Explore studies of measurement, training and feedback with Alphatek. Read the methods and findings in context, then open the original source.
Evaluation study / 2024
An evaluation of selected jump measurements against a laboratory reference. The findings apply to this setup and jumping protocol.
Read the study summary: How AlphaPWR measurements compared with a laboratory referenceBachelor's thesis / 2023
A bachelor's thesis with two interviews about patient follow-up. It describes experiences, not clinical effectiveness.
Read the study summary: Physiotherapists' experiences using AlphaPWR in patient follow-upThe library includes evaluations and student theses. Each summary describes a particular method and population; a finding does not validate every use of the platform.
10 sources
This ten-week study compared colour-coded velocity-loss feedback with concentric-velocity feedback during back squats. The colour-coded group completed more repetitions and showed larger gains in one-repetition maximum squat and countermovement-jump height. No group differences were found for the other strength, power or muscle-thickness outcomes.
This evaluation compared concurrent AlphaPWR and laboratory-reference measurements during countermovement jumps. Across 124 analysed jumps, the reported mean biases were small for the assessed metrics. Jump height differed by -0.22% on average, while mean and peak force differed by approximately 1.1% and 1.17% respectively.
Across 15 weeks, this thesis examined whether readiness measures predicted squat volume under 20% and 30% velocity-loss thresholds. Associations were small and depended on the threshold. The author proposed combining subjective readiness, lifting velocity and occasional countermovement jumps rather than relying on a single readiness measure.
This thesis compared AlphaPWR centre-of-mass velocity with encoder-measured barbell velocity in one fatiguing back-squat set. AlphaPWR crossed the early velocity-loss thresholds sooner. The difference appeared to reflect greater repetition-to-repetition variation, which means encoder-derived thresholds should not automatically be applied to a different measurement method.
This thesis explored how perceived exertion and perceived lifting velocity related to measured velocity loss in trained participants. It reported a relationship between perceived exertion and velocity loss, together with little difference between perceived and measured velocity in this sample. Both forms of feedback may therefore contribute useful context.
This qualitative thesis explored how two physiotherapists experienced AlphaPWR in treatment and follow-up. The interviewees described objective feedback as useful for motivation, assessment and individualisation. The authors explicitly noted that two interviews are not representative and that the technology should support, not replace, professional judgement.
This eight-week in-season study compared back-squat training stopped at 20% or 40% velocity loss. The 40% group improved leg-press maximal power more than the 20% group, while the study found no between-group differences for its other sprint and jump outcomes. The result should be read within the study's small sample.
This eight-week in-season study compared back-squat training stopped at 20% or 40% velocity loss and examined strength and muscle size. Leg-press maximal force changed differently between the groups, in favour of the 40% group. Back-squat 1RM and muscle thickness did not differ significantly between the groups. It is a companion thesis to Remme (2023), from the same training intervention.
This experiment studied whether an acute lifting-velocity response remained after visual feedback was removed. The feedback group increased velocity when feedback was introduced and maintained the change in the following no-feedback set. The control group, which received no feedback, showed decreasing velocity across its sets.
This study compared barbell velocity with the velocity of the combined person-barbell centre of mass during back squats. The two approaches produced different values, especially at higher lifting velocities. Its practical message is that load-velocity zones should be specific to the measurement method rather than transferred directly between devices.
General research on strength, explosive performance, balance and age. This explains the research context; it does not validate the Fitness Age score.
Read the research backgroundWho took part, what was measured and how the study was conducted matter when you put a result into practice.
The short summary is available as HTML, not hidden inside a PDF.
Method and interpretation stay next to the reported findings.
Every published summary links directly to the original document.
A focused demo connects the platform to the workflow, people and decisions that matter to your organisation.
Request a demoHave a question? Email us
