基于反跳力-速度分析的运动员分类是否受方法选择的影响?

Gøran Paulsen,Kolbjørn Lindberg,Ola Eriksrud,Paul Solberg,Thomas Bjørnsen,Olivier Seynnes,Øyvind Gløersen-Haga,Maarten Bobbert,Hannah Rice
{"title":"基于反跳力-速度分析的运动员分类是否受方法选择的影响?","authors":"Gøran Paulsen,Kolbjørn Lindberg,Ola Eriksrud,Paul Solberg,Thomas Bjørnsen,Olivier Seynnes,Øyvind Gløersen-Haga,Maarten Bobbert,Hannah Rice","doi":"10.1249/mss.0000000000003732","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE\r\nForce-velocity (FV) profiling is a tool for classifying athletes as force- or velocity-deficient, allowing for tailored training prescriptions. However, profiling classification may vary depending on the measurement method used. This study compared FV profile variables derived from countermovement jumps (CMJs) using four approaches: the Flight-time method, a Kinetic method, and two Kinematic methods.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nSixteen National-level female handball players completed CMJs with 0, 20, 40, 50, and 70 kg of additional mass. All jumps were recorded by a force plate and 3D motion capture system. For each jump, jump height, height of push-off (HPO), average force, and average velocity were estimated, and FV profiles were derived using each of the four methods. The two kinematic methods represented displacement of the center of mass of 1) the body and 2) the whole system (i.e., body + additional mass). A pre-measured HPO (Flight-time method) overestimated the HPO derived from kinetic and kinematics methods at low values and underestimated it at high values.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nThe Flight-time method underestimated average force by 7% compared to the kinetic method and overestimated it by 1-3% compared to the kinematic methods. Average velocity during push-off was lower when derived from the Flight-time method than all other methods, particularly at the highest velocities (~20%). The resultant FV profiles (slopes) differed systematically by 30-39% between methods, such that >80% of participants were classified differently (i.e., force-deficient, velocity-deficient, or balanced) depending on the method applied.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nWe question the practical use of the FV profiles based on the Flight-time method, as it could result in the misclassification of athletes.","PeriodicalId":18500,"journal":{"name":"Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is the Classification of Athletes Based on Force-Velocity Profiling from Countermovement Jumps Influenced by the Choice of Method?\",\"authors\":\"Gøran Paulsen,Kolbjørn Lindberg,Ola Eriksrud,Paul Solberg,Thomas Bjørnsen,Olivier Seynnes,Øyvind Gløersen-Haga,Maarten Bobbert,Hannah Rice\",\"doi\":\"10.1249/mss.0000000000003732\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PURPOSE\\r\\nForce-velocity (FV) profiling is a tool for classifying athletes as force- or velocity-deficient, allowing for tailored training prescriptions. However, profiling classification may vary depending on the measurement method used. This study compared FV profile variables derived from countermovement jumps (CMJs) using four approaches: the Flight-time method, a Kinetic method, and two Kinematic methods.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nSixteen National-level female handball players completed CMJs with 0, 20, 40, 50, and 70 kg of additional mass. All jumps were recorded by a force plate and 3D motion capture system. For each jump, jump height, height of push-off (HPO), average force, and average velocity were estimated, and FV profiles were derived using each of the four methods. The two kinematic methods represented displacement of the center of mass of 1) the body and 2) the whole system (i.e., body + additional mass). A pre-measured HPO (Flight-time method) overestimated the HPO derived from kinetic and kinematics methods at low values and underestimated it at high values.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nThe Flight-time method underestimated average force by 7% compared to the kinetic method and overestimated it by 1-3% compared to the kinematic methods. Average velocity during push-off was lower when derived from the Flight-time method than all other methods, particularly at the highest velocities (~20%). The resultant FV profiles (slopes) differed systematically by 30-39% between methods, such that >80% of participants were classified differently (i.e., force-deficient, velocity-deficient, or balanced) depending on the method applied.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nWe question the practical use of the FV profiles based on the Flight-time method, as it could result in the misclassification of athletes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18500,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000003732\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000003732","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:力-速度(FV)分析是一种将运动员分类为力或速度不足的工具,允许量身定制的训练处方。然而,根据所使用的测量方法,剖面分类可能会有所不同。本研究使用四种方法(飞行时间法、动力学方法和两种运动学方法)比较了反向运动跳跃(CMJs)的FV剖面变量。方法16名国家级女子手球运动员分别以0、20、40、50、70 kg的额外质量完成CMJs。所有的跳跃都被测力板和3D动作捕捉系统记录下来。对于每一次跳跃,估计跳跃高度、推离高度(HPO)、平均力和平均速度,并分别使用四种方法推导出FV曲线。这两种运动学方法分别表示1)物体和2)整个系统(即物体+附加质量)的质心位移。预测的HPO(飞行时间法)在低数值时高估了由动力学和运动学方法得到的HPO,在高数值时低估了HPO。结果飞行时间法比动力学法低估平均力7%,比运动学法高估平均力1-3%。从飞行时间法得出的推离过程中的平均速度比所有其他方法都要低,特别是在最高速度时(~20%)。所得到的FV剖面(斜率)在不同的方法之间存在30-39%的系统性差异,因此,根据所采用的方法,bb0 - 80%的参与者被分类为不同的(即力不足,速度不足或平衡)。结论基于飞行时间法的FV曲线的实用性值得质疑,因为它可能导致运动员的错误分类。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is the Classification of Athletes Based on Force-Velocity Profiling from Countermovement Jumps Influenced by the Choice of Method?
PURPOSE Force-velocity (FV) profiling is a tool for classifying athletes as force- or velocity-deficient, allowing for tailored training prescriptions. However, profiling classification may vary depending on the measurement method used. This study compared FV profile variables derived from countermovement jumps (CMJs) using four approaches: the Flight-time method, a Kinetic method, and two Kinematic methods. METHODS Sixteen National-level female handball players completed CMJs with 0, 20, 40, 50, and 70 kg of additional mass. All jumps were recorded by a force plate and 3D motion capture system. For each jump, jump height, height of push-off (HPO), average force, and average velocity were estimated, and FV profiles were derived using each of the four methods. The two kinematic methods represented displacement of the center of mass of 1) the body and 2) the whole system (i.e., body + additional mass). A pre-measured HPO (Flight-time method) overestimated the HPO derived from kinetic and kinematics methods at low values and underestimated it at high values. RESULTS The Flight-time method underestimated average force by 7% compared to the kinetic method and overestimated it by 1-3% compared to the kinematic methods. Average velocity during push-off was lower when derived from the Flight-time method than all other methods, particularly at the highest velocities (~20%). The resultant FV profiles (slopes) differed systematically by 30-39% between methods, such that >80% of participants were classified differently (i.e., force-deficient, velocity-deficient, or balanced) depending on the method applied. CONCLUSIONS We question the practical use of the FV profiles based on the Flight-time method, as it could result in the misclassification of athletes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信