Having a huge database of exercises that have been cataloged and quantified is a huge undertaking and to have over 250 exercises already is tremendous advantage over other devices.PUSH is a new sport and fitness technology wearable that is paired with a mobile-app that can analyze, track and monitor your workout across over 250 exercise movements - with many more to come.
Unlike many other #FitTech products, this one actually has a peer-reviewed research study that shows the PUSH is a valid device that can monitor movement velocity during the back squat exercise with high reliability (r=0.85). I also think that having the system track GPS (PUSH Vital) data can also give trainers, strength coaches and therapists a detailed view of athlete workouts.
I wonder what the collective bargaining agreement for the NFL and any other team has to say about all this quantification of physical performance, location, sleep, and nutrition. Are all these devices HIPPA compliant and do they run through Apple HealthKit.- SportPush Band
- Push Vital
- 250+ exercises in database
- Validity research study
Push Vital with San Francisco Giants of NFL
Abstract: Balsalobre-Fernández, C, Kuzdub, M, Poveda-Ortiz, P, and Campo-Vecino, Jd. Validity and reliability of the PUSH wearable device to measure movement velocity during the back squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res 30(7): 1968–1974, 2016—The purpose of this study was to analyze the validity and reliability of a wearable device to measure movement velocity during the back squat exercise. To do this, 10 recreationally active healthy men (age = 23.4 ± 5.2 years; back squat 1 repetition maximum [1RM] = 83 ± 8.2 kg) performed 3 repetitions of the back squat exercise with 5 different loads ranging from 25 to 85% 1RM on a Smith Machine. Movement velocity for each of the total 150 repetitions was simultaneously recorded using the T-Force linear transducer (LT) and the PUSH wearable band. Results showed a high correlation between the LT and the wearable device mean (r = 0.85; standard error of estimate [SEE] = 0.08 m·s−1) and peak velocity (r = 0.91, SEE = 0.1 m·s−1). Moreover, there was a very high agreement between these 2 devices for the measurement of mean (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.907) and peak velocity (ICC = 0.944), although a systematic bias between devices was observed (PUSH peak velocity being −0.07 ± 0.1 m·s−1 lower, p ≤ 0.05). When measuring the 3 repetitions with each load, both devices displayed almost equal reliability (Test–retest reliability: LT [r = 0.98], PUSH [r = 0.956]; ICC: LT [ICC = 0.989], PUSH [ICC = 0.981]; coefficient of variation [CV]: LT [CV = 4.2%], PUSH [CV = 5.0%]). Finally, individual load-velocity relationships measured with both the LT (R2 = 0.96) and the PUSH wearable device (R2 = 0.94) showed similar, very high coefficients of determination. In conclusion, these results support the use of an affordable wearable device to track velocity during back squat training. Wearable devices, such as the one in this study, could have valuable practical applications for strength and conditioning coaches.
.jpg)
.jpeg)
