Strength Assessment of Trunk Rotator Muscles: A Multicenter Reliability Study.

BACKGROUND: Trunk rotator strength plays an important role in sports performance and health. A reliable method to assess these muscles with functional electromechanical dynamometer has not been described. Therefore, the objectives of this paper were (I) to explore the reliability of different strength variables collected in isokinetic and isometric conditions during two trunk rotator exercises, and (II) to determine the relationship of isometric and dynamic strength variables collected in the same exercise. METHODS: A repeated measures design was performed to evaluate the reliability of the horizontal cable woodchop (HCW) and low cable woodchop (LCW) exercises. Reliability was assessed using t-tests of paired samples for the effect size, the standard error of measurement, the coefficient of variation (CV) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The Pearson's (r) correlation coefficient was used to explore the association between isometric and isokinetic tests. RESULTS: HCW exercise is more reliable than LCW exercise in assessing trunk rotator muscles. The strength manifestation that should be used is the average strength, and the most reliable evaluation was the HCW at 0.40 m·s-1 concentric (ICC = 0.89; CV = 10.21%) and eccentric (ICC = 0.85; CV = 9.33%) contraction and the dynamic condition that most correlated with the isometric was LWC at 0.50 m·s-1 (r = 0.83; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: HCW is a reliable exercise to measure trunk rotator muscles.

Assessment of Countermovement Jump: What Should We Report?

The purpose of the present study was (i) to explore the reliability of the most commonly used countermovement jump (CMJ) metrics, and (ii) to reduce a large pool of metrics with acceptable levels of reliability via principal component analysis to the significant factors capable of providing distinctive aspects of CMJ performance. Seventy-nine physically active participants (thirty-seven females and forty-two males) performed three maximal CMJs while standing on a force platform. Each participant visited the laboratory on two occasions, separated by 24-48 h. The most reliable variables were performance variables (CV = 4.2-11.1%), followed by kinetic variables (CV = 1.6-93.4%), and finally kinematic variables (CV = 1.9-37.4%). From the 45 CMJ computed metrics, only 24 demonstrated acceptable levels of reliability (CV ≤ 10%). These variables were included in the principal component analysis and loaded a total of four factors, explaining 91% of the CMJ variance: performance component (variables responsible for overall jump performance), eccentric component (variables related to the breaking phase), concentric component (variables related to the upward phase), and jump strategy component (variables influencing the jumping style). Overall, the findings revealed important implications for sports scientists and practitioners regarding the CMJ-derived metrics that should be considered to gain a comprehensive insight into the biomechanical parameters related to CMJ performance.

Assessment of Back-Squat Performance at Submaximal Loads: Is the Reliability Affected by the Variable, Exercise Technique, or Repetition Criterion?

This study aimed to compare the between-session reliability of different performance variables during 2 variants of the Smith machine back-squat exercise. Twenty-six male wrestlers performed 5 testing sessions (a 1-repetition maximum [1RM] session, and 4 experimental sessions [2 with the pause and 2 with the rebound technique]). Each experimental session consisted of performing 3 repetitions against 5 loads (45-55-65-75-85% of the 1RM). Mean velocity (MV), mean power (MP), peak velocity (PV), and peak power (PP) variables were recorded by a linear position transducer (GymAware PowerTool). The best and average scores of the 3 repetitions were considered for statistical analyses. The coefficient of variation (CV) ranged from 3.89% (best PV score at 55% 1 RM using the pause technique) to 10.29% (average PP score at 85% 1 RM using the rebound technique). PP showed a lower reliability than MV, MP, and PV (CVratio ≥ 1.26). The reliability was comparable between the exercise techniques (CVratio = 1.08) and between the best and average scores (CVratio = 1.04). These results discourage the use of PP to assess back-squat performance at submaximal loads. The remaining variables (MV, MP, or PV), exercise techniques (pause or rebound), and repetition criteria (best score or average score) can be indistinctly used due to their acceptable and comparable reliability.

Assessment of the force-velocity relationship during vertical jumps: influence of the starting position, analysis procedures and number of loads.

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.

Assessment of the load-velocity profile in the free-weight prone bench pull exercise through different velocity variables and regression models.

This aims of this study were (I) to determine the velocity variable and regression model which best fit the load-velocity relationship during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise, (II) to compare the reliability of the velocity attained at each percentage of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) between different velocity variables and regression models, and (III) to compare the within- and between-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM. Eighteen men (14 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental test during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise in two different sessions. General and individual load-velocity relationships were modelled through three velocity variables (mean velocity [MV], mean propulsive velocity [MPV] and peak velocity [PV]) and two regression models (linear and second-order polynomial). The main findings revealed that (I) the general (Pearson's correlation coefficient [r] range = 0.964-0.973) and individual (median r = 0.986 for MV, 0.989 for MPV, and 0.984 for PV) load-velocity relationships were highly linear, (II) the reliability of the velocity attained at each %1RM did not meaningfully differ between the velocity variables (coefficient of variation [CV] range = 2.55-7.61% for MV, 2.84-7.72% for MPV and 3.50-6.03% for PV) neither between the regression models (CV range = 2.55-7.72% and 2.73-5.25% for the linear and polynomial regressions, respectively), and (III) the within-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM was lower than the between-subject variability for the light-moderate loads. No meaningful differences between the within- and between-subject CVs were observed for the MV of the 1RM trial (6.02% vs. 6.60%; CVratio = 1.10), while the within-subject CV was lower for PV (6.36% vs. 7.56%; CVratio = 1.19). These results suggest that the individual load-MV relationship should be determined with a linear regression model to obtain the most accurate prescription of the relative load during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.