Table 1.
Comparison between the mean vertical barbell force computed from an inverse dynamic versus the work-energy approach during snatch performance.
Fig 1.
Results of the Bland-Altman analysis (left) and Deming regression (right) for the comparison between and
.
Deming regression plot with the fitted linear model (dashed line) and the identity line (, slope = 1) (solid line). Bland-Altman plot with mean difference between methods (dashed line) and 95% limits of agreement (dotted lines). Regression parameters were reported as slope/intercept with 95% confidence limits, difference was reported as mean with 95% confidence limits, limits of agreement were reported as systematic bias ± 1.96 × SDD with 95% confidence limits.
= mean vertical barbell force computed from inverse dynamic approach,
= mean vertical barbell force computed from work-energy approach, LoA = limits of agreement.
Fig 2.
Vertical barbell acceleration data for the acceleration phase (0–100%) of the snatch with the effect of high (+ signs) and low (− signs) PC scores for PC1-4 on the average acceleration waveform (black solid lines).
The numbers 1–3 in the upper graphs separate the 1st pull, from transition, and 2nd pull during the acceleration phase.
Table 2.
A multiple linear regression model to predict differences in vertical barbell force during the snatch computed from the inverse dynamic approach and the work-energy approach using PC scores of principal component analysis from vertical barbell acceleration waveforms.