It might be disappointing. Power = Work/Time. Taller lifters, because they have to pull the bar a longer distance, take a longer time to complete the pull compared to shorter lifters. Thus, Time is greater. At 6' 6", Lasha's barbell takes a little trip. He's still awesome to watch, no question.
Mike Sasin but Work = m.g.∆h, where ∆h is the distance the bar moves up. And time = ∆h/v, where v is the mean velocity. So Power = m.g.∆h.v/∆h = m.g.v. That means power is only dependant on the weight and on the speed. Physics is beautiful, isnt it?
10/10 comment. He has a good work ethic though but damn if it doesn’t seem like he lives on TH-cam lol. He makes more videos than even our reigning champ coach blaha (non-negotiable)
In cycling wattage has been one of the key metrics of training since power meters became accessible. exciting to see similar developments in weightlifting!
Kinetic energy (power) = 1/2 Mass*velocity ^2 Meaning = if you doubled the velocity the energy is quadrupled. Force = acceleration * mass Acceleration = velocity / time. Time = distance /velocity That's all mean ====> Force =( velocity ^2/ distance) * mass If you doubled your velocity the force is quadrupled again. Index : the distance in this situation is measured from the loaded bar resting on the floor to the standing over head postion of the bar it self. Velocity is provided by the device. Mass = you can assume it is the weight of the loaded bar.
Ding ding ding. This is why speed work is used in place of heavy work. Because if you have the energy, you can reach the same loading as the heavy reps, but if you don't then you can dynamically lower the heavy via slower reps.
Dope Tech! This would be extremely effective for all levels of lifters and coaches, having a greater control aspect throughout training means faster progress.
$400+ is not in my bracket of “affordable” though I hope one day I’ll have the cash to buy one or the technology will become a lot cheaper to the consumer.
@Omne Obstat Which is exactly what the Soviets did in their studying of Velocity Based Training. Filming side on against a measure marked background board (checkered).
I recently decided to incorporate velocity analytics into my training along with RPE. I opted for the RepOne tracker, it was a good deal cheaper than some of the other systems but it was one of the only ones with a physical tether. I've really enjoyed it so far.
Many years after this comment but have you liked the RepOne and do you see significant value to your training? I’m thinking of buying one but still on the fence. Not a ton of objective reviews out there. Thx
Loved this. Would love to incorporate in my training with rpe as a backbone. Still dont think im experienced enough but will use in my squatting cause i think that can go well
this is amazing... please do another video when your recovered to compare that test of fatigue as its really interesting and i wonder what numbers Gabriel Sîncrăian would do at his 80% snatch weight
Could this be in any way related to the work of Prilepin where his "chart" is based on where the "power" (not sure if they were "average" or "peak") levels drop in half(along with the height of the lift) with a particular percentage of 1rm? (this was an average based on the lifters he tested. Don't know they were "Master of Sport" or what)
Hey Zack, do you have or could you make a video where you tell what beginners should start to work on (Except of technique of the lifts, I guess that's obvious) to get better, stronger and safer? Thanks for the rest of the content, really great videos.
I wonder how accurate this is. Ive owned a powermeter on my bicycle since 2017. Seeing watts trying to be estimated is a bit of a red flag. Any powermeter that does not use strain gauges, is purely estimating and is both inaccurate and inconsistent, even when measured in a controlled environment indoors, where speed of the wheel, resistance and cadence is known. In cycling, it took around 2 decades before powermeters became affordable (under £500), so if the ‘real’ system for barbells costs thousands, its probably because its the only way to reliably measure. Now I’m sure the speed is accurate so thats worth using, but I personally wouldn’t pay any attention to estimated watts. ciao
Inst the power just a measure of the power put into the bar? I would guess it's just a repeated distance measurement. That will give an estimation of the speed and acceleration of the bar. Maybe it also have an accelerometer to give an acceleration measurement for increased accuracy. The power will then be: Power=mass×acceleration×speed
It might not be an accurate estimate of the power you exert or even the power you exert on the bar. However, if we assume the velocity to be measured correctly we know for a fact that we can accurately calculate the useful power that is exerted on the bar. A bar optimally travels in a straight path and all useful work exerted on it is upwards in a straight line. The power of such a movement can be easily calculate using the weight of the object being moved, it's acceleration and it's velocity. Assuming the velocity measurements are correct we can easily figure out the acceleration and we know the mass is a constant. Measuring the power exerted on a bike is a much more complicated matter as it is a much more complicated system.
@@Dayman. I don' think the bar necessarily needs to move in a straight path. Just only take into account the velocity along the z axis as I think the interest is speed relative to vertical displacement
@@Joel-5747 The measurement is done with an array, it measures movement in a plane (2D) in line with gravity perpandicular to the barbell. The only way to fuck that up is if the bar goes up at an angle, its accuracy for velocity is pretty ok, its estimates for power (provided there is no Inertial Measurement Unit or Accelerometer in there) are naive hence it gives average and peak estimates rather than a curve, given this estimate is linearly proportional to the velocity estimates i would argue that the system is probably percise but not accurate on the wattage. So you can train with those values, but they aren't worth more than the velocity measurements themselves. I might try to make a similar device with proper sensor fusion just looking at applicability and existing systems to see if it is worth my time/monetizeable.
Hey Zack, while I'm late to the game on this vid and it's highly unlikely you'll see this, I'll take a stab anyhow. I definitely like the idea of a more science based training. Especially because this can quantify things in terms I understand. While I do understand we want to optimize our Wattage output given that's what oly lifting is, but does that mean we always want to remain in the range for highest wattage? Or given that your cohort in the video has a big drop off in efficiency come higher than 80% mean that there is something else at play for him? It's a small piece of the puzzle, and I'd like to know if it means we should focus solely on this narrow range or there might be benefits from max velocity or max strength work in addition.
Would it help to taper and then get a base line for this? So that way through out training you can you can judge wether or not the amount of power you are producing is truly going down?
How do you know that training at the load that produces "today's" peak power will produce higher peak power over time vs training at a lesser or greater load? (assuming goal is peak power)
Would this product work for other lifts, for example, speed work on a conjugate based system? Does the bar have to start on the ground for this to calculate properly or could you also use it for bench press, OHP, squat variations, etc, or is it just the DL variations, snatch, and clean that this would work for?
Hey, Telly. Love your stuff, but I have a few questions... Why are you a coorelating maximum wattage with the zone you’d be best served training in? Wouldn’t that weight zone be the zone that you don’t need to train in much, because you’re already able to produce a stupid amount of power? Strength and speed are very specific adaptations, meaning that you have to train very close to the loads and speeds that you’re trying to improve. Also, on the power output vs fatigue thing you mentioned later on. Just because you lift heavier (produce more power) than someone at the same %1RM doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re going to be more fatigued afterwards. Fatigue in this particular example is a matter of fitness. If my deconditioned ass lifted my 80% (max is sun 100kg) and someone like a professional crossfit athlete with a 140kg snatch also lifted their 80%, I garuntee that I will be sitting down, and they’ll be repping it out 10 more times and then swinging around on the rings like Tarzan for a while afterwards with no problem.
It seems that most of the clip-on power measurement devices simply match the force-velocity curve. What would be the benefit of using a device vs training via the curve, using autoregulation? 80% 1RM is always 80%...
120 and higher speed (2.03) can't give lower power than the same weight and slightly lower speed (2.02) (2794 and 2949 resp). What am I missing here? Just inconsistent speed pickup?
Nice device, interesting potential. All other things equal, work for you will always be larger as you are much taller, so the distance the bar travels is larger. And Arthur's power output will always be less, even with same acceleration and velocity, because his 80% is less than yours. He could compensate maybe with a higher acceleration and velocity, but I dont know how realistic. Maybe combining the device data with RPE is an option. It would be nice to see a comparison with someone with the same snatch number as you. Thansk for the content, cheers!
At 10:30 i dont necessarily think that te same workout will fatigue you more than him, i think the fatigue will be more on your side but not relative, because if 80% is relative then the fatigue factor should to right? So he lifts less weight than you but he still feels it like a 80%
8:07 there is this benchmark test with 10 sprints in a row. The results would look similar. The first one or two sprints would be still kind of warm up. Then you peak. And the performance starts drop at some point.
Cool stuff, Very interesting, especially to map out progress and performance. I’m not sure if you should specifically focus on velocity, as power is a derivative of velocity (distance over time) and load. Speaking from a physics standpoint ofcourse. I would say that velocity is the easiest parameter to condition, but ideally you would want your power output to peak as high as possible. It is however very interesting to note that your peak was at 3100~ watts. And all other lifts where somewhat close to it, Kinda makes me wonder if data like this could theoretically impose your max lift. For example; Your output peak is 3100W @100kg x 2.2s Would this translate to a 160kg lift with a reduced speed but similar Wattage. Your data in the video suggests it not to be the case, but the deviation is quite small and your test sample batch ‘only’ consists of 2 reps per weight. I’m not sure if data comparison between lifters makes a lot of sense, kinda feels like comparing apples to pears, whilst knowing outcomes beforehand. Nevertheless, interesting stuff.
If you consider the 130kg to be 100% for the day you have 104kg to be 80% - right in the area most progress can be gained. At 120kg you were over 90% - impressive to see how slow the bar gets. I'd be curious about the exact curve describing percentage vs bar speed right around that detail.
For maximum power in the oly lifts, peak velocity matters a lot more. Mean velocity matters if you’re looking to sustain power or manage general power output.
I don't think that comparison between you and Arthur makes any sense. yes both lifts are at 80%, but he is shorter(probably the bigger difference cobtributer), and lifting a lighter weight, so ultimately, he has to put in less work, hense the lower wattage. the comparison doesn't mean much
That's his point. That taller lifters work harder, and therefore should do less volume. Everything else being equal. It matches up with previous videos where he implies the same thing simply due to ROM, now this is just a little more detailed to back that same idea.
@@CanditoTrainingHQ well he's also a much bigger guy, so logic tells me zack could handle recovering from a higher wattage output per session. so I dont know what you could learn from this comparison that you wouldn't expect by just looking at their sizes. regardless, I'm sure that if he tracked himself over 6 mounts, the trends would give meaningful info regarding optimal volume and percentages
Is it a lidar device? Would be great to see the developer beef up that app and create some output screens with full graphs... maybe the more expensive version does this already?
I believe they are completely separate. Those numbers just mean that he managed produce "the same" velocity to the bar more linearly on that 2.03 lift.
It looks like you were power snatch until 90kg. It would be interesting if you full snatch during the entire warmup right thru to end then maybe power snatch if needed.
The values of peak power/velocity in the bottom right do not seem correct. The peak power should be force times peak velocity, either the measured power is too high or velocity is too low.
This takes away your natty card. Real lifters steal their villages' speedometer and put it in the gym letting their dad freely roam around without having to worry about stupid DUIs or other violations
With the Zack v Arthur comparison it seems that you're comparing relative loads with absolute power. I think fatigue or "working hard" would also be relative, but if you wanted to use an absolute measure you could look at calories. Sure, you accomplished more overall work due to the heavier bar (and height differences/bar displacement) and the wattage reflects the force needed to produce the work outcome. But I don't think that means your caloric expenditure was necessarily higher, and could even be lower if you are super-efficient. I don't think you can validate that one was working harder than the other with this information. Wattage is absolute. Stress is relative to the individual. Flip it around and have Arthur lift 110k and I bet he would burn more calories (be "working harder") even though his absolute work and wattage would still be lower (assuming he's shorter and would have a slower bar speed).
The math are kinda weird, only 0,01m/s in peak speed cannot make 150w difference in peak power... The values doesn't add up anyway, 120 Kg at 2.02 m/s is around 2300 W (120*9.81*2.02), 100 kg at 2.42 is around 2400w... The error is more or less consistent at about 20-25% though. Maybe a calibration issue?
Why design this with lasers and a big reflector mat? Why not just put an accelerometer internally in the device I dont see why the mat was necessary for the design?
We spent 5 years trying to develop accelerometer technology, we couldn't get the accuracy to the level that athletes and coaches need. That's why we developed FLEX, the device uses laser optics to physically measure displacement over time, which makes it the most accurate wireless sensor available.
WL bros in 2030 be like: Yeah I know it's only 40kg, but did you SEE the WATTAGE on that CONTACT??!
I want to see Lasha's numbers break this thing like Vegeta's scouter
It might be disappointing. Power = Work/Time. Taller lifters, because they have to pull the bar a longer distance, take a longer time to complete the pull compared to shorter lifters. Thus, Time is greater. At 6' 6", Lasha's barbell takes a little trip. He's still awesome to watch, no question.
Mike Sasin but Work = m.g.∆h, where ∆h is the distance the bar moves up. And time = ∆h/v, where v is the mean velocity. So Power = m.g.∆h.v/∆h = m.g.v.
That means power is only dependant on the weight and on the speed. Physics is beautiful, isnt it?
But what about the distance component of speed? Meters per second and meters per second squared
Distance and time*
@@delso33 you can say power = m.g.∆h/t, since v=∆h/t. Its the same thing.
I wanna see Clarence Kennedy’s numbers on this thing.. he’s so fast
Wouldn’t be able to read it. To fast , almost magically fast.... he may be a wizard.
Or Louise mosquera.
That thing would be good for the auto regulation squat cycle you were doing. You can actually measure the wattage of an RPE 7 back squat
Still no comment from natural hypertrophy, must be on a deload
He's everywhere.
Jordy Williams "deload" 😂
10/10 comment. He has a good work ethic though but damn if it doesn’t seem like he lives on TH-cam lol. He makes more videos than even our reigning champ coach blaha (non-negotiable)
Hook this thing up to Luis Mosquera
Power output: [math error]
In cycling wattage has been one of the key metrics of training since power meters became accessible. exciting to see similar developments in weightlifting!
Kinetic energy (power) =
1/2 Mass*velocity ^2
Meaning = if you doubled the velocity the energy is quadrupled.
Force = acceleration * mass
Acceleration = velocity / time.
Time = distance /velocity
That's all mean ====>
Force =( velocity ^2/ distance) * mass
If you doubled your velocity the force is quadrupled again.
Index : the distance in this situation is measured from the loaded bar resting on the floor to the standing over head postion of the bar it self.
Velocity is provided by the device.
Mass = you can assume it is the weight of the loaded bar.
Ding ding ding. This is why speed work is used in place of heavy work. Because if you have the energy, you can reach the same loading as the heavy reps, but if you don't then you can dynamically lower the heavy via slower reps.
I used Tendo unit back in the day. Does same. It was incredibly helpful.
It never occured to me that knowing the velocity could help you improve technique. Good information!
Dope Tech! This would be extremely effective for all levels of lifters and coaches, having a greater control aspect throughout training means faster progress.
Amazing video , so interesting ! 👏💪❤
$400+ is not in my bracket of “affordable” though I hope one day I’ll have the cash to buy one or the technology will become a lot cheaper to the consumer.
@Omne Obstat Which is exactly what the Soviets did in their studying of Velocity Based Training. Filming side on against a measure marked background board (checkered).
Same :)
@Austin Duke Could you please send us your resume
I recently decided to incorporate velocity analytics into my training along with RPE. I opted for the RepOne tracker, it was a good deal cheaper than some of the other systems but it was one of the only ones with a physical tether. I've really enjoyed it so far.
Many years after this comment but have you liked the RepOne and do you see significant value to your training? I’m thinking of buying one but still on the fence. Not a ton of objective reviews out there. Thx
Thank you!
Loved this. Would love to incorporate in my training with rpe as a backbone. Still dont think im experienced enough but will use in my squatting cause i think that can go well
This is the guy at the gym making all that noise in the corner but hes never swole....ever
You can also use the app Barsense which does the same thing
Hey Jeff!! Loved the video. How would this methodology work for powerlifting? Guide the lifts based on wattage also?
this is amazing... please do another video when your recovered to compare that test of fatigue as its really interesting
and i wonder what numbers Gabriel Sîncrăian would do at his 80% snatch weight
Could this be in any way related to the work of Prilepin where his "chart" is
based on where the "power" (not sure if they were "average" or "peak") levels
drop in half(along with the height of the lift) with a particular percentage of 1rm?
(this was an average based on the lifters he tested. Don't know they were "Master of Sport" or what)
Legend has it of clarence uses it it will overload
does this thing take into account the velocity when u drop the bar?
Hey Zack, do you have or could you make a video where you tell what beginners should start to work on (Except of technique of the lifts, I guess that's obvious) to get better, stronger and safer? Thanks for the rest of the content, really great videos.
I wonder how accurate this is. Ive owned a powermeter on my bicycle since 2017. Seeing watts trying to be estimated is a bit of a red flag. Any powermeter that does not use strain gauges, is purely estimating and is both inaccurate and inconsistent, even when measured in a controlled environment indoors, where speed of the wheel, resistance and cadence is known.
In cycling, it took around 2 decades before powermeters became affordable (under £500), so if the ‘real’ system for barbells costs thousands, its probably because its the only way to reliably measure.
Now I’m sure the speed is accurate so thats worth using, but I personally wouldn’t pay any attention to estimated watts.
ciao
Inst the power just a measure of the power put into the bar?
I would guess it's just a repeated distance measurement. That will give an estimation of the speed and acceleration of the bar. Maybe it also have an accelerometer to give an acceleration measurement for increased accuracy. The power will then be:
Power=mass×acceleration×speed
It might not be an accurate estimate of the power you exert or even the power you exert on the bar. However, if we assume the velocity to be measured correctly we know for a fact that we can accurately calculate the useful power that is exerted on the bar.
A bar optimally travels in a straight path and all useful work exerted on it is upwards in a straight line. The power of such a movement can be easily calculate using the weight of the object being moved, it's acceleration and it's velocity. Assuming the velocity measurements are correct we can easily figure out the acceleration and we know the mass is a constant.
Measuring the power exerted on a bike is a much more complicated matter as it is a much more complicated system.
@@Dayman. I don' think the bar necessarily needs to move in a straight path. Just only take into account the velocity along the z axis as I think the interest is speed relative to vertical displacement
@@Joel-5747 The measurement is done with an array, it measures movement in a plane (2D) in line with gravity perpandicular to the barbell. The only way to fuck that up is if the bar goes up at an angle, its accuracy for velocity is pretty ok, its estimates for power (provided there is no Inertial Measurement Unit or Accelerometer in there) are naive hence it gives average and peak estimates rather than a curve, given this estimate is linearly proportional to the velocity estimates i would argue that the system is probably percise but not accurate on the wattage. So you can train with those values, but they aren't worth more than the velocity measurements themselves. I might try to make a similar device with proper sensor fusion just looking at applicability and existing systems to see if it is worth my time/monetizeable.
Hey Zack, while I'm late to the game on this vid and it's highly unlikely you'll see this, I'll take a stab anyhow. I definitely like the idea of a more science based training. Especially because this can quantify things in terms I understand. While I do understand we want to optimize our Wattage output given that's what oly lifting is, but does that mean we always want to remain in the range for highest wattage? Or given that your cohort in the video has a big drop off in efficiency come higher than 80% mean that there is something else at play for him? It's a small piece of the puzzle, and I'd like to know if it means we should focus solely on this narrow range or there might be benefits from max velocity or max strength work in addition.
Would it help to taper and then get a base line for this? So that way through out training you can you can judge wether or not the amount of power you are producing is truly going down?
This thing is great especially if you use rpe for training
Very very good
Would love to see this on a Shi 190kg power clean
How do you know that training at the load that produces "today's" peak power will produce higher peak power over time vs training at a lesser or greater load? (assuming goal is peak power)
Would this product work for other lifts, for example, speed work on a conjugate based system? Does the bar have to start on the ground for this to calculate properly or could you also use it for bench press, OHP, squat variations, etc, or is it just the DL variations, snatch, and clean that this would work for?
Hey, Telly. Love your stuff, but I have a few questions... Why are you a coorelating maximum wattage with the zone you’d be best served training in? Wouldn’t that weight zone be the zone that you don’t need to train in much, because you’re already able to produce a stupid amount of power? Strength and speed are very specific adaptations, meaning that you have to train very close to the loads and speeds that you’re trying to improve. Also, on the power output vs fatigue thing you mentioned later on. Just because you lift heavier (produce more power) than someone at the same %1RM doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re going to be more fatigued afterwards. Fatigue in this particular example is a matter of fitness. If my deconditioned ass lifted my 80% (max is sun 100kg) and someone like a professional crossfit athlete with a 140kg snatch also lifted their 80%, I garuntee that I will be sitting down, and they’ll be repping it out 10 more times and then swinging around on the rings like Tarzan for a while afterwards with no problem.
It seems that most of the clip-on power measurement devices simply match the force-velocity curve. What would be the benefit of using a device vs training via the curve, using autoregulation? 80% 1RM is always 80%...
Where's the larry wheels 'Powa ' audio clips over you speaking ? Video editor slacking haha
120 and higher speed (2.03) can't give lower power than the same weight and slightly lower speed (2.02) (2794 and 2949 resp). What am I missing here? Just inconsistent speed pickup?
I'd like to hear your opinion on Li Dayin's clean and jerk technique.
He seems to pull it off so effortlessly most of the time.
Nice device, interesting potential. All other things equal, work for you will always be larger as you are much taller, so the distance the bar travels is larger. And Arthur's power output will always be less, even with same acceleration and velocity, because his 80% is less than yours. He could compensate maybe with a higher acceleration and velocity, but I dont know how realistic. Maybe combining the device data with RPE is an option. It would be nice to see a comparison with someone with the same snatch number as you. Thansk for the content, cheers!
At 10:30 i dont necessarily think that te same workout will fatigue you more than him, i think the fatigue will be more on your side but not relative, because if 80% is relative then the fatigue factor should to right? So he lifts less weight than you but he still feels it like a 80%
is it ok to drop the weight on the mat?
8:07 there is this benchmark test with 10 sprints in a row. The results would look similar. The first one or two sprints would be still kind of warm up. Then you peak. And the performance starts drop at some point.
Cool stuff,
Very interesting, especially to map out progress and performance.
I’m not sure if you should specifically focus on velocity, as power is a derivative of velocity (distance over time) and load. Speaking from a physics standpoint ofcourse.
I would say that velocity is the easiest parameter to condition, but ideally you would want your power output to peak as high as possible.
It is however very interesting to note that your peak was at 3100~ watts. And all other lifts where somewhat close to it,
Kinda makes me wonder if data like this could theoretically impose your max lift.
For example;
Your output peak is 3100W @100kg x 2.2s
Would this translate to a 160kg lift with a reduced speed but similar Wattage.
Your data in the video suggests it not to be the case, but the deviation is quite small and your test sample batch ‘only’ consists of 2 reps per weight.
I’m not sure if data comparison between lifters makes a lot of sense, kinda feels like comparing apples to pears, whilst knowing outcomes beforehand.
Nevertheless, interesting stuff.
Jeff is the fastest man alive.
This should be paired with an app that traces bar path and plots acceleration vectors of the barbell along certain points
Vmax pro from Germany
It traces bar path also, check. Check website for uses.
Jeff shilling out for “big velocity” smh
If you consider the 130kg to be 100% for the day you have 104kg to be 80% - right in the area most progress can be gained. At 120kg you were over 90% - impressive to see how slow the bar gets. I'd be curious about the exact curve describing percentage vs bar speed right around that detail.
I recommed you VmaxPro 👋
Is the bounce after it’s dropped from overhead logged? I feel like that could skew the data a bit
Maybe not since he's looking at peak velocity and peak power instead of averages?
For maximum power in the oly lifts, peak velocity matters a lot more. Mean velocity matters if you’re looking to sustain power or manage general power output.
We only display the concentric phase, so the bounce doesn't affect the readings.
I don't think that comparison between you and Arthur makes any sense. yes both lifts are at 80%, but he is shorter(probably the bigger difference cobtributer), and lifting a lighter weight, so ultimately, he has to put in less work, hense the lower wattage. the comparison doesn't mean much
That's his point. That taller lifters work harder, and therefore should do less volume. Everything else being equal. It matches up with previous videos where he implies the same thing simply due to ROM, now this is just a little more detailed to back that same idea.
@@CanditoTrainingHQ well he's also a much bigger guy, so logic tells me zack could handle recovering from a higher wattage output per session. so I dont know what you could learn from this comparison that you wouldn't expect by just looking at their sizes. regardless, I'm sure that if he tracked himself over 6 mounts, the trends would give meaningful info regarding optimal volume and percentages
markMOT no, the opposite. Zack will require more recovery time if everything is equal compared to the other guy because he is taller and bigger.
Fundraiser for higher quality camera?
Is it a lidar device? Would be great to see the developer beef up that app and create some output screens with full graphs... maybe the more expensive version does this already?
The web site addresses all the functions. Bar tracking with velocity is sweet.
7:41 How come under 120 kg, the peak power for 2.03 m/s is lower than that for 2.02 m/s? Something doesn't seem to add up.
I believe they are completely separate. Those numbers just mean that he managed produce "the same" velocity to the bar more linearly on that 2.03 lift.
Those trunks make you look like you pissed yourself lol xD
Wait. Why I come here is to understand. Why do you need more power? Longer distance?
It looks like you were power snatch until 90kg. It would be interesting if you full snatch during the entire warmup right thru to end then maybe power snatch if needed.
there is an error.. both lifts with 120kg same peak v but different peak P.. how?
It just means it took him less time to reach peak velocity from the floor on the lift with higher peak power
is this thing worth for powerlifting?
The values of peak power/velocity in the bottom right do not seem correct. The peak power should be force times peak velocity, either the measured power is too high or velocity is too low.
“When this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you’re gona see some serious shit”
Technology!
I use VMaxPro , but I snatched 85kg (3.14)faster than your 70kg , it’s weird cuz my PR”s only around 120kg
Could height difference be the cause. Since you have to go a lot further
💚💚💚🙏
anyone know the song at 3.35?
Mac miller - Blue world
How much does it weigh cuz I only see one mat, so you're only using that implement on one side ?
@Omne Obstat Yes but one side is loaded with more weight than the other, his question was by how much.
@@alextheguy1858 175 grams! Roughly the same weight as a weight clip
This takes away your natty card. Real lifters steal their villages' speedometer and put it in the gym letting their dad freely roam around without having to worry about stupid DUIs or other violations
With the Zack v Arthur comparison it seems that you're comparing relative loads with absolute power. I think fatigue or "working hard" would also be relative, but if you wanted to use an absolute measure you could look at calories. Sure, you accomplished more overall work due to the heavier bar (and height differences/bar displacement) and the wattage reflects the force needed to produce the work outcome. But I don't think that means your caloric expenditure was necessarily higher, and could even be lower if you are super-efficient. I don't think you can validate that one was working harder than the other with this information. Wattage is absolute. Stress is relative to the individual. Flip it around and have Arthur lift 110k and I bet he would burn more calories (be "working harder") even though his absolute work and wattage would still be lower (assuming he's shorter and would have a slower bar speed).
I’m too stupid for this video, but still enjoyed it.
The math are kinda weird, only 0,01m/s in peak speed cannot make 150w difference in peak power... The values doesn't add up anyway, 120 Kg at 2.02 m/s is around 2300 W (120*9.81*2.02), 100 kg at 2.42 is around 2400w... The error is more or less consistent at about 20-25% though. Maybe a calibration issue?
Peak Force and Peak Velocity don't occur at the same time.
@@flexstronger8649 yup my bad, i assumed the force caused by the load was constant but it's not as there is acceleration
Think of if Clarence use that
Someone else was watching one of his vids when this vid came up?
Yeah lol I was
...or getting some Stanozolol 😂🤙🏻
Clarence needs to be in this video or another one with him. That guy throws the bar, I want to see his power and speed.
You should cover one of the windows in that door behind you so it's three white lights. Just saying
Why design this with lasers and a big reflector mat? Why not just put an accelerometer internally in the device I dont see why the mat was necessary for the design?
Vmaxpro uses no mat.
We spent 5 years trying to develop accelerometer technology, we couldn't get the accuracy to the level that athletes and coaches need. That's why we developed FLEX, the device uses laser optics to physically measure displacement over time, which makes it the most accurate wireless sensor available.
Clarence is gonna Snatch 100kg at 9.8m/s
Alex Tulenko you mean 9.8m.s^(-2) ? :P
El ultimo movimiento estuvo pesado,doblaste mucho los codos y aflojaste tus hombros. Pero bien.
Fly in Clarence Kennedy ASAP and hook him up!
500 is cheap ? I don't think so
I was into it until I saw the price tag. I'll stick to tracker apps for now :(
zack can you not get that close to the camera, i do not want to be tempted and kiss the screen
Too heavy , man .. too heavy for speed work !
Unless it calculates reverse torque then its nothing more than garbage
You could probably do this with Kinovea. Wouldn't be as accurate, but hey, it's free.