Search

An a-posteriori multicentre reliability study was conducted to compare the between-session reliability of the force-velocity relationship parameters (force-intercept [F0 ], velocity-intercept [v0 ], and maximum power [Pmax]) between different regression models during the bench press (BP) and bench press throw (BPT) exercises. Data from four and three studies were considered for the BP (n = 102) and BPT (n = 81) exercises, respectively. The force-velocity relationships were determined using five regression models: linear multiple-point, linear two-point, quadratic polynomial, hyperbolic, and exponential. All regression models provided F0 and Pmax with acceptable reliability (cut-off CV ≤ 9.45%; cut-off ICC ≥ 0.79) with the exceptions of F0 for the quadratic polynomial and hyperbolic models (BPT) and Pmax for the exponential model (BP and BPT). Only the linear multiple- and linear two-point models provided v0 with acceptable absolute reliability (cut-off CV ≤ 7.72%). Regardless of the exercise, the reliability of the three parameters was generally higher for the linear multiple- and two-point models compared to the other models (CVratio ≥ 1.22), and no significant differences were observed between multiple- and linear two-point models (CVratio ≤ 1.11). Linear regression models are recommended to maximise the reliability of the force-velocity relationship parameters during the BP and BPT exercises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An a-posteriori multicentre reliability study was conducted to compare the reliability and magnitude of the maximum power (Pmax) and optimal velocity (Vopt) between the force-power-velocity relationships during the leg cycle-ergometer and bench press throw exercises. The force-power-velocity relationships were determined in two separate sessions considering the values of force, velocity, and power collected under multiple loads. The force–velocity relationship was also determined from the force and velocity values collected under only the two most distant loads. Reliability of all regression models was high for Pmax and Vopt during the leg cycle-ergometer (CVrange: 1.73–2.98%) and for Pmax during the bench press throw (CVrange: 4.47–4.73%), while the reliability was acceptable for Vopt during the bench press throw (CVrange: 6.52–7.34%). Significant differences between the force-power-velocity relationships were observed for both Pmax and Vopt (P <.001). All regression models can be confidently used to determine Pmax and Vopt, but these should not be used interchangeably. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to compare the reliability and magnitude of the force-velocity (F-V) relationship parameters between the squat jumps performed from the 90° (SJ90) and self-preferred knee angle (SJpref). A secondary aim was to explore the effect of the analysis procedure (force platform [FP] and Samozino's [SAM] method) and the number of loads tested (three- and two-point methods) on the F-V relationships. Twelve men were tested in two sessions during the SJ90 and SJpref. Two identical blocks of jumps were performed in each session against three external loads. The F-V relationship parameters (maximum force, maximum velocity, F-V slope and maximum power) were determined at each block through the FP and SAM procedures using the data collected under three (three-point method) or only the two most distant loads (two-point method). The average coefficient of variation (CV) of the four F-V parameters revealed a higher reliability for the SJ90 compared to the SJpref (5.86% vs. 7.55%; CVratio = 1.29) with more pronounced differences using the FP (CVratio = 1.43) than the SAM procedure (CVratio = 1.14), and higher reliability for the SAM compared to the FP (6.14% vs. 7.27%; CVratio = 1.18). The SJpref and SAM procedures provided comparable or higher magnitude of the F-V relationship parameters than the SJ90 and FP, respectively. The three- and two-point methods revealed a comparable reliability and trivial differences in the magnitude of the F-V relationship parameters. The routine testing procedure of the F-V relationship could be simplified using the SJpref, the SAM procedure and the two-point method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our study was designed to check the reliability of force–velocity (F-v) relationship outcome measures using flywheel (FW) squats. The main objectives at the primary level were to test intra-session reliability of mechanical parameters for ten equidistant FW loads, and at the secondary level, to test reliability and validity of the F-v relationship outcome measures in case any possible reduction in used loads and number of loads – compared to the 10-load method as a reference – is administered. Twenty-six subjects performed two sets of five squats with FW loads in the range 0.025–0.25 kg∙m2. Averaging six consecutive repetitions obtained ICC 2.k > 0.9 for mean force and mean velocity results. Consecutively averaged parameters at the primary level showed excellent inter-set reliability (ICC 2.1 > 0.9). The inverse F- v relationship was strong (R2 = 0.96). At the secondary level, Bland-Altman statistics showed decreasing bias and limits of agreement in combination with more loads. Theoretical maximal force and power showed smaller bias as F-v slope and theoretical maximal velocity for three loads or more. Four loads (0.025, 0.075, 0.225 and 0.25 kg∙m2) lowered bias to a 5% in relation to the reference F-v slope. In conclusion, six repetitions are required to obtain trustworthy force and velocity results. The results will contribute to standardising the methodology for assessing the mechanical capacities of leg muscles using FW resistance. Moreover, assessing individual F-v profile with reduced protocol may be a less fatiguing tool for prescribing exercise intensity and for assessing training adaptations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]