Assessment of the two-point method applied in field conditions for routine testing of muscle mechanical capacities in a leg cycle ergometer

García-Ramos, Amador; Zivkovic, M.; Djuric, Sasa; Majstorović, Nikola; Manovski, Katarina; Jarić, Slobodan

doi:10.1007/s00421-018-3925-9

Cited by 18 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The two-point method was proposed by Jaric (2016) to simplify the testing procedure of the F-V relationship. Previous studies have confirmed that the two-point method can provide reliable and valid F-V relationship parameters in different exercises (Garcia-Ramos, Zivkovic, et al, 2018;Garcia-Ramos & Jaric, 2018a;Grbic et al, 2017), including vertical jumps (Garcia-Ramos, Pérez-Castilla, et al, 2018;Zivkovic et al, 2017). However, this is the first study that has applied the two-point method under field conditions (i.e., only two loads applied) to determine the F-V relationship during vertical jumps.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

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

Janićijević

Knežević

Mirkov

et al. 2019

European Journal of Sport Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to compare the reliability and magnitude of the force-velocity (F-V) relationship parameters between the squat jumps performed from the 90º (SJ90) and selfpreferred 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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

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

Janićijević

Knežević

Mirkov

et al. 2019

European Journal of Sport Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This method currently appears as the best alternative to the standard force plate measurements in terms of time efficiency, fatigue avoidance and safety. The interest of various two-point methods for F-V profiling is rapidly increasing for other movements as well, with important methodological advances recently being made for cycling 35 and bench press exercise 45 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The intercepts with force axis and velocity axis were calculated to determine the predicted force in isometric conditions (F 0 ) and maximal theoretical velocity (V 0 ), respectively. The F-v profile was calculated as the slope of the F-v linear relationship, using the following equation 25,26,35 : Finally, the theoretical maximal power (P max ) was calculated as in the previous F-V studies 23,26,35,36 , pertaining to jumping performance:…”

Section: Data Processing and Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Force–velocity profile during vertical jump cannot be assessed using only bodyweight jump and isometric maximal voluntary contraction tasks

Šarabon

Kozinc

Marković

2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, the two-point method of force–velocity (F–V) profiling of multi-joint human movements has been introduced and validated. In this study, we investigated the validity of estimating the jumping F–V profile using only bodyweight jump and isometric maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) task. Participants (n = 30) performed 3 repetitions of squat (SJ) and counter-movement jumps (CMJ), each at loads that were progressively increased by 10 kg increments, with the number of loads depending on the individual’s ability. Then, 3 isometric MVC trials were performed in 3 knee angles (30°, 60° and 90°). F–V profiling of SJ and CMJ were performed using the multiple-point method, the two-point method, and the novel Jump-MVC method. The results showed poor to fair validity of the novel Jump-MVC method for assessing jumping F–V profile (most ICC < 0.5, most CV > 10%, significant systematic bias present, and the presence of proportional bias). The exception was the estimation of theoretical maximal power, which was highly valid for both SJ and CMJ (ICC = 0.91–0.95; CV = 5.0–6.3%). In contrast, validity of the two-point method was excellent (all ICC > 0.90; CV = 2–6%). Although additional studies are needed, present results suggest that the F–V profiling of vertical jumps should be performed using the two-point method with distal loads.

show abstract

“…The minimum load (L1) was 14 kg for all subjects (mass of the unloaded Smith machine barbell), and the 85% of 1RM was the maximum load (L6). The 4 intermediate loads were equidistantly distributed between L1 and L6 (L2 = 25.7 ± 2.8 kg, L3 = 37.2 ± 4.3 kg, L4 = 48.4 ± 6.5 kg, and L5 = 59.9 ± 8.7 kg) (11). During the sessions where the L-V relationship was established using the multiple-point method, 6 loads (L1-L2-L3-L4-L5-L6) were applied, whereas only L1 and L6 were applied in a consecutive fashion in sessions where the 2-point method was used.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is worth highlighting that in all previous studies, the 2-point method was extracted from a testing procedure based on the multiple-point method. To date, only García-Ramos et al (11) and Fessl et al (4) shown that the 2-point method applied in field conditions (i.e., only 2 loads are used during the testing procedure) is generally reliable and valid with respect to the multiple-point method to assess maximal neuromuscular capacities through the F-V relationship in the leg cycle ergometer and squat jump exercises, respectively. However, the reliability and validity of the 2-point method applied in field conditions to obtain the L-V relationship variables have not been explored yet.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-point Method Applied in Field Conditions: A Feasible Approach to Assess the Load-Velocity Relationship Variables During the Bench Pull Exercise

Miras-Moreno

García-Ramos

Jukić

et al. 2023

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Miras-Moreno, S, García-Ramos, A, Jukic, I, and Pérez-Castilla, A. Two-point method applied in field conditions: a feasible approach to assess the load-velocity relationship variables during the bench pull exercise. J Strength Cond Res 37(7): 1367–1374, 2023—This study explored the between-session reliability and concurrent validity of the load-velocity (L-V) relationship variables obtained from different methods during the Smith machine bench pull exercise. In a counterbalanced order, 23 resistance-trained male subjects performed 2 sessions against 6 different loads in one week and 2 sessions against the lightest and heaviest loads in another week. The L-V relationship variables (load-axis intercept [L0], velocity-axis intercept [v0], and area under the L-V relationship line [Aline]) were obtained using the mean and peak velocity by the standard multiple-point (all 6 loads were used for the L-V modeling), modified multiple-point (the data point that most reduced the coefficient of determination was omitted from the L-V modeling), and 2-point (only 2 loads were used for the L-V modeling) methods. The reliability of the L-V relationship variables was acceptable for all methods (within-subjects coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.09–9.21%). The standard multiple-point and 2-point methods provided greater reliability for all L-V relationship variables compared with the modified multiple-point method (CVratio ≥ 1.27), while the 2-point method provided similar (CVratio = 1.04 for Aline) or greater (CVratio = 1.50 for L0 and 1.62 for v0) reliability than the standard multiple-point method. The concurrent validity of the modified multiple-point and 2-point methods was acceptable for the L-V relationship variables (effect size ≤ 0.62; r ≥ 0.76). These results suggest that the 2-point method is not only a valid procedure but also more reliable, simpler, faster, and less prone to fatigue than multiple-point methods for assessing maximal neuromuscular capacities through the L-V relationship.

show abstract

Assessment of the two-point method applied in field conditions for routine testing of muscle mechanical capacities in a leg cycle ergometer

Abstract: These results support the two-point method as a reliable, valid, and fatigue-free procedure of assessing the muscle mechanical capacities through the F-V relationship.

Cited by 18 publications

References 25 publications

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

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

Force–velocity profile during vertical jump cannot be assessed using only bodyweight jump and isometric maximal voluntary contraction tasks

Two-point Method Applied in Field Conditions: A Feasible Approach to Assess the Load-Velocity Relationship Variables During the Bench Pull Exercise

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About