Optimizing isometric midthigh pull testing protocols: impact on peak force and rate of force development and their association with jump performance.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 SPORT SCIENCES
Tobias Buk Jørgensen, Peter M Mejer, Thue Kvorning, Richard Thomas, Andreas Breenfeldt Andersen, Nicklas Junge, Lars Nybo, Jesper Lundbye-Jensen
{"title":"Optimizing isometric midthigh pull testing protocols: impact on peak force and rate of force development and their association with jump performance.","authors":"Tobias Buk Jørgensen, Peter M Mejer, Thue Kvorning, Richard Thomas, Andreas Breenfeldt Andersen, Nicklas Junge, Lars Nybo, Jesper Lundbye-Jensen","doi":"10.23736/S0022-4707.24.15672-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Isometric strength testing is widely applied in sports science. However, we hypothesized that traditional testing procedures with a dual focus on both peak force (PF) and rate of force development (RFD) may compromise the true assessment of early RFD measures and lower the associative value towards vertical jump performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Therefore, PF and RFD were assessed for 47 active participants (24 females, 23 males) with a traditional isometric midthigh pull (IMTP) protocol (\"push as hard and fast as possible\" over 4 s) and an RFD-specific protocol (\"push as fast as possible\" over 2 s). IMTP measures were compared to squat (SJ), countermovement (CMJ) and drop-jump (DJ) performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The RFD-specific protocol provided higher RFD (P<0.05) for time domains up to 100 ms but lower PF (P<0.001). Independent of protocol, SJ and CMJ performance displayed significant, but low-to-moderate correlations with all RFD measures (r=0.30-0.52) as well as PF (r=0.44), whereas DJ did not show any correlation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In conclusion, an RFD-specific protocol appears relevant for the assessment of RFD in the time domain up to 100 ms. However, the observed associations between RFD/PF measures and vertical jump performance remained low-to-moderate independent of the IMTP test protocol.</p>","PeriodicalId":17013,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0022-4707.24.15672-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Isometric strength testing is widely applied in sports science. However, we hypothesized that traditional testing procedures with a dual focus on both peak force (PF) and rate of force development (RFD) may compromise the true assessment of early RFD measures and lower the associative value towards vertical jump performance.

Methods: Therefore, PF and RFD were assessed for 47 active participants (24 females, 23 males) with a traditional isometric midthigh pull (IMTP) protocol ("push as hard and fast as possible" over 4 s) and an RFD-specific protocol ("push as fast as possible" over 2 s). IMTP measures were compared to squat (SJ), countermovement (CMJ) and drop-jump (DJ) performance.

Results: The RFD-specific protocol provided higher RFD (P<0.05) for time domains up to 100 ms but lower PF (P<0.001). Independent of protocol, SJ and CMJ performance displayed significant, but low-to-moderate correlations with all RFD measures (r=0.30-0.52) as well as PF (r=0.44), whereas DJ did not show any correlation.

Conclusions: In conclusion, an RFD-specific protocol appears relevant for the assessment of RFD in the time domain up to 100 ms. However, the observed associations between RFD/PF measures and vertical jump performance remained low-to-moderate independent of the IMTP test protocol.

优化等长大腿中部拉力测试方案:对峰值力量和力量发展速度的影响及其与跳跃成绩的关系。
背景:等长力量测试广泛应用于体育科学领域。然而,我们假设,传统测试程序同时关注峰值力(PF)和发力速率(RFD),可能会影响对早期 RFD 测量的真实评估,并降低对垂直跳跃成绩的关联价值:因此,我们采用传统的等长大腿中部牵拉(IMTP)方案("尽可能用力快速地推",持续 4 秒钟)和 RFD 特定方案("尽可能快速地推",持续 2 秒钟)对 47 名活动参与者(24 名女性和 23 名男性)的 PF 和 RFD 进行了评估。IMTP测量结果与深蹲(SJ)、反向运动(CMJ)和落跳(DJ)成绩进行了比较:结果:针对 RFD 的训练方案提供了更高的 RFD(PC 结论:针对 RFD 的训练方案提供了更高的 RFD(PC):总之,RFD 特异方案似乎适用于 100 毫秒以内时域的 RFD 评估。然而,观察到的RFD/PF测量值与垂直跳跃成绩之间的关联仍然较低至中等,与IMTP测试方案无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.90%
发文量
393
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness publishes scientific papers relating to the area of the applied physiology, preventive medicine, sports medicine and traumatology, sports psychology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of editorials, original articles, review articles, case reports, special articles, letters to the Editor and guidelines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信