Correcting the Use of the Term “Power” in the Strength and Conditioning Literature

Abstract

Many strength and conditioning papers have incorrectly adopted the colloquial use of the term "power" as a measure of short-term, high-intensity muscular performance despite a long history of research and editorials critical of this practice. This has lead to confusion, incorrect interpretations, and conflicting results in the literature. This paper summarizes the scientific evidence on external mechanical power as a short-term, high-intensity neuromuscular (anaerobic) performance or training variable. Many problems in the measurement and use of power in strength and conditioning research were identified, as well as problems in the use of the vertical jump as a field test of power. A critical review of the biomechanics, measurement, and training research does not support this colloquial use of the term "power." More research is needed that improves our understanding of the domains of muscular strength or neuromuscular performance, as well as partial correlation and multiple regression analyses to document the unique associations between these domains, biomechanical variables, training effects, and sport performance. Strength and conditioning research should limit the use of the term power to the true mechanical definition and provide several specific and measurement details on this measurement.

Misuse of “Power” and Other Mechanical Terms in Sport and Exercise Science Research

“…They are complex, multi-segment systems and muscular performance does not always result in movement. Even where movement does occur and in spite of concerns expressed by many (1,17,18,24,27,30,33), exercise science researchers frequently misapply classical mechanics presented by Newton in 1687 in his three-volume Philosophae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy). Misapplications are most common for the mechanical variables "work", "velocity", "power" and "efficiency".…”

“…Misapplications are most common for the mechanical variables "work", "velocity", "power" and "efficiency". These terms have strict definitions in Newtonian mechanics, the SI, and exercise science (17,24,25), yet frequently, they are used incorrectly. The use of incorrect, vague, and colloquial meanings of standardized mechanics terms creates numerous problems for readers and the field of exercise science.…”

“…It should be made correctly as a mean value for some duration, although instantaneous power flows can be calculated. However, power flows so calculated can vary widely and are strongly influenced by the model and data used to calculate power (17). If interpretation is to be meaningful, selection of duration must be made with care.…”

Mechanical Misconceptions: Have we lost the "mechanics" in "sports biomechanics"?

“…For instance, if one is designing a biomimetic prosthetic ankle, she may desire to understand the 'directional powers' of the human ankle to control independent motors in the prosthetic ankle. In other cases-particularly in sports science-'directional power' may not be as useful, interesting, or mechanically well-defined [2,11,9,5,7,14]. It therefore seems prudent to evaluate not only how mechanical measures are being calculated and reported, but also why; this burden is on authors to justify, particularly when deviating from classical definitions of power.…”

“…However, both the application of and language surrounding these constructs are not always adhered to in biomechanics. As a result, a number of papers [2,3,4,5,6,7], editorials [8,9,10], letters to the editor [11,12], and even reviews [7,13,14] have addressed these mis-or ambiguous applications of mechanical principles; nevertheless, proper use of key principles and terminology remains inconsistent. Here we expound upon this prior work, with specific emphasis on misconceptions relevant to sports.…”