Agreement between the force platform method and the combined method measurements of power output during the loaded countermovement jump.

There are two perceived criterion methods for measuring power output during the loaded countermovement jump (CMJ): the force platform method and the combined method (force platform + optoelectronic motion capture system). Therefore, the primary aim of the present study was to assess agreement between the force platform method and the combined method measurements of peak power and mean power output during the CMJ across a spectrum of loads. Forty resistance-trained team sport athletes performed maximal effort CMJ with additional loads of 0 (body mass only), 25, 50, 75 and 100% of body mass (BM). Bias was present for peak velocity, mean velocity, peak power and mean power at all loads investigated, and present for mean force up to 75% of BM. Peak velocity, mean velocity, peak power and mean power 95% ratio limits of agreement were clinically unacceptable at all loads investigated. The 95% ratio limits of agreement were widest at 0% of BM and decreased linearly as load increased. Therefore, the force platform method and the combined method cannot be used interchangeably for measuring power output during the loaded CMJ. As such, if power output is to be meaningfully investigated, a standardised method must be adopted.

Wearing knee wraps affects mechanical output and performance characteristics of back squat exercise.

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of wearing knee wraps on mechanical output and performance characteristics of back squat exercise. Ten resistance trained men (back squat 1 repetition maximum [1RM]: 160.5 ± 18.4 kg) performed 6 single back squats with 80% 1RM, 3 wearing knee wraps, 3 without. Mechanical output was obtained from ground reaction force, performance characteristics from digitized motion footage obtained from a single high-speed digital camera. Wearing knee wraps led to a 39% reduction (0.09 compared with 0.11 m, p = 0.037) in horizontal barbell displacement that continued during the lifting phase. Lowering phase vertical impulse remained within 1% across conditions; however, the lowering phase was performed 45% faster (1.13 compared with 1.57 seconds). This demonstrated that vertical force applied to the center of mass during the lowering phase was considerably larger and was likely a consequence of the generation and storage of elastic energy within the knee wrap. Subsequent vertical impulse applied to the center of mass was 10% greater (192 compared with 169 N·s, p = 0.018). Mechanical work involved in vertically displacing the center of mass was performed 20% faster and was reflected by a 10% increase in peak power (2,121 compared with 1,841 W, p = 0.019). The elastic properties of knee wraps increased mechanical output but altered back squat technique in a way that is likely to alter the musculature targeted by the exercise and possibly compromise the integrity of the knee joint. Knee wraps should not be worn during the strength and condition process, and perceived weakness in the knee joint should be assessed and treated.