Search

In jumping, countermovement increases net propulsive force and improves performance. We aimed to test whether this countermovement effect is velocity specific and examine the degree to which this varies between athletes, sports or performance levels. Force-velocity profiles were compiled in high-level skiers (N= 23) and sprinters (N= 30), with their performance represented in their overall world ranking and season-best 100 m time, respectively. Different ratios between force-velocity variables were computed from squat and countermovement jumps (smaller = less effect): jump height (CRh ), maximum power (CRP ), force (CRF ), and velocity (CRv ). Countermovement effect differed per velocity (inverse relationship between CRF and CRv, r(s) = -0.74, p< .001), and variation force-velocity profiles with countermovement. Skiers exhibited smaller CRF (r(rb) = -0.675, p< .001), sprinters smaller CRv (r(rb) = 0.426, p= .008), and "moderate" velocity conditions did not differentiate groups (CRP or CRh, p> .05). 33% of the variance in skiers' performance level was explained by greater maximum force and a lower CRF (i.e., high explosiveness at low-velocities without countermovement), without an association for sprinters. Countermovement effect appears specific to movement velocity, sport and athlete level. Consequently, we advise sports-specific assessment, and potentially training to reduce the countermovement effect per the relevant velocity.

When poor reliability of “output” variables is reported, it can be difficult to discern whether blame lies with the measurement (ie, the inputs) or the overarching concept. This commentary addresses this issue, using the force-velocity-power (FvP) profile in jumping to illustrate the interplay between concept, method, and measurement reliability. While FvP testing has risen in popularity and accessibility, some studies have challenged the reliability and subsequent utility of the concept itself without clearly considering the potential for imprecise procedures to impact reliability measures. To this end, simulations based on virtual athletes confirmed that push-off distance and jump-height variability should be

Specific force capacities might be a limiting factor for alpine skiing performance, yet there is little consensus on the capabilities in question, and whether they differ between disciplines. We aimed to test discipline (speed and technical) and performance (event-specific world standing) effects on lower limb force-production qualities. National-level skiers (N = 31) performed loaded squat jumps and isometric mid-thigh pulls to detect dynamic force output at extremely low and high velocities and maximum isometric force and rate of force development, respectively. Discipline differences were assessed via a general linear model including performance and allowing for interaction effects, with performance associations further characterized via distinct Pearson's correlations. Jump height did not differentiate disciplines, with absolute power slightly higher in speed athletes (F(1,27) = 4.42, P = .045, ω2 = 0.10), and neither variables were related to performance. Speed athletes possessed greater dynamic force at low velocities (F0 ; F(1,27) = 13.8, P

Velocity strength training requires exercise modalities that allow athletes to reach very high movement velocity, which is limited during vertical movements involving body weight. Purpose: To quantify the mechanical outputs developed during horizontal squat jumps (HSJs), notably the movement velocity, in comparison with vertical squat jumps (SJs) with and without loads. Methods: Thirteen healthy male athletes performed SJs without additional loads (SJ0) and with a load of ∼60% of body mass (SJ60), and during HSJs performed lying on a roller device with (assisted HSJ [AHSJ]) and without (HSJ) rubber-band assistance. Instantaneous lower-limb extension velocity, force, and power output were measured and averaged over the push-off phase. Results: The force was significantly higher during SJ60 than during SJ0, which was higher than during HSJ and AHSJ. Extension velocity was significantly different across all conditions, with 0.86 (0.07), 1.29 (0.10), 1.59 (0.19), and 1.83 (0.19) m·s−1 for SJ60, SJ0, HSJ, and AHSJ conditions, respectively. Differences in force and velocity values between SJ0 and the other conditions were large to extremely large. Differences were observed in power values only between SJ60 and SJ0, SJ60 and AHSJ, and SJ0 and HSJ. Conclusions: HSJ modalities allow athletes to reach very to extremely largely greater lower-limb extension velocities (HSJ +24.0% [16%], AHSJ +42.8% [17.4%]) compared to those achieved during SJ0. HSJ and AHSJ modalities are inexpensive and practical modalities to train limb-extension velocity capabilities, that is, the ability of the neuromuscular system to produce force at high contraction velocities.