may seem like old hat, but I think last year saw a critical mass of various levels of team sport making purchases. From high school through elite levels, teams are buying force plates, velocity-based training (VBT) barbell trackers, smart medicine balls, timing gates, and the list goes on.
However, I think there is a caveat to this phase of adoption. The purchases of feedback tech have gotten ahead of the understanding of what to do with the valuable information. Many have purchased the Ferrari, but do not know how to drive it. Or, as they said in the Old West, the cart has been placed before the horse.
We get many support calls from performance coaches who made a VBT tech purchase and now need to know what to do with the information. If you spend the money on a Ferrari, you damn well need to know how to drive it, right? The point is, the recent investments on the table will demand that we step up our collective game to figure out how to create best practices around the array of tech options.
The part that alarms me a bit is that much of this sport tech has been around for decades, but we are still living in the 1990s with its applied use. The big-budget teams have had access to these tools (for example, VBT tech) for more than 20 years and still often get stuck on one metric: full range-of-motion concentric AVG speed. In other words, the VBT mullet of metrics.
Let me share the athlete experience I had thirteen years ago—the experience where the light bulb came on regarding the measurements that may really matter. In 2008-09, I was working with a National Alpine team, applying the Myotest device for jump performance baselining and fatigue monitoring. For those who may not be aware of the Myotest, which is no longer available, it was a Swiss company that created the first field-use and wireless accelerometer sport feedback tool. The product was pioneering, and much of what you see today related to team VBT applications (estimates of 1RM, force/velocity profiles, power profiles, etc.) originated with the Myotest.
One of the monitoring protocols set up by Matt Price, the Alpine Director of Sport Performance (now with the NHL’s L.A. Kings), was a body weight squat jump. This called for strict adherence to the protocol for testing: static position with NO countermovement. They used this protocol, along with a few other jump protocols (like you see in image below) to monitor fatigue during the grueling World Cup season. I met up with the team when they came through Colorado (Beaver Creek) for a World Cup stop, and assisted with some data collection and analysis. In 2009, this stuff was very new, so Matt and I spent a good deal of time “talking shop,” and Matt was forward-thinking in how he could best apply this feedback.
I was always curious to understand how the Myotest data helped define the athlete. In other words, which metrics or analysis I could pull from the instant feedback that represented the difference-making stuff. Instead of looking athlete to athlete, I started with a wide comparison of a world-class ski racer vs. a regular Joe: comparing the two-time World Champion skier to myself.
You can see the comparison report below: Test 1 is me, Test 2 is the athlete. If you look between the two yellow arrows, you will see our comparison results for power, concentric force, speed, and jump height. Today’s mainstream performance feedback conversation, especially VBT with the barbell, definitely tilts on the side of speed (meters per second), along with power (watts).
Figure 1. The comparison report between Scott Damman (Test 1) and a two-time World Champion skier (Test 2). If you look between the two yellow arrows, you will see the comparison results for power, concentric force, speed, and jump height. Take a few minutes to study this report. Some of the information, although accurate, may be misleading, while other parts definitely tell the story.
If we only look at the two popular performance indicators, speed (m/s) and power (watts), for this comparison report, we see that the power output was virtually identical and the difference in speed was 8%. The concentric force output was identical, with 0% difference. On paper, these two guys look very close. Comparing speed and power is a fairly typical performance evaluation these days. However, these comparison results sure did not make much sense to me, and they certainly did not help answer my question of finding the measures that matter; measures that define the true athlete. But, upon digging a bit deeper and analyzing the force curve, the picture starts to get clearer.
The black arrows in the report point to two very different-looking forces curves. Using the Myotest software, I set triggers to look at force production from 0-200 milliseconds (ms). Instead of looking at the full range-of-motion jump outputs, the 0-200 ms time “window” represents rate of force development (RFD). The elite athlete created 1153 newton during that time window, while the regular guy created 319 newton. The athlete generated 360% more force within the initial 200 ms of the squat jump. Light bulb. The takeaway is that this RFD measure may be a measurement that really matters.
With the recent and rapid adoption of sport tech feedback tools, let’s make sure the conversation and modern application make the purchases worthwhile. It is the responsibility of the thought leaders and innovators to help the entire market evolve.
In 2016 I wrote, “Is It Time for Coaches to Rethink Velocity-Based Training?,” with the intent to spur conversation about the measurements that matter and redefine how we apply sport tech feedback. Specific to this case, velocity-based training. Since this article was published, the public discussion has been alarmingly low. The VBT mullet still reigns, and that, quite frankly, is a bit of a sad state of affairs.
Scott Damman specializes in developing technology applications for sport and human performance feedback, and he holds an issued patent on the world’s first smart medicine ball (the Ballistic Ball). Since 2007, his focus has been applying accelerometer/gyroscope sensor data to movement in the areas of sport, fitness, and health. Prior to this, he worked in the fields of body composition analysis and medical/surgical. Scott has a Political Science degree from Michigan State University and is based in Northern Michigan.
Coaches who enjoy the process and results of medicine ball training sometimes wish to upgrade their training with an additional layer of quantification. Whether or not you decide to invest in technology, if you train with medicine balls, you should review this guide and get started. If you are a veteran coach and feel that this is just another medicine ball article talking about the same points over and over again, you will be surprised.
This blog post covers details that really haven’t been fully explained or even mentioned much in the past, mainly because it takes a lot of time to break down events in training that we take for granted. My argument is simple: If you are not testing throws with a very strict protocol, you are missing out on the wealth of information the Ballistic Ball offers. Spend a few minutes reading what we discovered this spring, and you will be amazed how much more you can learn from this wonderful modality.
I’d rather be upfront and filter out who should not even consider using a ballistic instrument than disappoint a coach after they realize it’s not for everyone. If you don’t have a good handle on your athletes, don’t bother. What I mean by this is if you are in a bad position with a group of athletes who may not be focused, disciplined, or hungry to get better. You may work with an elite athlete who is super-talented, but if they don’t respect you and they’re lazy, they won’t be a good candidate. Sure, the freaks of nature will blow up your Instagram page, but they will not see mature improvement in their training.
A great candidate is actually a team coach, if you think about it. While I like strength coaches or even sports medicine professionals to be proficient in using the system, there are more high school coaches than performance and medical staff who need to properly value medicine ball throws. The reason I like team coaches is that they usually decide who plays or competes, so athletes are typically far more receptive to them. Support staff may be the secret weapon to success, but when it comes to attitude, athletes will always give more effort to the coach who decides their fate in playing or competing.
German Table
Table 1. Decades ago, the Germans had excellent record keeping and their tables are nearly timeless. Some exercises have relationships, but a true cause and effect is still unknown (Adapted from Dichwach 1994).
Generally, athletes with good characters are great for using the Ballistic Ball in repeated testing, because they give honest effort and follow directions. Bad attitudes just compound the logistics of any type of training, and the Ballistic Ball doesn’t build discipline or character—it reveals it. In my experience, if you have existing challenges and struggle with an undisciplined team, a Ballistic Ball doesn’t make sense. As with any promising tool that can’t be used effectively, it will likely disappoint you. If you have a bunch of good athletes who want to get the most out of their training, however, the Ballistic Ball is a wonderful teaching device.
The Ballistic Ball is simply a medicine ball with an internal IMU that lets it calculate velocity. Due to the accelerometer and gyro, it can also sense movement before the actual throw, making it a great tool to get deep sight beyond just peak speed. The Ballistic Ball connects wirelessly to an Apple device, so it’s great for displaying performance immediately after each throw and for recording that performance as well.
With no pun intended, the Ball launched about five years ago and has evolved multiple times, from its humble beginnings resembling a bumblebee with a primitive app to the present-day streamlined model. The ball comes in 1-kilogram increments, ranging from 2-7 kilograms. The smaller balls have 9-inch diameters, while the larger weight balls have 14-inch diameters. With a price tag of about $500, you basically have a medicine ball with a radar gun inside. The current ball is rugged and validated (by three studies, currently), but does require a coach who knows what they are doing.
Shane Davenport wrote a good primer on the Ballistic Ball and how to do throws correctly, several months ago. Even if you are not a Ballistic Ball user, you can see how they standardized the throws for testing. And even if you don’t measure, you should have a template of how a movement pattern is classified and taught.
Shane and the other coaches at Exceed treat medicine balls like any other exercise and respect the quality of movement and the selection of proper loading. I have mentioned the Ballistic Ball myself a few times casually, but due to its niche in the market, dedicating an article before now wasn’t great timing. Today, the ball is getting traction with researchers, specifically for heavy chest throws for athlete profiling and testing. While I do use that movement for testing, I find the overhead back throw to be the most widely used exercise of choice in my program.
Christopher Glaeser, the owner of SimpliFaster, wanted to make available an option to monitor the throw speed of medicine balls, so he went with the Assess2Perform product a year ago. As a medicine ball junkie myself, I had already amassed years of experience with the early models, and felt the timing was right because the ball was scientifically valid for key throws, and was constantly refined for better function and workflow.
The purpose of this section is to help illustrate the functionality of the device and serve as a preventative measure for user errors or need for tech support. The instruction guide included in the box with the product is good, but sometimes coaches need more conversational-style exchanges and not traditional approaches. This section covers getting started quickly and efficiently, and reviews the workflow details so coaches can decide if the ball is right for them or if they need to use something else.
If you are already a ball user or just purchased the device, you can read this section as an adjunct or even replacement to the guide included in the box. The next set of paragraphs get you started with the ball, and the rest of the article ensures that you use the system properly. The ball is far from perfect and is certainly limited, but it’s extremely useful if you are aware of its strengths and weaknesses.
The ball includes a charging cable and a patch covering the connection point of the device. Without making things sound complicated, the ball is simply a traditional medicine ball with a set of sensors relaying the data to a tablet or smartphone. It’s durable, but can only handle the normal velocities of throwing the ball up and down, and will not support slams unless you are throwing it down to a high jump crash pad. I personally don’t find a use for throwing a ball downward, as very little transfer to sport is documented with this pattern of motion. If someone can prove otherwise, I will gladly change my mind.
Even if the ball is charged, I recommend plugging the ball into a working outlet and making sure that it’s ready to go. Don’t touch the ball until you make an account—that’s the first mistake most coaches make with the system. Slow down and make sure you create a coach’s account, meaning you need to specifically select the option first or you will need to start over later.
After you create the username and password, you need to input your roster manually. This is the only part of the app I think they need to revamp, as schools may have hundreds of users. Most of the time a team coach only needs to place in two dozen names, and that is a breeze.
Coaches may find the “throw to go” functionality a godsend, as the ball won’t work at all unless it’s purposely woken up with movement. In order to do this, grab the ball like a giant snow globe and violently shake it for a few seconds. Then, after you wake up the IMU, connect the ball to your iPad or iPhone. You can rename the sensor so it’s organized, but make sure you keep the name short so it can be written on the ball.
The ball doesn’t start collecting data until you press start and the ready light and sound alerts the user. The inventor calls this “the ding,” as the sound and flash certainly connect to the term. Athletes can use the tablet’s screen as a reaction starter or just go from a verbal cue or when they are simply ready to throw. It’s important that coaches know that the repeated signal is not an error or malfunction if an athlete is not throwing—it’s just a subtle reminder that it’s ready to go. Treat the throb of the ding like a red light during a session at a recording studio.
Reading the performance is actually simple; in fact, easier than using the Bar Sensei, since the velocity of a projectile is narrower and focused around peak velocity. Most of the information you will get is the speed of the action, and if it’s a countermovement, it will look at the loading period to see how the velocity was created. To me, the key differentiation from radar and video apps is how the throwing speed was generated. You can tap through athletes, scan the data, and export the information via .CSV file. Those who have TeamBuildr or CoachMePlus can use the API.
The reason I am so demanding with companies having an efficient software experience is that using anything during training is far different than using a system during testing. With testing, the standard is low, usually occurring at a snail’s pace and requiring the coach to be trained. As soon as I hear a company offering “complimentary training,” I hang up the phone after a polite “no, thank you” and look for an alternative. If your product isn’t intuitive and requires excessive education to operate, then you failed.
As I am sure I mentioned somewhere in past writing, the design of the product was influenced by the self-serve experience of the gas station, minus the financial transaction of the credit card or cash deposit. The goals were to be simple, efficient, and visually clear, and the company succeeded.
The app anticipated workflow needs by giving athletes the ability to see their name and have their essential data points visible for shared use in a squat rack. This makes it extremely easy to use with something more constrained, such as a shared medicine ball. The app can be used for both the Bar Sensei and the Ballistic Ball, making it a great option for those with smaller budgets and/or those who want to add velocity-based training into their program. It’s possible to set up kiosk stations with the device if you wish to train in group settings with multiple balls. I have witnessed a few programs use the same concept of shared resources in the weight room and literally bring it outside. I would not train in the rain, but the product is perfect for indoor tracks or other facilities because of the lighting and having a wall to mount the tablet.
My choice is to train with regular balls that are similar in weight and size, and test with the ball 4-6 times a year. If you have roughly 25 athletes and get 600-800 scores, the product is somewhere near five cents a throw for a few years. Expect that the product will eventually need to be replaced as the ball, while made from very industrial materials, will break down. I have 3,000 landings and the product still functions, but again, I throw on the grass and not against a wall. If you do plan to throw against a wall, use a padded area or make sure the throw is descending so the peak speed is lower than the throw selected.
A few small but important nuances exist with testing the most popular throws, and this is not a fault, but actually an opportunity. Coaches can’t have a tight protocol with jump testing and find themselves wanting a loose procedure with throws because the exercise is a different model. Respect the throws just as much as the jumps with regard to assessment.
Once you are willing to treat the ball with the same respect as a force plate, you can test throws with more confidence in the data later. An accelerometer is not a direct measure of velocity, but it’s a reasonable way to see some trends with athlete performance provided you know how to test and interpret the data. If you can coach the Olympic lifts properly, you will find the same approach to be invaluable in testing the Ballistic Ball throws.
Knowing about countermovement, joint position, and intent of the exercise can make small differences with the throws. If you are not familiar or skilled with medicine ball training, testing is pretty much pointless outside of exploratory learning. Some exercises are general pattern classifications, meaning you can insert an exercise that may be different, and the velocity will read correctly. However, be warned: Not all exercises can be tested.
The algorithms do allow for some idiosyncratic motions and individual style, but if you purposely abuse the motion or accidently deviate, the score will not be valid and/or accurate. That’s the nature of the beast. I remember jumping from a static position with the Contemplas force plate years ago, and the squat jump protocol was so tight it exhausted me with all the attempts to start with a true silent period. You want a reasonable and honest effort with the ball, not a feeling that the athlete is afraid to be human. Tightly wound robots are great for old black-and-white Hollywood movies, but lousy for athletic performance.
A fair takeaway is that athletes need to know how to start a throw, the primary way to accelerate the ball, and sound ways to follow through. As soon as the ball projects away from the fingertips, it has already technically measured the speed. It may not display during the event, but it will within a fraction of a second after the ball stops accelerating. As long as you cut out unnecessary dancing or posturing before the throw, a solid vanilla action staying true to the purpose of the exercise will be valid and explosive.
The strongest value of Ballistic Ball testing is the train of thought it constructs with coaches in regard to process. When a useful measurement is liberated from a complex movement, coaches are now empowered to push the envelope with training and return to play strategies. For years, this website has had guest articles from myself and other coaches explaining how to train with medicine balls from an instructional standpoint, but nobody really went over the selection of exercises using a scientific process. Even elementary components, such as proper load selection, were always an educated guess with coaches, but now it’s nearly an exact science.
The four areas I have found to have an immediate impact on training are: choosing the size and weight of a ball, movement selection, athlete profiling, and biofeedback. Down the road, I want to see how specific joint strength scores interact with the interpretation of throw performance, but for now I want the low-hanging fruit to be convenient for us all.
Ballistic load choice is not just about adjusting the weight of the ball; it’s also about knowing when to add in movement expression and modify the demand of the exercise. One example is granny tosses, a movement I only use 2-kilogram balls for, for several reasons. The first is that a countermovement requires far more work for tall and weaker athletes, as the paraspinals are not developed with most athletes outside of rugby and football. A lighter ball that is larger may be inappropriate for small athletes, so consider the diameter as well. Generally, the athlete should feel more like jumping than lifting, so if one joint system is working too much, reduce the load. You can then easily observe the improvement with velocity.
Table 2. You can turn a simple table into a checklist for teaching and testing if you know what to look for. When I program the throws, I have clear goals besides speed and distance.
Joint kinematics is basically knowing what a good throw looks like and knowing why it’s working for most athletes. Generally, a good throw provides great distance, or an efficient way to throw the ball safely and consistently. I, as well as other coaches, have posted videos on various throws, and I try to copy the positions I have observed from Brad DeWeese. The reason I emulate him is simply because the throws are orthopedically sound and express power safely.
I utilize the concepts of Håkan Andersson as well, as he always shows exercises that have purpose behind them. While surface electromyography is limited, it does show some insight into why various athletes do well with blocks and why some simply need more specific training. Field sports such as soccer and American football are more vertical with skill positions, but keepers and linemen could benefit from working with their unfolding movement patterns, especially with the hip and spine.
Athlete profiling with medicine balls is more about skills than the lower body F-V patterns promoted by Morin and colleagues. If you are good at simple movements such as jumping and lifting, it shows you have capacity, but for throws forward and behind, it demonstrates transfer potential. Note the word “potential,” as no throw can truly predict that you will have early acceleration ability—it just means it’s likely you won’t score poorly in short sprints.
The gods of data visualization will warn coaches not to use spider or radar plots, but if you are looking at maps of past performance with translucent layering, it may be a good idea to break the rules for skill profiling. Building on the information in the joint kinematics paragraph above, a lot of athletes have good extension abilities but poor unfolding or explosive hinging expression. Those who have good forward squat throws with poor granny toss scores tend to be talented, but not trained well. It’s perfectly normal to be able to sprint fast without a good set of throws, but I know that being well-rounded gives athletes a better chance.
Great articles on feedback and biofeedback can already be found on SimpliFaster, so the question is how to use ball speed to keep the teaching and loading process on the right track. If athletes are counting numbers instead of pursuing development, they will rush the technique process for a better score. In that situation, it’s good to use feedback to reinforce quality movement rather than compete against pure velocity. Second, if you are looking for fatigue management, I would emulate the principles of barbell tracking and jump assessment and shut down the training when throws drop around 4-6%.
Putting all the information together requires a realistic plan and experience working with athletes over time. The beauty of track and field, especially at the high school level, is you can see a kid grow over multiple seasons and multiple years. In most team sports, that observation is limited because most of the resources are spent practicing the game rather than just training full-time.
I wish I had more to say here, but the problem with analysis is that without data to ponder over, you will be stuck for years getting lost in your head. Track ball velocity performance and you will be fine, provided you add context and record-keeping to determine how the throws were performed in relation to the other training.
I made a big effort to make sure this article didn’t rehash much from the other articles I wrote in the past. I am simply amazed, and you should be too, by how much we can do to improve medicine ball training, testing, and teaching. It’s likely that the core of your program isn’t changing, but realistically, you should see a small opportunity to refine your craft. I certainly learned how much more and how much better I can do with ballistic throws, thanks to the Ballistic Ball and other technology.
You don’t need a Ballistic Ball to measure distance or velocity, but adding one to your program just to pilot the concepts listed above is worth the time and money. Twenty years ago, I thought that I knew enough to feel competent with medicine ball training, but now I realize we have so much to explore. Experiment with what I covered above and share your findings with other professionals by contributing a tip or even submitting an article.
Simplifying the approach to velocity-based training, this is an important and under discussed topic. We know that sport tech is an important and emerging component to athletic development, but we also understand technology can be a daunting addition to any program. Keeping your sport tech application simple and logical can yield great results, in fact, we advocate to the less is more principle when it comes to VBT barbell tracking for the team space.
When it comes to barbell real estate, the MoveFactorX barbell tracker has a small and adaptable footprint. Coming in at a mere 30 grams (module & sleeve) and utilizing 3 inches of iron space on the barbell, we define ultra-portability for velocity-based training. You have the flexibility to move the module sleeve to various areas of the barbell, although we recommend as close to the center as possible without being in the way of the lifter. There is no string coming from a box on the floor and no requirement of a reflective mat on the floor, our VBT sport tech is very close to invisible and out of the way. Since the sleeve placement is inside the collars, you never need to deal with the hassle of removing a VBT product and putting it back on each time you want to change a training load. If you want to step outside of the power rack or have other independent weight training stations for Olympics lifts or trap bars, that is no problem as our velocity-based training baggage is 30 grams! When the training day ends and it is time to store or secure your VBT sport tech investment, just drop the units in a small tub and store away until the next day. An added bonus, there is no need to worry about getting those units charged up for the next training day.
Our vision and product line goes well beyond VBT barbell tracking. Movement performance feedback is what we do, with soon to be released applications that cover body, ball, and bar movements. As shown in this photo: MoveFactorX barbell tracker (sleeve wrapped around the barbell), body clip (secures MFX module), and Ballistic Ball 2022.
When you buy from us you have the freedom to operate our products, including a soon to be released basic reporting package, with no added fees. We disagree with the requirements of re-occurring subscription costs, which often adds an unnecessary cost burden to programs. We understand how important $1,000-$2,000 each year can be to a program to purchase basic training necessities to further enhance the training experience. You do not need to worry about us taking up any additional funds each year for things like creating team rosters and generating team reports. Setting up teams, adding 50, 100, 200 athletes, there is no added cost. We have barbell tracking customers of over five years who still use our products and never had to pay us anything additional after their initial purchase. Is there a place for a subscription option? Yes, enhanced reporting and analytics that go beyond the basic use of our products may merit a software cost. Any analytics packages we may decide to create would be optional, and you would be getting added value for that cost.
We exist for those programs who value adding velocity-based training sport tech to their programs but run on tight budgets. We put ourselves in your position with every product decision we consider, ensuring the value return is there as you wisely spend limited funds. Today we provide you a best-in-class product value to make training outcomes better. In addition, our commitment to innovation never stops and our mobile application upgrades are included with your purchase. The point is you now have a velocity-based training option that is affordable and does not cost you down the road.
The module is powered by a coin cell battery, which means you do not need to worry about the hassles associated with charging yet another electronic device, especially the tangle of charging cords in the team space. We have all experienced waiting for our personal electronic devices to charge, so we fixed that problem for your VBT sport tech investment. There may be a time when your MoveFactorX power runs low, but with the widely available 2032 coin cell battery on hand you can be back to full power in 20 seconds. We made the process of changing out the battery convenient and fast. A small flathead screwdriver does the trick to pop open the module case. Another great feature is there are no screws to mess with during this step. Once you have the case opened you pop out the old battery, insert the new battery, and snap the case back together. Back at 100% power in 20 seconds.
The MoveFactorX barbell tracker & wearable eliminates the octopus of charging cords.
On the maintenance side, well, there really is not much. As mentioned in point four, you will need to periodically change the coin cell battery, and we made that step as efficient as possible. The product internals are fully enclosed and there are no moving mechanical pieces and strings that wear out or get exposed to the sweat and grim of the training environment. When you think about the total cost to operate alternative velocity-based training sport tech products it can add up. These alternative options are expensive to purchase, then require added maintenance. It is important to consider with added maintenance the time you could be down with potential mechanical product repairs, unavailable parts, and shipping time. With our original product Bar Sensei, we have 5+ year old customers who are still going and have had no added maintenance costs.
As the company who pioneered the original wireless barbell tracker, we are still innovating and rolling out new products like the October 2021 release of the MoveFactorX barbell tracker/wearable, along with the much-anticipated March 2022 release of the Ballistic Ball 2022. Many call us disruptive, as we created an affordable VBT sport tech option that made moment sensor technology simple, affordable and within reach of most athletes and coaches. Our mission is to create a full integrated movement performance platform that is inclusive, so that we may reach more athletes, teams, and programs looking to add velocity-based sport technology to improve outcomes.
Interested in buying a MoveFactorX module? See our product page for more details or feel free to contact us with any other questions you may have.
We feel a responsibility to keep innovating and support our long term relationships. Mike Adams (Altoona High School) and Scott Damman (MoveFactorX) this past December, kicking off the program's 14 unit MoveFactorX implementation. Altoona purchased the original Bar Sensei, and we have worked together for over 4 years.
The concept of velocity-based training (VBT) isn’t new but recent innovations have made it more accessible and effective than ever, skyrocketing its popularity in the past few years. Thanks to a lot of fresh education around the tracking and reporting value, more coaches, trainers, and physical therapists are incorporating VBT into training plans to help athletes and clients improve their strength, speed, and power. This short article provides a basic overview an entry point to understand how velocity-based training may improve the output of your program.
One of the biggest advancements in the space today simply is cost, the new breed of affordable hardware technology has opened the door to all budgets. No longer is velocity based training sport tech only an option to pro sport or the big D1 programs. Today, teams and athletes are not limited to the $2,000 plus per station products that are bulky to manage and include the old string-based encoder technology. The big win for the sport tech consumer are the fresh options under $500 which are incredibly portable, have no mechanical parts to be maintained, and have evolved into very accurate tools.
Given the variety of velocity-based training devices on the market, it’s important to have a solid understanding of this training approach to ensure you make the right investment. Let’s take a closer look at velocity-based training and why it’s gaining acclaim in the sports science and human performance industry.
Velocity-based training is a modern technique coined by Dr. Byran Mann for strength and power training that leverages velocity tracking technology to provide instantaneous data for the trainer. In essence, VBT evaluates and quantifies the output of a given movement, down to the rep and phases of that rep! With this rich data, the coach can encourage and support real-time adjustments in a client’s training session, along with monitoring over time. The story no longer is about a 1 rep max; rather, now it’s about creating power and explosiveness at sub maximal loads with the goal of positive transfer to the field or sporting task.
Just a few of the exercises that the velocity based strength training device can be used during barbell tracking include:
There are various types of Velocity-based training sensor technology — such as linear position transducers, laser optic devices, and wearable IMU/accelerometers — to measure movement velocity during an exercise. The VBT device provides the coach and athlete with information about the exercise performance, which the coach uses to give the athlete highly specific feedback.
Before velocity-based training innovations entered the market, the ‘one-repetition maximum’ (1RM) method was the most widely used to prescribe exercise intensity and monitor change. The 1RM method uses the maximum amount of weight that a person can possibly lift for one repetition. VBT is steadily replacing 1RM since it’s better by monitoring and planning strenth training programs at various intensities, especially the lower to mid-range loads to maximize velocity and where explosiveness is assessed with metrics such as our POP-100™ and rate of force development (RFD).
While the advantages of VBT are numerous, here are the top four reasons why trainers, coaches, and therapists should apply this approach to their training programs.
Velocity-based training technology offers precise tracking and a wealth of data, providing superior monitoring compared to other types of training methods like 1RM and perceived exertion. Power, force, and velocity measures along with squat depth and explosiveness/rate of force are all available metrics. Bottom line, you have objective measures to know what is going on.
Muscle performance fluctuates daily due to stressors like training fatigue, sleep quality, and daily life. With velocity-based training devices, coaches and athletes are able to use the instant feedback to autoregulate during a training session and identify proper training loads. The goal with this type of sport tech application is to attempt to optimize each session, especially for team programs who have limited training blocks due to NCAA rules.
Identify optimal velocities and specific loads throughout training to improve the specificity of training. Are you speed training? Are you power training? Are you strength training? When a particular zone is enhanced by the VBT feedback, the athlete can achieve greater results.
Receive instant feedback to improve encouragement and athletic performance. With near real-time data, coaches are able to provide specific instructions of load (intensity) and bar velocity targets to hit, which has the ability to enhance the strength training down to each repetition! The term “intent” is commonly used in coaching circles to describe this competitive and motivational loop of setting a targeted goal, focus/discipline on each rep, display of the instant output (velocity achieved), and adjustments if required. The adjustment could be adding or subtracting load, or the athlete via “intent” increasing effort (personal competitiveness) on the next rep to hit the velocity goal.
By implementing velocity-based training into your performance programming, you’ll be able to give your athlete or client the valuable information they need to perform their best. Often it can be as simply as the athlete learning what moving a barbell “fast” means and feels like. The VBT sport tech creates the environment to focus on performance and optimize training sessions.
Velocity-based training can be implemented for every level of athlete and for a wide variety of sports, such as football, soccer, basketball, lifting, hockey, golf, and more. By having near real-time data, coaches and athletes are able to monitor the velocity of key movements which, in turn, influences programming decisions to make sure the resultant of a training phase it being met. The alternative is flying blind. While there is industry debate as to the best use-cases of adding velocity-based programs, here are some ways that VBT is being used by trainers and clients to get more out of each session.
Individualize training through load velocity profiling, which is the process of identifying the velocity (or power) profile for each athlete. This insight is important as each athlete will have a unique profile, and understanding the individual profile aides as a “needs analysis” to what is required for the programming. The profile is established by sampling performance outputs at various loads. The one-size-fits-all approach of basing speed and power training zones as a percentage of one rep max has flaws because each athlete may develop power differently at various intensities. A load velocity profile eliminates the generic approach which often may become unproductive to reach the performance goals, and hones in on the needs of each athlete.
Minimal velocity thresholds (MVTs) are exercise specific and often use the average concentric velocity generated during the last successful repetition. Coaches can use MVTs to determine if an athlete is reaching a rep count in a set and stopping the set due to a minimum velocity being reaches. Or, coaches may use MVT for ballistic lifts such as a hang clean or power clean to establish a velocity cut off point to where a load becomes too high (minimum velocity not reached) for the athlete to properly complete the movement.
Augmented feedback is the use of quantitative data to give more accurate feedback and drive motivation. When a coach is able to accurately monitor an athlete’s performance, they can provide specific instructions to the athlete to help them beat previous reps.
Athletes experience fluctuations in strength and readiness due to a number of factors, like stress or poor sleep. With velocity-based training the coach can adjust the training to fit the athlete’s state and reduce the effects of fatigue. And while the thought process often defaults to reducing a load due to the above listed factors, if the athlete is crushing it on a particular day the training adjustment may be to add load to optimize that opportunity!
A coach that understands an athlete’s velocities for different exercises is better able to identify and target specific training qualities. From there, the coach can tailor the training to level up the athlete’s performance.
There’s a multitude of ways that coaches and trainers can leverage velocity-based training device technology in their athletes’ training plans. By using real-time data, coaches are able to give athletes the right motivation that elevates performance, and athletes are able to achieve greater results.
The rise of velocity-based training is in large part due to recent technological advancements that make it easier and more accurate to calculate velocity data for exercises. In addition, probably the biggest driver of growing VBT adoption is the new line of affordable sport tech options. When a coach can perform testing, collect data, and evaluate insights, they’re able to personalize each training program to maximize results while reducing the risk of fatigue and injury.
Although VBT technology is powerful, it can’t replace the fundamentals of good training and coaching. The coach will still have to watch the technical execution of exercises and provide quality feedback for the athlete to succeed. In summary, combining velocity data with training expertise not only will improve athletic performance, but also strengthen coach-athlete relationships.
Capture the movement of an exercise and receive instant barbell tracking and velocity-based training performance feedback with the MoveFactorX barbell tracker sensor module. The ultra-portable package weighs just 25 grams and uses only 8 cm of barbell real estate, making it the smallest footprint on the market.
Made in the United States, the innovative package includes the MFX sensor module, barbell sleeve, MoveFactorX app, and access to fully integrated team reporting. (Note: Bodyweight jump performance application will be released later in 2021).
Contact us today to take athlete performance monitoring and improvement to the next level!
Sources:
https://www.scienceforsport.com/velocity-based-training/ https://simplifaster.com/articles/sports-science-data-weight-room/
As we approach the anticipated late September release of the MoveFactorX, our next-gen barbell tracker for velocity-based training (VBT) application, we are offering a pre-release special. Order now and receive the promo price of $299. This purchase includes the MFX module, neoprene bar sleeve, and iOS mobile application. In addition, your purchase will also include the base package of our fully integrated reporting platform due to be ready this fall. With this entire package there are no added subscription fees, you get it all for the $299 promo price.
The MFX barbell tracker is the best in class value. We are holding back a limited amount of product for the pre-release promotion. Purchase options include direct via our on-line store, and we accept institutional PO's. Learn more about the MoveFactorX package and how to buy.
Big news from the company that pioneered the Bluetooth barbell tracker and smart medicine ball, we are excited to announce the next-generation of sport & fitness feedback products for the team or individual are on the way.
UPDATE (August 6th): details of pre-release promo
The MoveFactorX module for barbell tracking and velocity-based training (VBT) starts shipping in late September. The week of August 2nd we will announce a special promotion and pre-release special for the MFX module. A limited supply of promo priced product will be made available, first come first serve basis. The MFX module will support barbell tracking application as well as our soon to be released body weight jump protocols (scheduled for November). We strive to provide a best in class customer value product package, and are excited to take our ultra-portable "wearable" into body and barbell assessment.
In addition, Ballistic Ball 2022 is on the way for Q1. The ball with brains is getting a refresh that includes a new material to improve grip/feel, along with expanded metrics such as release angle and explosiveness. Instant outputs from the Ballistic Ball offer valuable insights related to training transfer and the athlete's ability to coordinate full body movement for power and explosiveness. The unique nature and utilization of the Ballistic Ball allows for sport tech feedback freedom, more flexibility by expanding application from the weight room out and onto the field.
Moving into this summer, a lot of news is on the way. 2020 and the bulk of 2021 was a big development time for us, the result is a fully revamped product line that is set for release this year. One of the biggest tasks was re-inventing our approach to maximize data efficacy for our smart medicine ball (Ballistic Ball) and barbell tracker/velocity-based training (VBT) products. We met that goal.
As the company who created the smart medicine ball, our work never ends to keep improving. 2021 is a nice step forward, and there is some cool innovative in the works to support the Ballistic Ball.
Everything we do is designed around practical, affordable, and meaningful sport tech feedback solutions. We are never satisfied with what the market is comfortable with; rather, our vision is to always lead and innovate to improve performance outcomes that are meaningful and transferable to sporting movement.
Please take a look at the independent report:
Moving into this summer, a lot of news is on the way. 2020 and into early 2021 was a big development time for us, the result is a fully revamped product line that is set for release this year. One of the biggest tasks was re-inventing our approach to maximize data efficacy for barbell performance feedback. We met that goal.
As the company who pioneered the wireless IMU sensor technology for barbell / velocity-based training (VBT) application, our work never ends to keep improving. 2021 is a nice step forward, and there is some very cool innovative in the works.
Everything we do is designed around practical, affordable, and meaningful sport tech feedback solutions. We are never satisfied with what the market is comfortable with; rather, our vision is to always lead and innovation to improve performance outcomes that are meaningful and transferrable to sporting movement.
Please take a look at the independent report:
The Validity of a Quaternion-Based Approach to Barbell Tracking
New product details for barbell (VBT) & body (jumps) performance feedback, and integrated reporting package on the way this Fall.
