Reliability of the Squat Jump Force-Velocity and Load-Velocity Profiles.

ABSTRACT: Kotani, Y, Lake, J, Guppy, SN, Poon, W, Nosaka, K, Hori, N, and Haff, GG. The reliability of the squat jump force-velocity and load-velocity profiles. J Strength Cond Res 36(11): 3000-3007, 2022-The purpose of this study was to investigate the between-session reliability of the squat jump force-velocity (FV) and load-velocity (LV) profiles. Eighteen subjects (age = 28.1 ± 4.8 years; height = 1.7 ± 9.7; body mass = 74.7 ± 12.8) who could back squat >1.5 times body mass participated in this study. Each subject completed a familiarization session, followed by 2 experimental sessions each separated by 72 hours. Subjects performed a series of squat jumps on a force plate against external loads between 0 and 100% of their body mass in a quasi-randomized block order. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV) were used to examine the between-session reliability. Peak velocity (PV) and mean velocity (MV) at each load were highly reliable (ICC >0.80, CV% <7.41, SEM <0.13 m·s -1 , smallest detectable difference [SDD] <0.31 m·s -1 , ES <0.21). Force-velocity profiles created with peak force and relative peak force resulted in poor to excellent reliability (ICC = 0.34-0.92, CV% = 11.9-26.3). When mean and relative mean forces were used to create FV profiles, there was poor to good reliability (ICC = 0.03-0.85, CV% = 18.1-39.4). When the LV profile was calculated with PV (ICC = 0.60-0.90, CV% = 7.9-16.9) or MV (ICC = 0.49-0.91, CV% = 11.1-23.4), there was poor to excellent reliability. There was no time effect found between sessions for both FV and LV profiles. The squat jump FV and LV profiles established with a force plate are not reliable. Therefore, these profiles are not recommended to be used to inform programming decisions.

Effects of weighted sled towing with heavy versus light load on sprint acceleration ability.

Weighted sled towing is used by athletes to improve sprint acceleration ability. The typical coaching recommendation is to use relatively light loads, as excessively heavy loads are hypothesized to disrupt running mechanics and be detrimental to sprint performance. However, this coaching recommendation has not been empirically tested. This study compared the effects of weighted sled towing with 2 different external loads on sprint acceleration ability. Twenty-one physically active men were randomly allocated to heavy- (n = 10) or light-load weighted sled towing (n = 11) groups. All subjects participated in 2 training sessions per week for 8 weeks. The subjects in the heavy and light groups performed weighted sled towing using external loads that reduced sprint velocity by approximately 30 and 10%, respectively. Before and after the training, the subjects performed a 10-m sprint test, in which split time was measured at 5 and 10 m from the start. The heavy group significantly improved both the 5- and 10-m sprint time by 5.7 ± 5.7 and 5.0 ± 3.5%, respectively (P < 0.05), whereas only 10-m sprint time was improved significantly by 3.0 ± 3.5% (P < 0.05) in the light group. No significant differences were found between the groups in the changes in 5-m and 10-m sprint time from pre- to posttraining. These results question the notion that training loads that induce greater than 10% reduction in sprint velocity would negatively affect sprint performance and point out the potential benefit of using a heavier load for weighted sled towing.

Reliability of performance measurements derived from ground reaction force data during countermovement jump and the influence of sampling frequency.

Force platforms are used extensively to measure force and power output during countermovement jump (CMJ). The purpose of this study was to examine measurement reliability and validity of commonly used performance measurements derived from ground reaction force (GRF)-time data during CMJ and the influence of sampling at different frequencies. Twenty-four men performed 2 trials of CMJ on a force platform, and GRF-time data were sampled at a rate of 500 Hz. Data obtained at 500 Hz were considered as the reference, and then data were resampled at 400, 250, 200, 100, 50, and 25 Hz, using interpolation. Commonly used power, force, and velocity performance measures were obtained from GRF-time data. Reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV) between the 2 trials within the session. Peak power, peak force, and peak velocity were highly reliable across all sampling frequencies (ICC = 0.92-0.98, CV = 1.3-4.1). Percentage differences from 500-Hz reference values ranged from -0.85 to 0.20% at 400 Hz, -1.88 to 0.89% at 250 Hz, -1.80 to 1.31% at 200 Hz, -3.63 to 3.34% at 100 Hz, -11.37 to 6.51% at 50 Hz, and -13.17 to 9.03% at 25 Hz. In conclusion, peak power, force, and velocity measurements derived from GRF to assess leg extensor capabilities are reliable within a test session except for peak rate of force development and time to peak power. With regard to sampling frequency, scientists and practitioners may consider sampling as low as 200 Hz, depending on the purpose of measurement, because the percentage difference is not markedly enlarged until the frequency is 100 Hz or lower.

Does performance of hang power clean differentiate performance of jumping, sprinting, and changing of direction?

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate whether the athlete who has high performance in hang power clean, a common weightlifting exercise, has high performances in sprinting, jumping, and changing of direction (COD). As the secondary purpose, relationships between hang power clean performance, maximum strength, power and performance of jumping, sprinting, and COD also were investigated. Twenty-nine semiprofessional Australian Rules football players (age, height, and body mass [mean +/- SD]: 21.3 +/- 2.7 years, 1.8 +/- 0.1 m, and 83.6 +/- 8.2 kg) were tested for one repetition maximum (1RM) hang power clean, 1RM front squat, power output during countermovement jump with 40-kg barbell and without external load (CMJ), height of CMJ, 20-m sprint time, and 5-5 COD time. The subjects were divided into top and bottom half groups (n = 14 for each group) based on their 1RM hang power clean score relative to body mass, then measures from all other tests were compared with one-way analyses of variance. In addition, Pearson's product moment correlations between measurements were calculated among all subjects (n = 29). The top half group possessed higher maximum strength (P < 0.01), power (P < 0.01), performance of jumping (P < 0.05), and sprinting (P < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference between groups in 5-5 COD time, possibly because of important contributing factors other than strength and power. There were significant correlations between most of, but not all, combinations of performances of hang power clean, jumping, sprinting, COD, maximum strength, and power. Therefore, it seems likely there are underlying strength qualities that are common to the hang power clean, jumping, and sprinting.

Comparison of weighted jump squat training with and without eccentric braking.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of weighted jump squat training with and without eccentric braking. Twenty male subjects were divided into two groups (n = 10 per group), Non-Braking Group and Braking Group. The subjects were physically active, but not highly trained. The program for Non-Braking Group consisted of 6 sets of 6 repetitions of weighted jump squats without reduction of eccentric load for 8 weeks. The training program for the Braking Group consisted of the same sets and repetitions, but eccentric load was reduced by using an electromagnetic braking mechanism. Jump and reach, countermovement jump, static jump, drop jump, one repetition maximum half squat, weighted jump squat, and isometric/isokinetic knee extension/flexion at several different positions/angular velocities were tested pre- and posttraining intervention. The Non-Braking Group exhibited greater improvement in peak torque during isokinetic concentric knee flexion at 300 degrees/s [Non-Braking Group: (mean +/- SD) 124.0 +/- 22.6 Nm at pre- and 134.1 +/- 18.4 Nm at posttraining, and Braking Group: 118.5 +/- 32.7 Nm at pre- and 113.2 +/- 26.7 Nm at posttraining]. Braking Group exhibited superior adaptations in peak power relative to body mass during weighted jump squat [Non-Braking Group: (mean +/- SD) 49.1 +/- 8.6 W/kg at pre- and 50.9 +/- 6.2 W/kg at posttraining, and Braking Group: 47.9 +/- 6.9 W/kg at pre- and 53.7 +/- 7.3 W/kg at posttraining]. It appears that power output in relatively slow movement (weighted jump squat) was improved more in the Braking Group, however strength in high velocity movements (isokinetic knee flexion at 300 degrees/s) was improved more in Non-Braking Group. This study supports load and velocity specific effects of weighted jump squat training.

Comparison of four different methods to measure power output during the hang power clean and the weighted jump squat.

Measurement of power output during resistance training is becoming ubiquitous in strength and conditioning programs, but there is great variation in the methods used. The main purposes of this study were to compare the power output values obtained from 4 different methods and to examine the relationships between these values. Male semiprofessional Australian rules football players (n = 30) performed hang power clean and weighted jump squat while ground reaction force (GRF)-time data and barbell displacement-time data were sampled simultaneously using a force platform and a linear position transducer attached to the barbell. Peak and mean power applied to the barbell was obtained from barbell displacement-time data (method 1). Peak and mean power applied to the system (barbell + lifter) was obtained from 3 other methods: (a) using GRF-time data (method 2), (b) using barbell displacement-time data (method 3), and (c) using both barbell displacement-time data and GRF-time data (method 4). The peak power values (W) obtained from methods 1, 2, 3, and 4 were (mean +/- SD) 1,644 +/- 295, 3,079 +/- 638, 3,821 +/- 917, and 4,017 +/- 833 in hang power clean and 1,184 +/- 115, 3,866 +/- 451, 3,567 +/- 494, and 4,427 +/- 557 in weighted jump squat. There were significant differences between power output values obtained from method 1 vs. methods 2, 3, and 4, as well as method 2 vs. methods 3 and 4. The power output applied to the barbell and that applied to the system was significantly correlated (r = 0.65-0.81). As a practical application, it is important to understand the characteristics of each method and consider how power output should be measured during the hang power clean and the weighted jump squat.

Astaxanthin supplementation does not attenuate muscle injury following eccentric exercise in resistance-trained men.

This investigation was designed to determine the effects of astaxanthin on markers of skeletal muscle injury. Twenty resistance trained men (mean +/- standard error of the mean : age , 25.1 +/- 1.6 y; height, 1.79 +/- 0.02 m; weight, 86.8 +/- 4.4 kg) were assigned to either a placebo (1732 mg safflower oil, n =10) or astaxanthin (BioAstin; 1732 mg safflower oil; haematococcus algae extract [contains 4 mg astaxanthin and 480 mg lutein]n = 10). Subjects consumed their assigned treatment for 3 wk prior to eccentric exercise (10 sets of 10 repetitions at 85% of one repetition maximum) and through 96 h post-exercise. Muscle soreness, creatine kinase (CK), and muscle performance was measured before and through 96 h post-exercise. A similar response was observed for both treatment groups for all dependent variables, indicating that in resistance trained men, astaxanthin supplementation does not favorably affect indirect markers of skeletal muscle injury following eccentric loading.