Force-Time Dependent Characteristics of Dynamic and Isometric Muscle Actions

Haff, G. Gregory; Stone, Michael H.; OʼBryant, Harold S.; Harman, Everett A.; Dinan, Chris; Johnson, Robert; Han, Ki-Hoon

doi:10.1519/00124278-199711000-00014

Cited by 92 publications

(202 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

186

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The changes in muscle strength associated with athletic training have also been independently assessed by changes in maximum muscle force and changes in EFP (e.g. Gorostiaga et al 1999;Haff et al 1997;Matavulj et al 2001;Zhou et al 1996). However, our results suggest that some tests of EFP are related to F max , while others are not.…”

Section: Relationships Among Muscle Strength Testsmentioning

confidence: 50%

“…For example, Sleivert and coworkers (1995) reported a positive relationship between RFD knee extensors and both body mass and thigh volume. The conclusion that ''…ability to exert both isometric and dynamic peak force shares some structural and functional foundation with the ability to generate force rapidly'' (Haff et al 1997;p 269) was based on the positive relationship observed between RFD and maximum force recorded under both isometric and dynamic conditions. F max and RFD increase at a similar rate with maturation (Paasuke et al 2001), but decrease with fatigue (Zhou et al 1996) or aging (Paasuke et al 2000).…”

Section: Relationships Among Muscle Strength Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The one most often applied is the rate of force development (RFD). In short, the subject is instructed to exert maximal force in an explosive way and RFD is assessed as the maximal slope of the recorded force-time curve (Haff et al 1997;Murphy and Wilson 1996;Sleivert and Wenger 1994), but sometimes also as the slope after a fixed time following the initiation of contraction (Aagaard et al 2002). Taking implicitly into account the possible effects of muscle size, some authors also present RFD per unit of the recorded muscle strength (Aagaard et al 2002;Sahaly et al 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Muscle strength testing: evaluation of tests of explosive force production

Mirkov

Nedeljković

Milanović

et al. 2004

European Journal of Applied Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the study was to evaluate four tests of explosive force production (EFP). Specifically, the main aims of the study were to assess the reliability of different EFP tests, to examine their relationship with maximum muscle strength, and to explore the relationship between EFP tests and functional movement performance. After an extensive preliminary familiarization with the tasks, subjects ( n=26) were tested on maximum explosive strength of the elbow extensor and flexor muscle, as well as on rapid elbow extension and flexion movements performed in both an oscillatory and a discrete fashion. In addition to maximum force ( F(max)), four different EFP tests were assessed from the recorded force-time curves: the time interval elapsed between achieving 30% and 70% of F(max) ( F(30-70%)), the maximum rate of force development (RFD), the same value normalized with respect to F(max) (RFD/ F(max)), and the force exerted 100 ms after the contraction initiation ( F(100 ms)). Excluding F(30--70%), all remaining EFP tests revealed either good or fair reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients being within 0.8-1 and 0.6-0.8 intervals, respectively) which was also comparable with the reliability of F(max). RFD and F(100 ms) demonstrated a positive relationship with F(max), but not T(30-70%) and RFD/ F(max). Stronger elbow flexor muscles also demonstrated higher values of RFD and F(100 ms) than weaker elbow extensor muscles, while no difference was observed between either T(30-70%) or RFD/ F(max) recorded from two muscles. Despite the simplicity of the tested movement tasks, the relationship observed between the EFP tests and the peak movement velocity remained moderate and partly insignificant. It was concluded that most of the EFP tests could be reliable for assessing neuromuscular function in their muscle-force- (or, indirectly, muscle size) dependent (such as RFD and F(100 ms)), or muscle-force-independent ( T(30-70%) and RFD/ F(max)) forms. However, their "external validity" when applied to assess the ability to perform rapid movements could be questioned.

show abstract

Section: Relationships Among Muscle Strength Testsmentioning

confidence: 50%

Section: Relationships Among Muscle Strength Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Muscle strength testing: evaluation of tests of explosive force production

Mirkov

Nedeljković

Milanović

et al. 2004

European Journal of Applied Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It was not the primary purpose of these studies to identify an optimal training load because only a few loads were examined in contrast to the entire loading spectrum (i.e., 0-100 % 1RM). This previous research has examined the snatch [87], clean and jerk [87], power clean [115,116], hang power clean [69,70,117], snatch pull [118], hang high pull [68,69,119], jump shrug [64,69,70], and mid-thigh pull [2,65,67]. The information provided by these studies is crucial for the loading prescriptions of athletes, and thus, it is suggested that future research should continue examining how loads affect the kinetics and kinematics associated with weightlifting movements and their derivatives.…”

Section: Previous Weightlifting Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this does not mean that athletes cannot benefit from using weightlifting pulling derivatives that remove the catch phase and emphasize the completion of the explosive triple extension movement [54,56,59]. In this light, researchers have discussed the technique of weightlifting pulling derivatives [60][61][62][63] as well as examined their kinetic and kinematic potential as training exercises [2,[64][65][66][67][68]. Furthermore, weightlifting pulling derivatives have been compared with full weightlifting movements to determine which exercises may produce a superior training stimulus [25,26,69,70].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Weightlifting Pulling Derivatives: Rationale for Implementation and Application

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review article examines previous weightlifting literature and provides a rationale for the use of weightlifting pulling derivatives that eliminate the catch phase for athletes who are not competitive weightlifters. Practitioners should emphasize the completion of the triple extension movement during the second pull phase that is characteristic of weightlifting movements as this is likely to have the greatest transference to athletic performance that is dependent on hip, knee, and ankle extension. The clean pull, snatch pull, hang high pull, jump shrug, and mid-thigh pull are weightlifting pulling derivatives that can be used in the teaching progression of the full weightlifting movements and are thus less complex with regard to exercise technique. Previous literature suggests that the clean pull, snatch pull, hang high pull, jump shrug, and mid-thigh pull may provide a training stimulus that is as good as, if not better than, weightlifting movements that include the catch phase. Weightlifting pulling derivatives can be implemented throughout the training year, but an emphasis and de-emphasis should be used in order to meet the goals of particular training phases. When implementing weightlifting pulling derivatives, athletes must make a maximum effort, understand that pulling derivatives can be used for both technique work and building strength-power characteristics, and be coached with proper exercise technique. Future research should consider examining the effect of various loads on kinetic and kinematic characteristics of weightlifting pulling derivatives, training with full weightlifting movements as compared to training with weightlifting pulling derivatives, and how kinetic and kinematic variables vary between derivatives of the snatch.

show abstract