Effects of Supramaximal Anderson Quarter-squats as a Potentiating Stimulus on Discus Performance in Division I Throwers: A Pilot Study

International Journal of Exercise Science 17(6): 99-114, 2024. No study has assessed supramaximal (over 100% 1RM) back squat variations as a potentiating stimulus in collegiate throwers. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that a supramaximal Anderson (bottom-up) quarter squat potentiating stimulus would improve discus throw performance in Division I throwers compared to a dynamic warm-up alone. Nine NCAA division I thrower athletes (age: 20.1±1.4 years; 1RM back squat/body weight: 2.5±0.4 kg) randomly completed two sessions separated by at least 72 hours. One session involved a standardized dynamic warm-up alone (DyWU) followed by three trials of maximal discus throwing. The other session involved a dynamic warm-up with a supramaximal (105% 1RM) Anderson (bottom-up) quarter-squat set of 5 repetitions post activation performance enhancement stimulus (DyWU+PAPE) followed by three trials of maximal discus throwing. A two-way (warm-up strategy x time) ANOVA with repeated measures for each time point was used, with significance set at p\u3c 0.05. There were no significant (p\u3e 0.05) differences between DyWU alone versus DyWU+PAPE stimulus for discus throw distances at either 8 min. (31.7±5.6 vs 30.6±6.5 meters, respectively; d = -0.18), 11 min. (33.4±3.6 vs 31.3±4.7 meters, respectively; d = -0.52), or 14 min. post warm-up (34.1±3.9 vs 32.3±5.3 meters, respectively; d = -0.40). Compared to a dynamic warm-up alone, supramaximal Anderson quarter-squats following a dynamic warm-up had trivial/small to moderate detrimental effects on discus throw performance between 8-14 minutes post stimuli in Division I trained throwers, likely due to excess fatigue/PAPE inhibition

The Effects of Sitting and Walking in Green Space on State Mindfulness and Connectedness to Nature

People report feeling connected to nature while spending time in green space. The modulators of this relationship are unclear. One modulator may be state mindfulness, which is how mindful someone is in a specific moment. The first step of studying state mindfulness as a potential modulator is describing how state mindfulness and connectedness to nature respond to acute exposure to green space. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine whether sitting and walking in green space change state mindfulness and connectedness to nature in tandem. METHODS: Participants arrived at one of two green spaces: the Thunderbird Gardens Trailhead in Cedar City, UT, or the Clark County Wetlands Park in Las Vegas, NV. After giving verbal and written consent, the participants completed the State Mindfulness Scale (SMS) and Love and Care of Nature Scale (LCN). The participants then sat alone and undisturbed for 10 minutes near the trailhead and completed the SMS and LCN again. Next, the participants walked alone for 10 minutes on the trail and completed the SMS and LCN once more. The SMS and LCN scores were compared among pre-sit, post-sit, and post-walk via two separate one-way repeated-measures ANOVAs. Population effect sizes were estimated as partial omega squared (ωp2; large effect \u3e 0.14). After each ANOVA, the post hoc pairwise comparisons were dependent-samples t-tests with Bonferroni adjustments. The α-level was 0.05 for all the statistical analyses. RESULTS: Forty-two participants completed the study (22 females, 20 males, 0 intersex; 4 African American/Black, 4 Asian, 19 Caucasian/White, 9 Hispanic/Latino, 1 Mediterranean, 1 Middle Eastern, 3 Multi-Racial, 1 Polynesian; 26 ± 9 years, 170 ± 9 cm, 69 ± 16 kg, 24 ± 4 kg/m2). The SMS scores significantly increased from pre-sit to post-sit (+29 arbitrary units [AU], 95% CI: 20, 38; p \u3c 0.001) but not from post-sit to post-walk (p = 0.23). The LCN scores significantly increased from pre-sit to post-sit (+5 AU, 95% CI: 2, 8; p = 0.003) and from post-sit to post-walk (+4 AU, 95% CI: 1, 6; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Sitting for 10 minutes in green space increases state mindfulness and connectedness to nature. Walking for 10 minutes further increases connectedness to nature but not state mindfulness. The next step is determining whether state mindfulness predicts connectedness to nature while in green space

Evaluation of Average and Maximum Heart Rate of Wrist-worn Wearable Technology Devices During Trail Running

It has been estimated that there are 20 million people who participate in trail running, and these numbers are expected to increase by 15% each year. Our laboratory group has conducted studies on the validity of wearable technology watches and heart rate (HR) during trail running. The previous generation devices were mostly inaccurate, and a limitation was that reliability was not measured. PURPOSE: To determine both validity and reliability in newer models of wearable devices during trail running. METHODS: Seventeen participants (F = 7) ran on the Thunderbird Gardens Lightning Switch trail in Cedar City, UT. Demographic characteristics: Age = 25 (9) years (mean [standard deviation]), ht = 168 (9) cm, mass = 72 (14) kg. Two Garmin Instincts and two Polar Vantage M2s were evaluated, along with the Polar H10 chest strap as the criterion measure. Participants ran out on the trail for 10-minutes, and then returned to the trailhead. Maximum HR and average HR were measured during the run. Data were analyzed for validity (Mean Absolute Percent Error [MAPE] and Lin’s Concordance [CCC]) and reliability (Coefficient of Variation [CV] and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC]). Predetermined thresholds were: MAPE0.70, CV0.70. RESULTS: The Garmin Instinct met the threshold for both reliability tests for average and maximum HR (see table). The Garmin Instinct and Polar Vantage met the threshold for both validity tests for maximum HR. CONCLUSION: In order for a device to be considered valid, it must meet the predetermined thresholds for both validity and reliability. These results indicate that only the Garmin Instinct is valid and reliable, but only for measuring maximum HR. This is challenging for those who wish to track their HR while trail running, because neither of the studied devices were valid and reliable for maximum and average HR

Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Average Heart Rate and Energy Expenditure of Identical Garmin Instinct Watches During Low Intensity Resistance Training

ABSTRACT Wearable technology and resistance training are two of the top five worldwide fitness trends for 2022 as determined by ACSM. Many devices, such as Garmin’s Instinct, have functions to track various physiological aspects during resistance training. However, to our knowledge, independent verification of the validity and reliability of these devices for estimating average heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE) during resistance training are nonexistent. PURPOSE: To determine the concurrent validity and reliability of identical Garmin Instinct watches during resistance training. METHODS: Twenty subjects (n=10 female and male; age: 23.2±7.7 years; height: 169.7±11.1; weight: 76.3±15.7 kg) completed this study. Two Garmin Instinct watches were evaluated, along with the Polar H10 chest strap and Cosmed K5 portable metabolic unit as the criterion devices for average HR and EE, respectively. Subjects completed 4 circuits of 4 exercises (front squat, reverse lunge, push-ups, and shoulder press) using dumbbells at a light intensity with 1 set of 10 repetitions per exercise, 30 seconds rest between exercises, and 1-1.5 min. rest between circuits. Data were analyzed for validity (Mean Absolute Percent Error [MAPE] and Lin’s Concordance Coefficient [CCC]) and reliability (Coefficient of Variation [CV]), with predetermined thresholds of MAPE0.70, and CVRESULTS: Garmin Instinct 1 and Instinct 2 were significantly (

Average Heart Rate and Energy Expenditure Validity of Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Fenix 6 Wrist Watches During Light Circuit Resistance Training

Our laboratory recently found wrist-worn wearable technology devices to be valid for measuring average heart rate (HR), but not valid for estimated energy expenditure (EE) compared to criterion devices, during steady state aerobic training (walking, running, biking). However, the validity of wrist-worn devices for HR and EE measures during resistance training is largely unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if two wrist-worn devices, Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Garmin Fenix 6 Pro, record valid measures of average HR and EE while performing circuit resistance training. METHODS: Twenty participants (n=10 female, n=10 male; age: 23.2 ± 7.7 years) completed this study. The Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Garmin Fenix 6 Pro were tested along with the Polar H10 chest strap and Cosmed K5 portable metabolic unit as the criterions for average HR and EE, respectively. Participants completed 4 circuits of 4 exercises (front squat, reverse lunge, push-ups, and shoulder press) using dumbbells at a light intensity with 1 set of 10 repetitions per exercise and 30 seconds rest between exercises and 1-1.5 min. rest between circuits. Mean absolute percent error (MAPE, ≤10%) and Lin’s Concordance (ρ≥0.7) were used to validate the device’s average HR (in bpm) and estimated EE (in kcals) compared to criterion reference devices. Dependent T-tests determined differences (p≤0.05). RESULTS: Average HR for Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Fenix 6 Pro were significantly different (p\u3c0.01) than the Polar H10 (115.0±23.9 and 124.5±15.4 vs 128.9±19.0 bpm, respectively), and were not considered valid (MAPE: 44.8% and 25.1%; Lin’s Concordance: 0.50 and 0.63, respectively). Estimated EE for Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Fenix 6 Pro were significantly different (p\u3c0.0001) than the Cosmed K5 (31.7±12.3 and 39.7±13.1 vs 20.3±5.5 kcals, respectively), and were not considered valid (MAPE: 309.7% and 322.1%; Lin’s Concordance: 0.04 and 0.15, respectively). CONCLUSION: Anyone involved in any resistance training aspect should be aware of the limitations of these wrist-worn devices in measuring average HR or EE

Evaluating the Validity of the Salatto-Love and Care of Nature Direct Indication Scale Against the Love and Care of Nature Scale During Rest and After Self-Paced Hiking

There are several scales used to measure one’s connectedness to or love of nature. Amongst these scales is The Love and Care of Nature Scale (LCN), which has been used across several disciplines in research. While the LCN is a valid and reliable scale, completing the 15-question scale may be time consuming and difficult during field research. PURPOSE: The purpose of the current investigation was to establish a fast, easy-to-administer, and easy-to-understand visual analog scale that is valid for evaluating participants’ connectedness to or love of nature. METHODS:Nineteen participants met on two consecutive days at Thunderbird Gardens Trailhead in Cedar City, Utah. Upon arrival at the trailhead, participants completed the LCN and the Salatto-Love and Care of Nature Direct Indication Scale (SLCNDIS). The SLCNDIS is a 100-mm-long visual analog scale with two written phrases at opposing ends of the line: “Very Strongly Disagree” and “Very Strongly Agree” (see below). Participants were then instructed to walk into nature, sit, and observe the natural environment for 10 minutes. After this immersion period, participants completed the LCN and SLCNDIS again. After completing the scales this second time, participants completed a 10-minute, self-paced hike. After hiking, participants completed the LCN and SLCNDIS a third time. Scores on the LCN were calculated and compared to the measured mark indicated on the SLCNDIS. Validity will be established by observing a MAPE of 10% or lower as well as a Lin\u27s concordance correlation coefficient above 0.7 Pearson’s r will also be evaluated. RESULTS: While the SLCNDIS did not initially satisfy some criteria, the strength of correlation between the two scales increased throughout the investigation. See table below: CONCLUSION: According to the validity criteria of a MAPE ≤ 10% and Lin\u27s Concordance Correlation Coefficient (rc) \u3e 0.7, the SLCNDIS is concurrently valid with the LCN after 10 minutes of seated immersion and 10 minutes of hiking at a self-selected pace in nature (post-walk, MAPE = 9.75%; rc = 0.87). Both MAPE and rc were too high at baseline (pre-sit; MAPE = 22.49%; rc = 0.62) and after 10 minutes of seated immersion (pre-walk; MAPE = 13.00%; rc = 0.80) to be considered valid. However, at all three time points, the SLCNDIS scores were strongly and positively correlated with the LCN scores (r = 0.72 at pre-sit, r = 0.84 at pre-walk, and r = 0.88 at post-walk). Given the strength of the significant, positive correlations (Pearson\u27s) between the SLCNDIS and LCN scores at all three time-points, the SLCNDIS may be a feasible and valid tool for measuring a person\u27s connectedness to and love of nature. The validity of the SLCNDIS should be tested in larger and more diverse samples of participants before and after exposure to nature

Using Hexoskin Wearable Technology to Obtain Body Metrics in a Trail Hiking Setting

International Journal of Exercise Science 8(4): 425-430, 2015. Use of wearable technology to obtain various body metrics appears to be a trending phenomenon. However there is very little literature supporting the notion that these apparatuses can be used for research purposes in the field. The purpose of this study was to utilize Hexoskin wearable technology shirts (HxS) to obtain data in a pilot study using a trail hiking situation. Ten individuals (male, n = 4, female n = 6) volunteered to participate. On the first day, volunteers completed two approximately flat trail hikes at a self-preferred pace with a 15-minute rest between trials. On the second day, participants completed a strenuous uphill hike (17.6% grade) with a 15-minute rest at the summit and then completed the downhill portion. Body metrics provided by the HxS were average heart rate (HR), maximal HR (MHR), total energy expenditure (EE), average respiratory rate (RR), maximal respiratory rate (MRR), total steps (SC), and cadence (CA). Other measurements obtained were systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP), and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE). Data were analyzed using both one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with significance accepted at p≤0.05 and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for each variable. Both were determined using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (SPSS). No significant differences for trail type were noted for MHR (p=0.38), RR (p=0.45) or MRR (p=0.31). The uphill trail elicited significantly elevated HR (up=154±24 bpm, easy=118±11 bpm, down=129±19 bpm; p=0.04) and EE (up=251±78 kcal, easy=124±38 kcal, down=171±52 kcal; p=0.02). Significant ICC were observed for DBP (r = 0.80, p = 0.02), RR (r = 0.98, p = 0.01), SC (r = 0.97, p = 0.01) and RPE (r = 0.94, p = 0.01). Non-significant correlation were noted for uphill RR vs CA (r=0.51, p=0.16) or RPE vs SBP (r=0.03, p=0.94), HR (r=0.60, p=0.12), and MHR (r=0.70, p=0.051). We utilized HxS to provide physiological data in an applied setting. It should be noted that HR did not register in 5 out of 10 subjects on the easy trail, and 8 of 10 participants during the uphill hike. Additionally, estimated EE appears to be linked to HR intensity. Future investigations taken in an outdoor environment should take these findings into consideration

Validity of Average Heart Rate and Energy Expenditure in Polar OH1 and Verity Sense While Self-Paced Walking

Walking is the most widely used form of exercise. Advancements in wearable technology allow for the estimation of steps and energy consumption. Polar is a leading brand in wearable technology. The Polar OH1 and Verity Sense are commonly used optical sensors for activity tracking. It is unknown as to whether these devices provide a valid estimate of average heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE) while walking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to determine the validity of the Polar OH1 and Verity Sense during self-paced walking. METHODS: Twenty participants (n=10 female, n=10 male; 23.5 ± 6.48 years) participated in a 5min of self-paced walking. The Polar OH1 and Polar Verity Sense were placed on either biceps, in accordance to the manufacture recommendations. Mean absolute percent error (MAPE, ≤10%) and Lin’s Concordance (ρ≥0.7) were used to validate the device’s average HR (in bpm) and estimated EE (in kcals). The Polar H10 heart rate strap and COSMED K5 were used in conjunction as the criterion reference. Dependent T-tests was used to determine potential differences (p≤0.05). RESULTS: Heart rate was valid for self-paced walking among both the Verity Sense and OH1 optical sensors. Energy expenditure estimates were not valid during self-paced walking. CONCLUSION: The Polar Verity Sense and Polar OH1 are valid instruments for HR measures, however are not valid when attempting to estimate energy expenditure

Validity of Average Heart Rate and Energy Expenditure in Polar OH1 and Verity Sense While Self-Paced Running

Running is one of the most common forms of exercise in the world today. Technological advancements have contributed to the rise in the usage of wearable technology. Polar is a household name leading this amelioration of wearable technology. The Polar OH1 and Verity Sense are two of the typical models used to measure heart rate and energy expenditure, however, the validity of these devices have yet to be investigated. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the validity of the Polar OH1 and the Verity Sense during self-paced running. METHODS: Twenty participants (n=10 female, n=10 male; 23.5± 6.48 years) participated in the study. The Polar OH1 and the Polar Verity Sense were affixed to alternate biceps. The Polar H10 heart rate strap, in conjunction with the COSMED K5 portable metabolic cart, was used as the criterion reference. Participants proceeded to run at a self-paced rate for approximately 10-15 minutes. Data collection commenced upon reaching 70% of their estimated max heart rate and was observed for a period of 5 minutes. Mean absolute percent error (MAPE, ≤10%) and Lin’s Concordance (ρ≥0.7) were used to validate the device’s average HR (in bpm) and estimated EE (in kcals) compared to criterion reference. Dependent T-tests were run to determine any possible differences (p≤0.05). RESULTS: The Polar Verity Sense is a valid measure of HR (MAPE 6.83%, Lin’s=0.68) when measured against the Polar H10 criterion. The Polar OH1 nears validity (MAPE= 6.01%, Lin’s=0.72). The Polar Verity Sense and OH1 were not valid measures for estimated energy expenditure (see table 1). CONCLUSION: The Polar Verity Sense is a valid measure of HR for self-paced running. Both the Polar Verity Sense and OH1 are not valid for the estimation of EE