Focus of Attention for Diagnostic Testing of the Force-Velocity Curve

Brady, Claire J.; Comyns, Thomas M.; Harrison, Andrew J.; Warrington, Giles D.

doi:10.1519/ssc.0000000000000271

Cited by 18 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One factor that has been proposed to explain the movement strategy adopted that merits consideration is the range of motion available in the ankle joint, with more flexible individuals adopting a larger braking COM displacement [ 43 ]. In addition, the players in this study were given the commonly used neutral instruction, jump as high as possible; this focus of attention will not always maximize CMJ performance and may also partially explain the movement strategies utilised [ 44 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This scenario ultimately confounds the early portion of propulsion phase in a normalised force-time curve. This sub-group may potentially benefit from feedback, along with an external focus of attention during a CMJ [ 44 ], as it likely that their self-selected strategy does not come close to maximising jump height [ 1 ]. Furthermore, jump height is determined by the velocity at take-off and is governed precisely by the preceding impulse value, the product of force and time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is a Bimodal Force-Time Curve Related to Countermovement Jump Performance?

Kennedy

Drake

2018

Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A countermovement jump (CMJ) represents one of the most frequently used performance tests for monitoring neuromuscular function in athletes. An often-overlooked feature that may provide some useful diagnostic information is the actual shape of the force-time curve. The aim of this study was therefore to consider how the shape of the force-time curve influences jump performance. Thirty-three male rugby union players performed two CMJs on a force plate, with discrete variables and continuous curve analysis used. The subjects were dichotomized based on shape of the force-time curve during the propulsion phase and by jump height. The differences between the unimodal and bimodal groups were unclear for jump height (ES = 0.28, ±0.58) and reactive strength index-modified (ES = −0.30, ±0.59). A substantial difference between high (40.2 ± 2.9 cm) and low (31.2 ± 3.2 cm) jumpers only existed in the late propulsion phase by 79.0% to 97.0% of the normalized force-time curve. A bimodal force-time curve is not representative of an optimal pattern of performance and simply reflects an inefficient stretch-shortening cycle. The inter-individual variability that exists in braking COM displacement renders temporal phase analysis impractical in cross-sectional type studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is a Bimodal Force-Time Curve Related to Countermovement Jump Performance?

Kennedy

Drake

2018

Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous researchers have demonstrated the importance of providing KR during resistance training to increase athletes' motivation and competitiveness (35), which in turn can lead to greater acute and chronic responses to resistance training (18,33). However, while the efficacy of providing KR based on movement velocity during training has been extensively demonstrated (1,27,34), the possible benefits of providing velocity performance feedback during testing procedures have been less investigated (6).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Velocity Performance Feedback During the Free-Weight Bench Press Testing Procedure: An Effective Strategy to Increase the Reliability and One Repetition Maximum Accuracy Prediction

Jiménez-Alonso

García-Ramos

Cepero

et al. 2020

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Jiménez-Alonso, A, García-Ramos, A, Cepero, M, Miras-Moreno, S, Rojas, FJ, and Pérez-Castilla, A. Velocity performance feedback during the free-weight bench press testing procedure: An effective strategy to increase the reliability and one repetition maximum accuracy prediction. J Strength Cond Res 36(4): 1077–1083, 2022—This study aimed to determine whether the verbal provision of velocity performance feedback during the free-weight bench press (BP) exercise influences (a) the within-session reliability and magnitude of mean concentric velocity (MCV) values recorded against a range of submaximal loads and (b) the accuracy of the individualized load-velocity profile to estimate the BP 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Fifteen men (BP 1RM relative to body mass = 1.08 ± 0.22) performed an incremental loading test until reaching the 1RM on 2 separate sessions. Subjects received verbal velocity performance feedback in 1 session (knowledge of results [KR]), and no KR was provided in another session (Control). A linear velocity transducer was used to collect the MCV against 4 loads (40-55-70-85% 1RM), and the BP 1RM was estimated from the individualized load-velocity relationship modeled through the multiple-point (40-55-70-85% 1RM) and 2-point methods (40-85% 1RM). The KR condition provided a higher reliability (coefficient of variation [CV]: KR = 2.41%, Control = 3.54%; CV ratio = 1.47) and magnitude (p = 0.001; effect size [ES] = 0.78) of MCV for the 40% 1RM, but no significant differences in reliability (CV ratio ≤1.15) nor in the magnitude (p ≥ 0.058; ES range = 0.00–0.32) were observed for higher loads. The accuracy in the estimation of the 1RM was higher for the KR (absolute errors: multiple-point = 3.1 ± 2.3 kg; 2-point = 3.5 ± 2.1 kg) compared with the Control condition (absolute errors: 4.1 ± 1.9 kg for both multiple-point and 2-point methods). These results encourage the provision of verbal velocity performance feedback during BP testing procedures.

show abstract

“…The discrepancy could be due to the instruction differences between to "jump as high as possible" [21] and "jump as fast and as high as possible" [22] for the participants. The different instructions could alter the utilized movement strategies [47]. The instruction of "to jump as high as possible" may confound the outcomes of the jump height and ratio of negative to positive impulse observed by Kennedy et al [21] which pointing out that the smaller the ratio, the higher the jump [17].…”

Section: Spcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences Between Bimodal and Unimodal Force-time Curves During Countermovement Jump

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to explore the biomechanical differences between single and double peak ground reaction force-time curves during the countermovement jump with respect to kinematics, kinetics, and coordination of the lower extremities. Twenty-five college students were stratified into a single peak curve group and a double peak curve group. Eight infrared cameras and two force platforms were synchronized to collect the data. Independent t-tests were performed with groups for each dependent kinematic, kinetic and time of the joint extensor concentric contraction variable. Repeated one-way analysis of variance measurements were performed for the time of the ankle, knee and hip extensor concentric contraction in each group. The double peak curve was associated with larger jump height, reactive strength index modified, rate of force development, impulse, hip, knee and ankle flexion, extension angular displacement, and hip and knee moments (p<0.05). The double peak curve group revealed a better hip, knee and ankle (proximal to distal) timing of extensor concentric contractions sequence of the lower extremities during the countermovement jump (p<0.05). The double peak curve group exhibited a more effective countermovement jump movement with respect to biomechanics compared to the single peak curve group.

show abstract

Focus of Attention for Diagnostic Testing of the Force-Velocity Curve

Cited by 18 publications

References 35 publications

Is a Bimodal Force-Time Curve Related to Countermovement Jump Performance?

Is a Bimodal Force-Time Curve Related to Countermovement Jump Performance?

Velocity Performance Feedback During the Free-Weight Bench Press Testing Procedure: An Effective Strategy to Increase the Reliability and One Repetition Maximum Accuracy Prediction

Differences Between Bimodal and Unimodal Force-time Curves During Countermovement Jump

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About