UA cloudflare authentication

Browsing by Author "Aguiar, Elroy"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Agreement Between a Vertec Device and Smartphone Applications for Measuring Vertical Jump Height
    (University of Alabama Libraries, 2026) Weaver, Justin; Esco, Micheal
    Accurate assessment of countermovement jump (CMJ) height is important for evaluating lower-body power and monitoring athletic performance. While force plates are considered the gold standard for jump assessment, their cost often limits accessibility in applied settings. The purpose of this study was to examine the agreement between a Vertec (VT) device, MyJump Lab (MJLAB), and two analytical approaches using MyJump2 standard version (MJ2ST) and the MyJump2 modified version (MJ2MOD) for measuring CMJ height. Twenty healthy adults (19–35 years) completed three maximal countermovement jumps following a standardized warm-up. Jump height were simultaneously assessed using the Vertec, MyJump Lab, MyJump2 Standard and a modified MyJump2 frame-selection procedures. Data was analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and Bland–Altman analyses. A significant main effect of measurement method was observed (F(3,57) = 31.61, p < .001, ηp² = .625). MJ2ST produced significantly lower jump heights than the VT, MJLAB, and MJ2MOD (all p < .001). No significant differences were observed between the Vertec and MyJump Lab, the Vertec and Modified MyJump2 or My Jump Lab and Modified MyJump2 (all p = 1.000). Good agreement was observed between the Vertec and MyJump Lab (ICC = 0.801) and between the Vertec and Modifed MyJump2 (ICC = 0.849), whereas only moderate agreement was observed between the Vertec and Myjump2 standard (ICC = 0.608). Bland–Altman analyses demonstrated substantial systematic bias for MyJump 2, which underestimated jump height by 12.93 cm relative to the Vertec. In contrast, MyJump Lab and Modified MyJump2 exhibited minimal bias. These findings indicate that MyJump Lab and the Modified MyJump2 analytical approach provide valid alternatives to the Vertec for assessing CMJ height. (Balsalobre-Fernández et al., 2023). Furthermore, jump-height estimates obtained using MyJump2 were substantially influenced by the operational definitions used to identify take-off and landing events. Practitioners should exercise caution when using standard MyJump2 procedures, as they may underestimate CMJ performance.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Outdoor Walking Speeds of Apparently Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    (Adis, 2021) Murtagh, Elaine M.; Mair, Jacqueline L.; Aguiar, Elroy; Tudor-Locke, Catrine; Murphy, Marie H.; University of Limerick; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa; University of North Carolina; University of North Carolina Charlotte; Ulster University
    Background Walking outdoors can be used by many individuals to meet public health guidelines for moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity. The speed at which adults walk may be a proxy for intensity. Traditional estimates of indoor walking speed are unlikely to reflect self-selected usual or other instructed paces of outdoor walking speed. Objective To inform estimates of pace-based walking speed of apparently healthy adults in outdoor settings. Methods We searched four electronic databases for articles published in English between January 1970 and March 2019. Studies that reported walking speed (m/s), cadence (steps/min), or intensity (mL/kg/min) of ambulatory, apparently healthy, and community-dwelling adults (> 18 years) were included. Walking speed categories were defined according to the description provided in each study. Meta-analysis was used to synthesise speed, cadence, and intensity data by slow, usual, medium, fast, and maximal pace (where reported). Results Thirty-five studies, representing 14,015 participants (6808 women, 5135 men, and 2072 sex not specified), were identified. The mean (95% CI) walking speed for slow, usual, medium, fast, and maximal pace was 0.82 (0.77-0.86), 1.31 (1.27-1.35), 1.47 (1.44-1.49), 1.72 (1.64-1.81), and 1.62 (1.45-1.79) m/s, respectively. Mean cadence (95% CI) for usual and fast paces were 116.65 (114.95-118.35) and 126.75 (121.87-131.63) steps/min, respectively. The mean oxygen consumption (95% CI) for the usual and medium paces was 11.97 (11.69-12.25) and 13.34 (12.94-13.73) mL/kg/min, respectively. Conclusion These findings provide greater clarity with regard to how various indicators of enacted walking pace, speed, and intensity overlap and how each can be best communicated in the real-world setting to optimise health-related outcomes. Pace-based instructions can be used to support walking in outdoor settings within public health guidelines.