4.2 Article

Force-velocity property of leg muscles in individuals of different level of physical fitness

Journal

SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
Volume 15, Issue 2, Pages 207-219

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14763141.2016.1159724

Keywords

Power; strength; vertical jump; load

Funding

  1. NIH [R21AR06065]
  2. Serbian Research Council [175037]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES [R21AR060651] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present study explored the method of testing muscle mechanical properties through the linear force-velocity (F-V) relationships obtained from loaded vertical jumps. Specifically, we hypothesised that the F-V relationship parameters depicting the force, power, and velocity of the tested muscles will differ among individuals of different physical fitness. Strength trained, physically active, and sedentary male participants (N = 10 + 10 + 10; age 20-29 years) were tested on maximum countermovement and squat jumps where manipulation of external loads provided a range of F and V data. The observed F-V relationships of the tested leg muscles were approximately linear and mainly strong (median correlation coefficients ranged from 0.77 to 0.92; all p < 0.05), independently of either the tested group or the jump type. The maximum power revealed higher values in the strength trained than in the physically active and sedentary participants. This difference originated from the differences in F-intercepts, rather than from the V-intercepts. We conclude that the observed parameters could be sensitive enough to detect the differences among both the individuals of different physical fitness and various jump types. The present findings support using loaded vertical jumps and, possibly, other maximum performance multi-joint movements for the assessment of mechanical properties of active muscles.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available