Validation of Power Measurement Techniques in Dynamic Lower Body Resistance Exercises

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the validity of power measurement techniques utilizing various kinematic and kinetic devices during the jump squat (JS), squat (S) and power clean (PC). Ten Division I male athletes were assessed for power output across various intensities: 0, 12, 27, 42, 56, 71, and 85% of one repetition maximum strength (1RM) in the JS and S and 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of 1RM in the PC. During the execution of each lift, six different data collection systems were utilized; (1) one linear position transducer (1-LPT); (2) one linear position transducer with the system mass representing the force (1-LPT+MASS); (3) two linear position transducers (2-LPT); (4) the force plate (FP); (5) one linear position transducer and a force plate (1-LPT+FP); (6) two linear position transducers and a force place (2-LPT+FP). Kinetic and kinematic variables calculated using the six methodologies were compared. Vertical power, force, and velocity differed significantly between 2-LPT+FP and 1-LPT, 1-LPT+MASS, 2-LPT, and FP methodologies across various intensities throughout the JS, S, and PC. These differences affected the load–power relationship and resulted in the transfer of the optimal load to a number of different intensities. This examination clearly indicates that data collection and analysis procedures influence the power output calculated as well as the load–power relationship of dynamic lower body movements.

Lower body kinetics during the jump shrug: impact of load

“…[4][5][6][7][8][9] However, all of this research has examined either the PC from the floor [4][5][6]9 or the HC 7,8 whereas no research has examined the optimal load of the JS. Although not the main purpose of the study, Suchomel et al 1 indicated that the greatest PP for the JS occurred at 30% one repetition maximum HC (1RM-HC).…”

“…Thus, little is known about how the load impacts lower body kinetics associated with PP production during the JS. Because PC variations appear to be important to many strength and conditioning training programs, 6,9,10 there is a need to examine the impact that load has on lower body power kinetics during individual PC variations. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the impact of load on the lower body kinetics of the JS.…”

Évaluation et analyse de la performance par accélérométrie lors des mouvements de musculation

“…Cette variation s'explique par les différences entre le mouvement du centre de masse (CM) mesuré par la PFF et celui de la barre sur laquelle l'accéléromètre est fixé. Il a été démontré que l'instrument de mesure utilisé et son emplacement influence la mesure de la force et de la puissance lors de squats jumps (Cormie et al, 2007 ;Crewther et al, 2011 ;Hori et al, 2006 ;McMaster et al, 2013).…”

“…Le choix d'une charge moyenne (entre 30 et 70 % du 1RM) permet généralement d'explorer les qualités de puissance musculaire (Cormie et al, 2007;Harris et al, 2010 ;Jidovtseff et al, 2009 ;Miller, 1997). Ce type d'approche a été utilisé avec succès afin d'étudier les effets de l'entraînement musculaire (Jidovtseff et al, 2014).…”

Understanding Position Transducer Technology for Strength and Conditioning Practitioners

“…One of these assumptions during vertical jumping is that the movement examined does not involve any horizontal motion (4,5). The validity of a single LPT for measuring force and power during loaded jump squats has been questioned in the literature because some amount of horizontal displacement is likely to occur in any free weight condition.…”