Amador García-Ramos1,2, Milena Zivkovic3, Sasa Djuric3, Nikola Majstorovic3, Katarina Manovski3, Slobodan Jaric3,4,5. 1. Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain. amagr@ugr.es. 2. Department of Sports Sciences and Physical Conditioning, Faculty of Education, CIEDE, Catholic University of Most Holy Concepción, Concepción, Chile. amagr@ugr.es. 3. The Research Centre, Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. 4. Department of Kinesiology and Applied Physiology, Biomechanics and Movement Science Graduate Program, University of Delaware, Newark, USA. 5. Department of Human Motor Behavior, The Jerzy Kukuczka Academy of Physical Education in Katowice, Katowice, Poland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the reliability and magnitude of the force-velocity (F-V) relationship parameters [maximum force (F0), maximum velocity (V0), F-V slope, and maximum power (P0)] obtained through the application of only two loads (i.e., two-point method) vs. six loads (i.e., multiple-point method). METHODS: Ten physically active men (age 19.5 ± 0.9 years, body mass 79.0 ± 9.0 kg, height 183.9 ± 8.4 cm) conducted four testing sessions after a preliminary familiarization session with the leg cycle ergometer exercise. In a counterbalanced order, subjects performed two sessions of the multiple-point method (six loads applied for the F-V modeling) over 1 week and two sessions of the two-point method (only the lightest and heaviest loads were applied) over another week. RESULTS: The main findings revealed that (I) the reliability of the F-V relationship parameters was very high and generally of comparable magnitude for both the multiple- [coefficient of variation (CV) range 1.91-3.94%; intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) range 0.72-0.99] and two-point methods [CV range 1.41-4.62%; ICC range 0.76-0.95], (II) the magnitude of the same parameters obtained from both methods was highly correlated (r > 0.80), and (III) the P0 assessed from the multiple-point method was significantly lower than the obtained from the two-point method [P = 0.041; effect size (ES) 0.36] due to a significant decrease in F0 (P = 0.039; ES 0.41) with no significant differences observed for V0 (P = 0.570; ES - 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: These results support the two-point method as a reliable, valid, and fatigue-free procedure of assessing the muscle mechanical capacities through the F-V relationship.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the reliability and magnitude of the force-velocity (F-V) relationship parameters [maximum force (F0), maximum velocity (V0), F-V slope, and maximum power (P0)] obtained through the application of only two loads (i.e., two-point method) vs. six loads (i.e., multiple-point method). METHODS: Ten physically active men (age 19.5 ± 0.9 years, body mass 79.0 ± 9.0 kg, height 183.9 ± 8.4 cm) conducted four testing sessions after a preliminary familiarization session with the leg cycle ergometer exercise. In a counterbalanced order, subjects performed two sessions of the multiple-point method (six loads applied for the F-V modeling) over 1 week and two sessions of the two-point method (only the lightest and heaviest loads were applied) over another week. RESULTS: The main findings revealed that (I) the reliability of the F-V relationship parameters was very high and generally of comparable magnitude for both the multiple- [coefficient of variation (CV) range 1.91-3.94%; intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) range 0.72-0.99] and two-point methods [CV range 1.41-4.62%; ICC range 0.76-0.95], (II) the magnitude of the same parameters obtained from both methods was highly correlated (r > 0.80), and (III) the P0 assessed from the multiple-point method was significantly lower than the obtained from the two-point method [P = 0.041; effect size (ES) 0.36] due to a significant decrease in F0 (P = 0.039; ES 0.41) with no significant differences observed for V0 (P = 0.570; ES - 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: These results support the two-point method as a reliable, valid, and fatigue-free procedure of assessing the muscle mechanical capacities through the F-V relationship.
Entities:
Keywords:
Force–velocity relationship; Maximum force; Maximum power; Maximum velocity
Authors: Matt R Cross; Matt Brughelli; Pierre Samozino; Scott R Brown; Jean-Benoit Morin Journal: Int J Sports Physiol Perform Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 4.010
Authors: Predrag R Bozic; Ozgur Celik; Mehmet Uygur; Christopher A Knight; Slobodan Jaric Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Pedro Jiménez-Reyes; Pierre Samozino; Víctor Cuadrado-Peñafiel; Filipe Conceição; Juan José González-Badillo; Jean-Benoît Morin Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Vladimir Grbic; Sasa Djuric; Olivera M Knezevic; Dragan M Mirkov; Aleksandar Nedeljkovic; Slobodan Jaric Journal: Int J Sports Med Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 3.118