## 4 Discussion  
The most important observation from this study is that the GymAware linear transducer may be a reliable tool for evaluating the strength, power, and velocity of the barbell during the LPT test. All applied barbell loads and both forms of the LPT test (with and without throw) for most variables (including force, power, and velocity) demonstrated good to excellent reliability. In this study, there was a noticeable tendency towards worsening reliability as the load of the barbell increased. Additionally, the LPT test performed with a barbell throw showed some lower ICC and r values compared to the test without a throw. Velocity-based training (VBT) is becoming more and more popular; thus, methods allowing for the precise selection of training loads based on force, power, and velocity measurements are considered better and safer than classic 1 RM assessment [7; 13; 14]. The main advantage of this approach is that it provides accurate, indirect estimations of 1 RM without the need to perform a maximal lift [1; 7; 13; 14]. Moreover, the wide accessibility of velocity-based technology makes VBT attractive to coaches [7; 21]. It has been previously reported that controlling barbell velocity is a good way to monitor resistance training intensities [1; 4; 20]. The LPT test is applied to assess the ability to produce high velocities in a movement pattern similar to a rear-hand punch. Due to the fact that movement during the LPT test is similar to punching movement patterns, which occur in combat sports (e.g., in boxing), it may be suggested that the LPT, in conjunction with the linear position transducer, may be a useful tool in the assessing the speed-strength component of punching and monitoring training loads in combat sports [23; 24; 25]. It was reported that for boxers, the maximal and explosive strength of the upper body are strongly related to punch impact force [21; 22]. There are many methods of assessing punch performance, but none are considered good enough [7; 19; 23]. However, linear transducers are thought of by many authors as the gold standard for the measurement of barbell velocity [1; 33]. [PERSON] et al. [18] tested various kinds of devices on separate days and reported high between-measurement correlations of mean and peak velocity for linear transducers such as GymAware (r = 0.90-1), Quantum (r = 0.88-1), and Vmaxpro (r = 0.92-0.99). In their study, the Push Band (r = 0.69-0.96) and Flex (r = 0.60-0.94) devices showed poorer validity (especially for higher-velocity exercises). Other authors also confirmed these observations, noting that GymAware appeared to be the most valid among other linear transducers used [40; 41]. Additionally, the Push device was found to be less valid than GymAware [1; 7]. In our study, the GymAware linear transducer also demonstrated very high and significant correlations between measurements for the same day as well as for different days. We suggested that the results from the current study are of great applicative value for coaches and athletes. Since in most of the papers, barbell velocity was evaluated during more classical strength exercises, i.e., the bench press, back squat, and bench pull [1; 7; 12], our study is the first in which the reliability of the barbell force, power, and velocity were assessed during the LPT test applying various loads. [PERSON] et al. [42] examined 29 youth rugby league players who performed the squat and bench press exercises with loads between 20 and 90% of 1 RM at two different testing sessions. The authors found good to excellent reliability of velocity and power assessed by the GymAware system at loads within the 40-90% 1 RM range [42]. Additionally, the inter-repetition reliability for the one testing session was high for the bench press, bent-over-row, and squat [42]. The reliability of the GymAware system observed in our study was similar to that noted by [PERSON] et al. [42]. For all loads and both LPT test types, the reliability of mean and peak force, power, and velocity ranged from good to excellent.