You are on page 1of 14

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321553924

Two-Point Method: A Quick and Fatigue-Free Procedure for Assessment of


Muscle Mechanical Capacities and the One-Repetition Maximum

Article  in  Strength and conditioning journal · December 2017


DOI: 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000359

CITATIONS READS

8 2,230

2 authors:

Amador García Ramos Slobodan Jaric


University of Granada University of Delaware
128 PUBLICATIONS   385 CITATIONS    208 PUBLICATIONS   4,491 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Muscular and neural factors of human locomotion and their adaptive changes View project

Velocity-based resistance training View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amador García Ramos on 28 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


AU2 Two-Point Method: A
Quick and Fatigue-Free
Procedure for
Assessment of Muscle
Mechanical Capacities
and the 1 Repetition
Maximum
Amador Garcia-Ramos, PhD1,2 and Slobodan Jaric, PhD3,4,5
1
Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain;
2
Faculty of Education, Catholic University of the Most Holy Conception, Concepción, Chile; 3Biomechanics and
Movement Science Graduate Program, Department of Kinesiology and Applied Physiology, University of Delaware,
AU3 Newark, Delaware; 4Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Belgrade, Beograd, Serbia; and
5
Department of Human Motor Behavior, The Jerzy Kukuczka Academy of Physical Education in Katowice, Katowice,
Poland

Supported by the Serbian Research Council under Grant 175037.

ABSTRACT VELOCITY RELATIONSHIPS. THIS evaluate these relationships in various


ARTICLE SUMMARIZES THE RE- movement tasks (1,3). The F-V rela-
THE FORCE-VELOCITY RELATION-
SULTS OF PREVIOUS STUDIES tionship provides a higher informa-
SHIP IS USED TO EVALUATE THE
THAT HAVE EXPLORED THE FEA- tional value than routinely applied
MAXIMAL CAPACITIES OF ACTIVE tests typically conducted under a single
SIBILITY OF THE 2-POINT METHOD
MUSCLES TO PRODUCE FORCE, mechanical condition because it allows
AND PROVIDES PRACTICAL REC-
VELOCITY, AND POWER. THE to discern among different muscle
OMMENDATIONS FOR ITS APPLI-
LOAD-VELOCITY RELATIONSHIP mechanical capacities (23,37). How-
CATION BY STRENGTH AND
HAS ALSO BEEN USED TO PRE- ever, the L-V relationship has been
CONDITIONING PROFESSIONALS.
DICT THE 1 REPETITION MAXIMUM used to predict the 1 repetition maxi-
(1RM) AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE mum (1RM) (14,17,24,31). Therefore,
RELATIVE LOADS (%1RM). THE INTRODUCTION the individual assessment of the F-V
2-POINT METHOD HAS RECENTLY he force-velocity (F-V) and and L-V relationships is highly
EMERGED AS A QUICK AND
FATIGUE-FREE PROCEDURE FOR
THE ASSESSMENT OF BOTH THE
T load-velocity (L-V) relation-
ships have received the atten-
tion of the scientific community for
KEY WORDS:
force-velocity relationship; load-veloc-
FORCE-VELOCITY AND LOAD- a long time (38,55). More recently, ity relationship; muscle function;
the proliferation of affordable sport 2-load method; 2-velocity method;
Address correspondence to Slobodan Jaric, technology has allowed strength and velocity-based resistance training
jaric@udel.edu. conditioning professionals to routinely

Copyright  National Strength and Conditioning Association 1


Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AU1 Two-Point Method: Assessment of Muscle Capacities and 1RM

recommended to be used for prescrib- pushing, etc.) conducted under 2 or relative loads (i.e., %1RM) (8,52). How-
ing and implementing effective individ- more loading or velocity conditions ever, the direct determination of the
ualized resistance training programs. provide a line that determines the fol- 1RM typically involves a number of
However, both relationships have been lowing F-V equation: F(V) 5 F0 2 aV, limitations, such as being prone to
obtained from different mechanical in which F0 represents the force inter- fatigue and injuries, being time-
conditions that made the related pro- cept (i.e., force at zero velocity) and a is consuming and impractical for large
cedures not only long lasting but also the slope of the F-V relationship groups of subjects, whereas 1RM value
prone to fatigue. Therefore, the objec- (27,48). The maximum velocity (V0; can change quickly as a consequence of
tive of this article is to present the velocity at zero force) corresponds to training. To solve these problems,
2-point method (i.e., the method based F0/a. Finally, because of the high line- several indirect methods have been
on tests performed under only 2 loads arity of the F-V relationship, P0 can be proposed to predict the 1RM. The pre-
or 2 velocities) as a quick and fatigue- calculated as P0 5 F0$V0/4. Therefore, diction of the 1RM through the L-V
free procedure able to reliably and the F-V relationship should be recom- relationship has attracted considerable
accurately determine both F-V and mended for the routine testing of mus- attention over recent years
L-V relationships. We will discuss the cle function because it provides higher (24,31,34,36). The L-V relationship, in-
theoretical basis and the most impor- informational value than the standard terpreted as the relationship between
tant methodological issues related to test conducted under a single mechan- the %1RM and movement velocity,
the application of the 2-point method ical condition (27,28,48). has been explored in a variety of resis-
for obtaining reliable and valid F-V and The F-V relationship parameters have tance training exercises such as the
L-V relationships. been used to gain a deeper insight into bench press, bench pull, pull-up, squat,
different issues related to muscle func- or leg press (7,17,24,39,50,51). The
tion, rehabilitation, injury prevention, strong and approximately linear L-V
THEORETICAL BASIS
and sport performance. Specifically, it relationship observed in the cited stud-
FORCE-VELOCITY RELATIONSHIP has been shown that F-V relationship ies motivated a proposal for general-
AND ITS PARAMETERS parameters (i.e., F0, V0, a, and P0) may ized group equations to predict the %
It is generally accepted that muscles distinguish between individuals of dif- 1RM from the recorded velocity out-
have distinctive mechanical capacities ferent physical fitness levels (10) and put (7,17,24,39,50,51). Specifically, the
that allow them to produce maximal age (56), as well as between athletes proposed equations enable an estima-
levels of force (F0), velocity (V0), and of different disciplines (22). The F-V tion of 1RM and %1RM from a single
power (P0) (27). The main limitation of profile may also partly explain repetition conducted against a given
the standard testing procedures between-subjects differences in bilat- load provided that it is performed at
conducted under a single mechanical eral deficit during ballistic lower limb maximal velocity (23,24).
condition (e.g., a vertical jump per- push-off (49). Finally, there may be
formed against a preselected load) is The information presented above sug-
a subject-specific optimum balance gests that testing the movement veloc-
that their single outcomes do not allow between F0 and V0 capacities (i.e., the
for distinguishing among different ity is a safe and time-saving method of
F-V slope), which maximizes ballistic predicting the 1RM. However, gener-
mechanical capacities of the muscles performance for a given value of P0
(27). It should be noted that the force, alized group equations are associated
(32,33,46). Therefore, the training pro-
velocity, and power outputs obtained with at least 4 important drawbacks
grams should target a minimization of
under a single load are interdependent that limit their use in practice. First,
the F-V imbalance (37). Taken collec-
(i.e., higher force outputs inevitably an independent generalized group
tively, these results highlight the
produce a higher velocity and, conse- equation would be required for each
importance of the F-V relationship
quently, higher power outputs) (13,27). exercise because the L-V relationship
assessment not only for basic research
However, an important characteristic is inevitably exercise-specific (7,50).
in various fields of human movement
of the F-V approach is that F0 and V0 Second, although the differences in
science but also for better prescription
are independent of each other because the L-V relationship between different
and monitoring of resistance training
a higher F0 does not necessarily imply exercises may be caused by the differ-
programs by strength and conditioning
a higher V0. A number of studies have ences in the velocity of the 1RM,
practitioners.
revealed that the parameters of the typ- recent studies have shown that the
ically linear F-V relationship (i.e., F0, LOAD-VELOCITY RELATIONSHIP inclusion of the stretch-shortening
V0, a, and P0) are reliable and at least AND 1 REPETITION MAXIMUM cycle significantly increases the veloc-
moderately valid (9,13,15,28,53). The 1RM is one of the most common ity associated to each %1RM com-
Briefly, to obtain the F-V relationship measurements used by strength and pared with the concentric-only
parameters, the force and velocity data conditioning professionals either for execution (17,40,42). Third, a system-
collected from a functional movement assessing the effects of training atic bias in the velocity outputs
(e.g., jumping, cycling, lifting, running, procedures or for prescribing specific may exist between different devices

2 VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2017

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
commonly used to measure movement ergometer exercise, they are velocity- the 2-point method has emerged with
velocity (2). Therefore, the generalized biased (i.e., close to the velocity inter- the expectation of providing the same
group equations could also be depen- cept) (20,54). Moreover, none of the information but considerably reducing
dent on the selection of measurement tested movements can be performed the testing time and the associated
tools. Finally, in line with the results at velocities close to their theoretical fatigue (28). The high linearity of F-V
obtained for the F-V relationship, the maximum because that would imply and L-V relationships of functional
L-V relationship could also be subject- both a negligible load and “instant” multijoint tasks may support the feasi-
dependent (17). The listed drawbacks muscle activation. Consequently, nei- bility of the 2-point method for assess-
of generalized group equations could ther of the 2 prerequisites can be ment of muscle mechanical capacities
be solved through the individual mod- accomplished. Nevertheless, it could and the 1RM. Figure 1 depicts the high F1
eling of the L-V relationship (3,17,31). be safely argued that the observed overlap of the F-V and L-V relation-
However, the standard tests used to experimental findings do not provide ships commonly observed when
determine the load-velocity relation- reasons for expecting that F-V relation- obtained from the multiple-point and
ship are based on multiple external ships would prominently deviate from 2-point methods.
loads (usually between 5 and 9), which linearity if a wider range of loads of
Because of the high linearity of both
makes them prone to fatigue and, velocities were tested.
the F-V and L-V relationships, it was
therefore, impractical when under- The strength of the individual L-V rela- hypothesized that the addition of
taken on a daily basis (7,24,31). There- tionship has also proven to be high for intermediate points (i.e., either loads
fore, a potential solution to overcome a variety of resistance training exercises or velocities to the 2 already tested)
these limitations could be the applica- such as the bench press (R2 z 0.99) would not improve the precision of
tion of the 2-point method to individ- (18,50), bench press throw (R2 z the relationship modeled (28,43,57).
ually predict the 1RM. 0.98) (18), bench pull (R2 z 0.99) To date, only 6 studies have compared
(50), pull-up (R2 z 0.98) (39), squat the basic properties, such as the reli-
LINEARITY OF THE F-V AND L-V (R2 z 0.98) (42), and vertical jumps
RELATIONSHIPS ability, validity, and sensibility of the
(R2 z 0.98) (42). These results provide 2-point method against the same prop-
The most important characteristic of support for using the linear regression
the F-V and L-V relationships of func- erties of the multiple-point method,
model instead of more complex ones where more than 2 points are used
tional multijoint tasks (e.g., jumping, (6). Note that the linear regression
lifting, running, cycling, etc.) is that for the regression modeling (Table 1) T1
model should allow for a more time- (12,20,25,41,43,57). Collectively, these
both of them are highly linear efficient procedure because a lower
(18,27). The linearity of F-V relation- results revealed trivial differences both
number of experimental points would in the magnitude and the reliability of
ship of human muscles acting within be needed to model the individual F-V
a multijoint system differs from the the F-V relationship parameters
and L-V relationships. between the 2 methods. In addition,
hyperbolic F-V relationship typically
described in studies of in vitro animal MULTIPLE-POINT METHOD VS. 2- the F-V relationship parameters ob-
muscles and individual human muscle POINT METHOD tained from the 2-point method have
groups (6,27). In this regard, it should The F-V relationship parameters (i.e., shown exceptionally strong relation-
be noted that previous studies have F0, V0, a, and P0) obtained from the ships with the same parameters ob-
found only trivial differences in the multiple-point method in different tained from the multiple-point
strength of the F-V relationship functional multijoint tasks have repeat- method. Garcı́a-Ramos et al. (20)
between linear and polynomial regres- edly proven to be reliable and at least recently demonstrated that the 2-
sion models in multijoint exercises moderately valid (28). Studies have point method could be used to detect
such as vertical jumps (9) and the also revealed that the F-V relationship the selective changes on the F-V rela-
bench press throw (53). It could be may be sensitive enough to detect the tionship parameters induced by a cycle
argued that the linearity of the F-V rela- effects of a short-term resistance train- ergometer sprint training program.
tionship is a consequence of a narrow ing program, in which training with These results strongly encourage the
range of force and velocity data used heavy and light loads were associated use of the 2-point method to determine
for its modeling. Unfortunately, certain with improvements in F0 and V0, the F-V relationship because it provides
functional movements impose severe respectively (11,20,32). The multiple- virtually identical outcomes as the
limitations on the magnitudes of the point method applied to the individual multiple-point method and with com-
loads that can be applied. For example, L-V relationship has also demonstrated parable reliability. Finally, although the
although in vertical jumps, the experi- an accurate estimation of the 1RM comparison of the accuracy of 1RM
mental points are inevitably force- value (3,31,44). However, it should be prediction between the multiple-point
biased (i.e., close to the force intercept) noted that the multiple-point method and 2-point methods has not been
because of the inevitable role of may be time-consuming and, conse- explored yet, it is plausible to assume
body mass (9,13,33), in the leg cycle quently, prone to fatigue. In this regard, that due to a typically high linearity of

3
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Two-Point Method: Assessment of Muscle Capacities and 1RM

modeling is reduced (43). Within the


next section, an overview of the meth-
odological elements that need to be
considered when applying the 2-point
method in routine testing is provided.

HOW TO APPLY THE 2-POINT


METHOD IN ROUTINE TESTING
OPTIMAL SELECTION OF THE 2
POINTS

Distance between experimental


points. Only 1 investigation has specif-
ically assessed the effect of the distance
between experimental points on the
reliability and validity of the 2-point
method (43). Specifically, 3 different
2-point methods were constructed in
the bench press throw exercise: 20–
70% 1RM (i.e., farthest data points),
30–60% 1RM, and 40–50% 1RM (i.e.,
closest data points). The main outcome
of this investigation was a decrease in
both the reliability and validity of the
F-V relationship parameters associated
with the proximity of the data points:
40–50% 1RM (coefficient of variation
[CV] 5 18.0%; r 5 0.64) , 30–60%
1RM (CV 5 7.3%; r 5 0.94) , 20–
70% 1RM (CV 5 5.5%; r 5 0.98).
The practical recommendation based
on these data would be that the routine
Figure 1. Force-velocity (F-V; upper panel) and load-velocity (L-V; lower panel) application of the 2-point method
relationships depicting the high overlap existing when obtained from the
should be based on the selection of
multiple-point (straight lines) and 2-point (dashed lines and filled dots)
methods. The F-V relationships (adapted from Pérez-Castilla et al. (43)) the 2 most distant loads or velocities.
were obtained from the bench press throw exercise from the data recorded
from 6 different loads (multiple-point method: 20% 1RM, 30% 1RM, 40% Proximity to the force and velocity in-
1RM, 50% 1RM, 60% 1RM, and 70% 1RM) and averaged across the subjects tercepts. Pérez-Castilla et al. (43) eval-
(n 5 22) and from only the 2 extreme loads (2-point method: 20% 1RM and uated the effect of the location of the 2
70% 1RM). The L-V relationships of an individual subject were determined loads with respect to the force and
during an incremental loading test in the bench press exercise from 5 velocity axis on the reliability and val-
different loads (multiple-point method: 32% 1RM, 44% 1RM, 55% 1RM, 67% idity of the F-V parameters. Although
1RM, and 79% 1RM) and only 2 loads (2-point method: 44% 1RM and 79%
these results were less conclusive, they
1RM). The 1RM was estimated from the 2 equations depicted as the load
suggested that although force-biased
associated with a mean velocity of 0.17 m$s21. The directly measured 1RM
(filled triangle) is also depicted but is not included in the multiple-point data points (50–70% 1RM) may pro-
AU9 method regression. r 5 Pearson’s correlation coefficient. vide F0 with higher accuracy,
velocity-biased data points (20–40%
1RM) could be preferable to gain pre-
the L-V relationship, both methods modeling of the multiple-point cision in the determination of V0. The
should produce almost identical method. The use of the 2 farthest data practical recommendation would be, if
outcomes. points seems appropriate because pre- possible, to select 1 point close to V0
The outcomes related to the 2-point vious studies have shown that the reli- and another 1 close to F0.
method presented in Table 1 have been ability and validity of the F-V
obtained from the 2 farthest data points relationship may be compromised Reliability of individual points. The
(i.e., the highest and the lowest loads when the distance between the 2 individual points with low reliability
or velocities) that were used for the experimental points used for the F-V should be avoided because they may

4 VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2017

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Table 1
Comparison of the F-V relationship parameters obtained from the multiple-point and the 2-point methods

Study Protocol F-V parameter Method Magnitude Reliability Validity


Pérez-Castilla et al. (41) 23 collegiate men F0 (N) Multiple 3,218 6 356 CV: 2.7%; ICC: ES: 20.02;
performed 2 tests in 0.95 r: 0.99
the CMJ exercise
against 6 loads: 0, 17,
30, 45, 60, and 75 kg.
2-point 3,226 6 415 CV: 3.0%; ICC:
0.95
V0 (m$s21) Multiple 5.69 6 0.92 CV: 5.8%; ICC: ES: 20.21; r:
0.89 0.96
2-point 5.89 6 0.97 CV: 7.2%; ICC:
0.81
a (N$s$m21) Multiple 583 6 125 CV: 10.1%; ICC: ES: 0.11; r:
0.88 0.95
2-point 568 6 138 CV: 11.9%; ICC:
0.82
P0 (W) Multiple 4,531 6 523 CV: 3.0%; ICC: ES: 20.29; r:
0.95 0.98
2-point 4,679 6 509 CV: 4.3%; ICC:
0.88
Pérez-Castilla et al. (43) 21 collegiate men F0 (N) Multiple 708 6 108 CV: 4.15%; ICC: ES: 20.11; r:
performed 2 tests in 0.94 0.99
the bench press
throw exercise
against 6 loads: 20%
1RM, 30% 1RM, 40%
1RM, 50% 1RM, 60%
1RM, and 70% 1RM.
2-point 720 6 112 CV: 4.45%; ICC:
0.94
V0 (m$s21) Multiple 2.86 6 0.39 CV: 6.04%; ICC: ES: 0.08; r:
0.72 0.97
2-point 2.83 6 0.37 CV: 6.28%; ICC:
0.67
a (N$s$m21) Multiple 252 6 52 CV: 8.50%; ICC: ES: 20.13; r:
0.84 0.98
2-point 259 6 53 CV: 9.02%; ICC:
0.83
P0 (W) Multiple 2026 6 385 CV: 4.34%; ICC: ES: 20.02; r:
0.95 0.98
2-point 2034 6 390 CV: 4.67%; ICC:
0.94

(continued)

5
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Two-Point Method: Assessment of Muscle Capacities and 1RM

Table 1
(continued )
Garcı́a-Ramos et al. (19) 27 collegiate men F0 (N$kg21) Multiple 13.7 6 1.3 CV: 3.57%; ICC: ES: 0.05; r:
performed 2 tests in 0.87 0.99
the leg cycle
ergometer exercise
against 4 resistances:
0.40, 0.63, 0.86, and
1.09 N$kg21 of body
mass.
2-point 13.6 6 1.2 CV: 3.41%; ICC:
0.88
V0 (m$s21) Multiple 3.78 6 0.13 CV: 1.47%; ICC: ES: 0.20; r:
0.89 0.96
2-point 3.75 6 0.14 CV: 1.46%; ICC:
0.89
a (N$s$m21$kg21) Multiple 3.62 6 0.36 CV: 4.40%; ICC: ES: 20.03; r:
0.82 0.98
2-point 3.63 6 0.35 CV: 4.09%; ICC:
0.85
P0 (W$kg21) Multiple 12.9 6 1.3 CV: 3.09%; ICC: ES: 0.10; r:
0.91 0.98
2-point 12.8 6 1.3 CV: 3.25%; ICC:
0.91
Zivkovic et al. (57) 12 healthy men F0 (N) Multiple 2,948 6 788 No data ES: 20.09; r:
performed a test in 0.99
the CMJ exercise
against 0, 8, 16, 24,
and 32 kg.
2-point 3,020 6 896
21
V0 (m$s ) Multiple 4.5 6 1.8 ES: 0.00; r:
0.99
2-point 4.5 6 1.7
P0 (W) Multiple 3,089 6 584 ES: 20.04; r:
0.98
2-point 3,109 6 555
12 healthy men F0 (N) Multiple 1,033 6 222 No data ES: 0.00; r:
performed a test in 0.99
the leg cycle
ergometer exercise
against 2, 4, 6, 8, and
10 kg.
2-point 1,032 6 223
21
V0 (m$s ) Multiple 4.1 6 0.3 ES: 0.33; r:
0.99
2-point 4.0 6 0.3
P0 (W) Multiple 1,047 6 189 ES: 0.09; r:
0.99

6 VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2017

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Table 1
(continued )
2-point 1,030 6 188
12 healthy men F0 (N) Multiple 830 6 58 No data ES: 20.42; r:
performed a test in 0.95
the bench press
throw exercise
against 20, 27.5, 35,
42.5, 50, and 57.5 kg.
2-point 856 6 66
V0 (m$s21) Multiple 3.0 6 0.3 ES: 0.00; r:
0.95
2-point 3.0 6 0.3
P0 (W) Multiple 627 6 73 ES: 20.20; r:
0.98
2-point 642 6 77
12 healthy men F0 (N) Multiple 1,350 6 234 No data ES: 20.06; r:
performed a test in 0.99
the bench press pull
exercise against 20,
27.5, 35, 42.5, 50, and
57.5 kg.
2-point 1,364 6 246
21
V0 (m$s ) Multiple 2.4 6 0.3 ES: 0.00; r:
0.97
2-point 2.4 6 0.2
P0 (W) Multiple 807 6 124 ES: 0.03; r:
0.99
2-point 803 6 128
Dobrijevic et al. (12) 13 collegiate men F0 (N) Multiple 385 6 88 CV: 6.4%; ICC: ES: 20.03; r:
performed 2 tests 0.97 0.99
consisting on
walking or running
on a motorized
treadmill at 8
velocities ranging
from 1.4 to 3.3
m$s21.
2-point 388 6 88 No data
21
V0 (m$s ) Multiple 8.7 6 1.6 CV: 11.1%; ICC: ES: 0.00; r:
0.93 0.89
2-point 8.7 6 2.3 No data
21
a (N$s$m ) Multiple 47.0 6 18.5 CV: 15.7%; ICC: ES: 20.11; r:
0.95 0.96
2-point 49.2 6 21.9 No data

(continued)

7
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Two-Point Method: Assessment of Muscle Capacities and 1RM

Table 1
(continued )
P0 (W) Multiple 815 6 140 CV: 10.0%; ICC: ES: 0.01; r:
0.93 0.93
2-point 814 6 171 No data
15 collegiate women F0 (N) Multiple 234 6 53 CV: 10.9%; ICC: ES: 20.05; r:
performed 2 tests 0.94 0.98
consisting on
walking or running
on a motorized
treadmill at 8
velocities ranging
from 1.4 to 3.3
m$s21.
2-point 237 6 57 No data
21
V0 (m$s ) Multiple 7.3 6 1.4 CV: 12.3%; ICC: ES: 0.00; r:
0.88 0.93
2-point 7.3 6 1.6 No data
21
a (N$s$m ) Multiple 34.2 6 13.2 CV: 19.3%; ICC: ES: 20.09; r:
0.94 0.97
2-point 35.5 6 15.4 No data
P0 (W) Multiple 415 6 80 CV: 14.0%; ICC: ES: 0.01; r:
0.84 0.93
2-point 414 6 74 No data
Grbic et al. (25) 13 female students F0 (N) Multiple 529 6 82 No data ES: 0.07; r:
performed a test in 0.95
the leg extension
isokinetic exercise
against 30, 60, 120,
180, and 2408$s21. T
2-point 522 6 105
21
V0 (m$s ) Multiple 2.4 6 0.4 ES: 0.17; r:
0.90
2-point 2.3 6 0.5
21
a (N$s$m ) Multiple 228 6 37 ES: 0.12; r:
0.90
2-point 223 6 45
P0 (W) Multiple 319 6 78 ES: 0.10; r:
0.97
2-point 308 6 99
Although the multiple-point method considered all the loads or velocities applied, the 2-point method used only the 2 most distant loads or
velocities.

1RM 5 1 repetition maximum; CMJ 5 countermovement jump; CV 5 coefficient of variation; ES 5 effect size (multiple-point22-point/[SDboth]);
ICC 5 intraclass correlation coefficient; r 5 Pearson’s correlation coefficient.

8 VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2017

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
reduce the precision of the F-V assess- prepare the subjects to develop their periods, strength and conditioning pro-
ment. This statement is supported by fullest potential with the 2 loads (or 2 fessionals must ensure that the subjects
Garcı́a-Ramos et al. (19) who revealed velocities) required for the application are in optimal condition to perform the
a gradual decrease in the reliability of of the 2-point method and to minimize tasks to their fullest potential in all
the velocity output associated with the the risk of injury. To potentiate the repetitions.
increment of the resistance in the leg subjects, the warm-up should include
cycle ergometer exercise. Namely, the repetitions with loads similar or even Type of variable. The averaged and
reliability of the highest resistance was higher than the heavier load used in maximum values of force and velocity
markedly lower than the one observed the F-V and L-V tests. have been used to determine the F-V
for the remaining resistances tested. As and L-V relationships (13,18). Regard-
a consequence, when the highest resis- Sequence of the loads. Presumably, if ing the use of the L-V relationship to
tance was considered for the construc- an appropriate warm-up is conducted, predict the 1RM, we recommend the
tion of the 2-point method, it revealed the order of application of the 2 loads use of the averaged values because the
lower reliability of the F-V relationship should not considerably influence the average velocity of the 1RM trial has
parameters compared with using the outcomes of the F-V and L-V relation- proven to be relatively stable for a given
second highest resistance. ships. This opinion is supported by dif- exercise (24,35,40,50). The variability
Although the implications of the find- ferent studies that have accurately of the maximum velocity at the 1RM
ings presented in this section regarding determined the F-V relationship with remains virtually unexplored. The sta-
the selection of the farthest data points a randomized order of the loads bility of the velocity of the 1RM allows
and proximity of the points to the axis (20,32,53,57). Although an incremental estimation of the 1RM value from the
intercepts may generally stand, the order of the loads has been typically 2-point method (see next section for
optimum selection of the data points used to assess the L-V relationship further details). However, less conclu-
(i.e., the 2 loads or 2 velocities) should (18,24), we believe that this is not nec- sive data exist regarding the preferred
be specifically assessed for each task essary when implementing the 2-point variable to determine the F-V relation-
because the individual reliability of the method to predict the 1RM. ship. Garcı́a-Ramos et al. (13) reported
2 experimental points may markedly significantly lower linearity and reli-
compromise the precision of the F-V Number of trials. Two trials should be ability of the F-V relationship when ob-
relationship. Although no previous recommended for each load or veloc- tained from the averaged than from the
study has examined the optimal selec- ity condition. However, when more maximum values of force and velocity
tion of the 2 points for modeling the L- than a 10% difference is obtained in the squat jump, but no differences
V relationship to predict the 1RM, we between both trials, an extra repetition were observed in the countermove-
recommend using 2 distant loads repre- should be performed and the most ment jump. The assessment of the
senting approximately 40–50% and 70– extreme value discarded (22). Accord- averaged values could also be compro-
80% of self-reported 1RM. The use of 2 ing to the most commonly applied pro- mised when obtained by linear en-
close loads should be avoided because it cedures, the trial with the highest coders during ballistic resistance
may result in a regression equation with velocity or force with each load or training exercises because they cannot
large error. It is also important to note velocity, respectively, should be used accurately determine the end of the
that although the precision in the pre- for the modeling of the relationships concentric phase (29). In this regard,
diction of the 1RM could be improved (25,32,43). However, further studies the optimal variable to determine the
when the heavy load is close to the need to be conducted to further evalu- F-V relationship may depend on both
1RM, the proposed advantages of using ate this problem. the tested task and the measurement
submaximal loads to predict the 1RM tool used to collect the force and veloc-
could be compromised if the loads near Rest between trials. Adequate rest in- ity data. Therefore, more research re-
the maximum ones are required for the tervals are required to minimize fatigue mains to be conducted to clarify this
prediction (4). Future studies are needed and maximize the performance. The issue. So far, we can only generally rec-
to confirm the suitability of these rec- rest between trials may differ across ommend the use of the variable type
ommendations to predict the 1RM. the tasks. For instance, while 15–45 that maximizes the relationship linear-
seconds could be enough in the bench ity because it should also maximize the
TESTING PROCEDURES press exercise (16,57), but longer rest reliability of the F-V parameters (13).
Several methodological points should periods could be needed in more
be considered for the routine testing of fatiguing tasks such as the leg cycle ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
the F-V and L-V relationships through ergometer exercise (20,57). In addition, OF THE RESULTS
the 2-point method: longer rest intervals could also be Two straightforward examples regard-
needed when lifting heavy loads com- ing how the F-V and L-V relationships
Warm-up. The warm-up procedure pared with light loads (24). Rather than can be quickly analyzed within an
should be demanding enough to focusing on implementing fixed rest Excel spreadsheet are provided in this

9
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Two-Point Method: Assessment of Muscle Capacities and 1RM

cells (i.e., body mass, push-off distance,


external load, system mass, and jump
height) could be deleted.

L-V relationship. Figure 3 depicts the F3


Excel spreadsheet customized to pre-
dict the 1RM through the modeling of
the individual L-V relationship ob-
tained from the velocity recorded
against 2 different external loads (i.e.,
the 2-point method). The first step is to
Figure 2. Image of the custom Excel spreadsheet used to determine the F-V put in both the magnitude of the 2
relationship parameters through the application of the 2-point method. external loads and the mean velocity
The Excel cells in black are the ones that should be filled by the evaluator, reached against them. Afterward, the
whereas the remaining cells are automatically completed according to the evaluator should also indicate the slope
equations provided by Samozino et al. (47) (mean velocity and mean force) and the load axis intercept of the line
and the equations derived from the F-V relationship (maximum velocity 5 drawn through the 2 points. The veloc-
38.131/12.574; maximum power 5 38.131 3 3.033/4).
ity of the 1RM is set at 0.17 m$s21
based on previous studies conducted
section. The spreadsheets would pro- means of more economical and practi- on the bench press exercise
vide prompt feedback information to cal devices (1,32). (24,35,40,50). However, note that the
strength and conditioning professio- An image of the Excel spreadsheet cus- velocity of the 1RM is
nals that can be directly used to design tomized to determine the F-V relation- exercise-dependent (7,50), and there-
and monitor the resistance training. ship parameters is presented in fore, this value should be modified
Figure 2. The system mass is calculated accordingly to the exercise evaluated.
as the sum of body mass and external An almost perfect concurrent validity
F-V relationship. The equations pro-
posed by Samozino et al. (47) were load. Mean velocity and mean force are (trivial effect sizes [from 0.02 to 0.17]
used to estimate the mean values of calculated using the equations proposed and very high correlations [r ranged
force and velocity under 2 loading con- by Samozino et al. (47). Finally, the from 0.96 to 0.98]) of the bench press
ditions: (a) unloaded squat jump and maximum velocity and maximum 1RM predicted by the 2-point method
(b) the squat jump overloaded by 60 power capacities are calculated as has been reported with respect to the
kg. Samozino’s equations (47) require V0 5 F0/a and P0 5 F0$V0/4, respec- directly measured 1RM (14). Note also
only 3 simple input variables: system tively. It should be noted that the same that the validity of the 2-point method
mass (i.e., the sum of body mass and spreadsheet can be used when the force here was higher than the 1RM predic-
external load in kg), jump height (m), and velocity data are directly obtained tion from the generalized group equa-
and push-off distance (m). In the exam- by other measurement tools, such as tions proposed by González-Badillo
F2 ple provided in Figure 2, jump height force platforms, linear encoders, cycle and Sánchez-Medina (24). These re-
was determined from a force platform ergometers, or isokinetic devices. In that sults specifically support the use of
recording of the flight time, but it case, the evaluator would need to indi- the 2-point method to predict the
should be noted that the flight time cate the force and velocity data in their 1RM. However, future studies should
can also be accurately measured by examine whether the 2-point method
respective cells, whereas the remaining
can also accurately predict the 1RM in
other basic resistance training exercises
(e.g., squat, leg press, bench pull, pull-
up, shoulder military press, etc.).

MEASUREMENT TOOLS
A variety of devices such as force plat-
forms (9,13,33), linear position trans-
ducers (15,44), contact platforms
(22,32), motorized treadmills (12,30),
Figure 3. Image of the custom Excel spreadsheet used to determine the 1RM through isokinetic equipment (25), cycle ergo-
the application of the 2-point method. The Excel cells in black are the ones meters (20,54), accelerometers (21,45),
that should be filled by the evaluator, whereas the remaining cells are or mobile applications (1,3) have been
automatically completed according to the following equitation: 1RM used to determine the F-V relationship
estimated (kg) 5 254.64 3 0.17 + 98.86. from a variety of functional tasks. The

10 VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2017


Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
vertical jump is commonly used to modeling of the force and velocity data training exercises. The recommenda-
explore the F-V relationship of lower- collected under 2 different mechanical tions provided for the assessment of
body muscles (9,13,32,33,46,48). conditions. Although generalized the F-V relationship regarding the
Although force platforms are consid- group equations have been proposed warm-up, sequence of the loads, num-
ered the gold-standard for testing the to estimate the 1RM from the velocity ber of trials, and rest between trials
F-V relationship during vertical jumps recorded against a single loading con- are also applicable to the L-V relation-
(9,21,29), their use are restricted to lab- dition, these equations provide a less ship. The available data encourage the
oratory conditions. More practical and accurate estimation of the 1RM than use of averaged over the maximum
cost-effective devices (e.g., linear posi- the 2-point method because they do velocity values because of higher lin-
tion transducers, accelerometers, and not take into account the between- earity of the L-V relationship and their
mobile apps) or simple field methods subjects differences in the load- more stable velocity of the 1RM for
(45,47) can be routinely used by velocity profile. Therefore, the a given exercise. The application of
strength and conditioning professio- 2-point method represents a worthy the 2-point method to predict the
nals to assess the F-V relationship at approach for both the routine testing 1RM requires 3 simple steps: (a) to
a training venue. For instance, based of muscle mechanical capacities set the task specific velocity of the
on Samozino’s equations (47) and the through the F-V relationship and for 1RM preferably recorded in previous
proposed optimal F-V profile (48), “My predicting the 1RM through the L-V studies, (b) record the mean velocity
Jump 2” is a recently validated mobile relationship. The use of the 2-point against 2 different external loads rep-
application that can be used to assess method is justified by the high linearity resenting approximately 50 and 80%
the F-V relationship during vertical of the F-V and L-V relationships. A of self-reported 1RM, and (c) model
jumps (1). number of specific recommendations the individual load-velocity relation-
Linear position transducers are the that may help strength and condition- ship through these 2 points and deter-
gold-standard for assessing L-V rela- ing professionals to implement the mine the 1RM as the load associated
tionships during resistance training ex- 2-point method are provided below. with the already set velocity of
ercises (26). Although they are less the 1RM.
expensive than force platforms, their FORCE-VELOCITY RELATIONSHIP
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:
price can also limit their use by It is recommended that 2-point The authors report no conflicts of interest
strength and conditioning professio- method is based on 2 distant points, and no source of funding. AU4
nals. Although the accuracy of acceler- where 1 point should be located close
ometers to measure movement to the force intercept and another 1
velocity has been questioned (5), the close to the velocity intercept. How- Amador
high speed video cameras of the cur- ever, the extreme points may need to Garcia-Ramos
rent mobile phones can be used for that be avoided in some tests because of is a postdoctoral
purpose. For instance, a mobile appli- their lower reliability. A low reliability researcher at
cation named “PowerLift” has been of one of the experimental points may University of
recently validated to record the veloc- compromise the accuracy of the Granada, with
ity of the barbell in the bench press 2-point method. The sequence of adjunct position
exercise and, consequently, to predict application of the 2 loads/velocities at the Catholic
the 1RM from the individual L-V rela- should not meaningfully influence the University of the
tionship (3). outcomes of the F-V relationship if an Most Holy
appropriate warm-up procedure is Conception. AU6
CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL conducted. Between 2 and 3 repeti-
APPLICATIONS tions should be performed with each AU5
It should be acknowledged that the 2- load, while providing time for full
point method is a longer procedure recovery between each trial. Finally, Slobodan Jaric
than standard tests typically conducted the appropriateness of the selection is professor at
under a single mechanical condition. of maximum or average values for the University of
However, the addition of just 1 more F-V modeling should be assessed for Delaware, with
mechanical condition to the standard each task. We recommend the use of adjunct positions
test provides outcomes of higher infor- the type of variable that maximizes the at University of
mative value. Namely, although the linearity of the F-V relationship. Belgrade, and
standard test is not able to determine The Jerzy Ku-
the distinctive capacities of the LOAD-VELOCITY RELATIONSHIP kuczka Academy
muscles to produce force, velocity, The 2-point method could also be of Physical Edu-
and power, the 2-point method allows a quick and valid procedure to predict cation in
to assess these capacities through the the 1RM in different resistance Katowice.

11
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Two-Point Method: Assessment of Muscle Capacities and 1RM

REFERENCES 12. Dobrijevic S, Ilic V, Djuric S, and Jaric S. 22. Giroux C, Rabita G, Chollet D, and
1. Balsalobre-Fernandez C, Glaister M, and Force-velocity relationship of leg muscles Guilhem G. Optimal balance between
Lockey RA. The validity and reliability of an assessed with motorized treadmill tests: force and velocity differs among world-
iPhone app for measuring vertical jump Two-velocity method. Gait Posture 56: 60– class athletes. J Appl Biomech 32: 59–68,
performance. J Sports Sci 33: 64, 2017. 2016.
1574–1579, 2015. 13. Garcia-Ramos A, Feriche B, Perez-Castilla 23. González-Badillo JJ, Marques MC, and
2. Balsalobre-Fernández C, Kuzdub M, A, Padial P, and Jaric S. Assessment of leg Sánchez-Medina L. The importance of
Poveda-Ortiz P, and Campo-Vecino JD. muscles mechanical capacities: Which movement velocity as a measure to control
Validity and reliability of the push wearable jump, loading, and variable type provide the resistance training intensity. J Hum Kinet
device to measure movement velocity most reliable outcomes? Eur J Sport Sci 29: 15–19, 2011.
during the back squat exercise. J Strength 17: 690–698, 2017.
24. González-Badillo JJ and Sánchez-Medina
Cond Res 30: 1968–1974, 2016. 14. Garcia-Ramos A, Haff GG, Pestana-Melero L. Movement velocity as a measure of
3. Balsalobre-Fernández C, Marchante D, FL, Perez-Castilla A, Rojas FJ, Balsalobre- loading intensity in resistance training. Int J
Muñoz-López M, and Jiménez SL. Validity Fernandez C, and Jaric S. Feasibility of the Sports Med 31: 347–352, 2010.
and reliability of a novel iPhone app for the two-point method for determining the one-
25. Grbic V, Djuric S, Knezevic O, Mirkov D,
measurement of barbell velocity and 1RM repetition maximum in the bench press
Nedeljkovic A, and Jaric S. A novel two-
on the bench-press exercise. J Sports Sci, exercise. Int J Sports Physiol Perform,
velocity method for elaborate isokinetic
AU7 2017 [Epub ahead of print]. 2017 [Epub ahead of print].
testing of knee extensors. Int J Sports Med
4. Banyard HG, Nosaka K, and Haff GG. 15. Garcia-Ramos A, Jaric S, Padial P, and 38: 741–746, 2017.
Reliability and validity of the load-velocity Feriche B. Force-velocity relationship of
26. Harris NK, Cronin J, Taylor KL, Boris J, and
relationship to predict the 1RM back squat. upper-body muscles: Traditional vs.
Sheppard J. Understanding position
J Strength Cond Res 31: 1897–1904, ballistic bench press. J Appl Biomech 32:
transducer technology for strength and
2017. 178–185, 2016.
conditioning practitioners. Strength Cond J
5. Banyard HG, Nosaka K, Sato K, and Haff 16. Garcı́a-Ramos A, Padial P, Haff GG, 32: 66–79, 2010.
G. Validity of various methods for Argüelles-Cienfuegos J, Garcı́a-Ramos M,
27. Jaric S. Force-velocity relationship of
determining velocity, force and power in the Conde-Pipó J, and Feriche B. Effect of
muscles performing multi-joint maximum
back squat. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, different interrepetition rest periods on
performance tasks. Int J Sports Med 36:
2017 [Epub ahead of print]. barbell velocity loss during the ballistic
699–704, 2015.
bench press exercise. J Strength Cond
6. Bobbert MF. Why is the force-velocity Res 29: 2388–2396, 2015. 28. Jaric S. Two-load method for distinguishing
relationship in leg press tasks quasi-linear between muscle force, velocity, and power-
17. Garcı́a-Ramos A, Pestaña-Melero F, Pérez-
rather than hyperbolic? J Appl Physiol 112: producing capacities. Sports Med 46:
Castilla A, Rojas F, and Haff G. Differences
1975–1983, 2012. 1585–1589, 2016.
in the load-velocity profile between four
7. Conceição F, Fernandes J, Lewis M, bench press variants. Int J Sport Physiol 29. Jaric S and Garcia Ramos A. Letter to the
Gonzaléz-Badillo JJ, and Jimenéz-Reyes P. Perform, 2017 [Epub ahead of print]. editor concerning the article “Bar velocities
Movement velocity as a measure of capable of optimising the muscle power in
18. Garcı́a-Ramos A, Pestaña-Melero F, Pérez-
exercise intensity in three lower limb strength-power exercises” by Loturco,
Castilla A, Rojas F, and Haff GG. Mean
exercises. J Sports Sci 34: 1099–1106, Pereira, Abad, Tabares, Moraes, Kobal,
velocity vs. mean propulsive velocity vs.
2016. Kitamura & Nakamura (2017). J Sports Sci,
peak velocity: Which variable determines
8. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, and Newton RU. 2017 [Epub ahead of print].
bench press relative load with higher
Adaptations in athletic performance after reliability? J Strength Cond Res, 2017 30. Jaskólska A, Goossens P, Veenstra B,
ballistic power versus strength training. [Epub ahead of print]. Jaskólski A, and Skinner J. Comparison of
Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1582–1598, treadmill and cycle ergometer
19. Garcı́a-Ramos A, Torrejón A, Morales-
2010. measurements of force-velocity
Artacho A, Pérez-Castilla A, and Jaric S.
9. Cuk I, Markovic M, Nedeljkovic A, relationships and power output. Int J
Optimal resistive forces for maximizing the
Ugarkovic D, Kukolj M, and Jaric S. Force- Sports Med 20: 192–197, 1999.
reliability of leg muscles capacities tested
velocity relationship of leg extensors on a cycle ergometer. J Appl Biomech, 31. Jidovtseff B, Harris NK, Crielaard JM, and
obtained from loaded and unloaded vertical 2017 [Epub ahead of print]. Cronin JB. Using the load-velocity
jumps. Eur J Appl Physiol 114: 1703– relationship for 1RM prediction. J Strength
20. Garcı́a-Ramos A, Torrejón A, Pérez-Castilla
1714, 2014. Cond Res 25: 267–270, 2011.
A, Morales-Artacho A, and Jaric S.
10. Cuk I, Mirkov D, Nedeljkovic A, Kukolj M, Selective changes on the mechanical 32. Jiménez-Reyes P, Samozino P, Brughelli M,
Ugarkovic D, and Jaric S. Force-velocity capacities of lower body muscles after and Morin JB. Effectiveness of an
property of leg muscles in individuals of a cycle ergometer sprint training against individualized training based on force-
different level of physical fitness. Sport heavy and light resistances. Int J Sport velocity profiling during jumping. Front
Biomech 15: 207–219, 2016. Physiol Perform, 2017 [Epub ahead of Physiol 7: 677, 2017.
11. Djuric S, Cuk I, Sreckovic S, Mirkov D, print]. 33. Jiménez-Reyes P, Samozino P, Cuadrado-
Nedeljkovic A, and Jaric S. Selective 21. Giroux C, Rabita G, Chollet D, and Peñafiel V, Conceição F, González-Badillo
effects of training against weight and Guilhem G. What is the best method for JJ, and Morin JB. Effect of
inertia on muscle mechanical properties. assessing lower limb force-velocity countermovement on power-force-velocity
Int J Sports Physiol Perform 11: 927–932, relationship? Int J Sports Med 36: 143– profile. Eur J Appl Physiol 114: 2281–
2016. 149, 2014. 2288, 2014.

12 VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2017


Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
34. Jovanonic M and Flanagan EP. Researched KJ and Juras G, eds. Katowice, Polland: ballistic push-off. Med Sci Sports Exerc 46:
applications of velocity based strength 2016. pp. 219–225. 107–114, 2014. AU8
training. J Aust Strength Cond 22: 58–69, 42. Pérez-Castilla A, Garcı́a-Ramos A, Padial 50. Sánchez-Medina L, González-Badillo JJ,
2014. P, Morales-Artacho A, and Feriche B. Load- Pérez CE, and Pallarés JG. Velocity- and
35. Loturco I, Kobal R, Moraes JE, Kitamura K, velocity relationship in variations of the half- power-load relationships of the bench pull
Cal Abad CC, Pereira LA, and Nakamura squat exercise: Influence of execution vs. bench press exercises. Int J Sports Med
FY. Predicting the maximum dynamic technique. J Strength Cond Res, 2017 35: 209–216, 2014.
strength in bench-press: The high-precision [Epub ahead of print]. 51. Sánchez-Moreno M, Rodrı́guez-Rosell D,
of the bar-velocity approach. J Strength 43. Pérez-Castilla A, Jaric S, Feriche B, Padial Pareja-Blanco F, Mora-Custodio R, and
Cond Res 31: 1127–1231, 2017. P, and Garcı́a-Ramos A. Evaluation of González-Badillo JJ. Movement velocity as
36. Mann J, Ivey P, and Sayers S. Velocity- muscle mechanical capacities through the indicator of relative intensity and level of
based training in football. Strength Cond J two-load method: Optimization of the load effort attained during the set in pull-up
37: 52–57, 2015. selection. J Strength Cond Res, 2017 exercise. Int J Sports Physiol Perform,
[Epub ahead of print]. 2017 [Epub ahead of print].
37. Morin JB and Samozino P. Interpreting
power-force-velocity profiles for 44. Picerno P, Iannetta D, Comotto S, 52. Soriano MA, Jimenez-Reyes P, Rhea MR,
individualized and specific training. Int J Donati M, Pecoraro F, Zok M, Tollis G, and Marin PJ. The optimal load for maximal
Sports Physiol Perform 11: 267–272, Figura M, Varalda C, Di Muzio D, Patrizio power production during lower-body
2016. F, and Piacentini MF. 1RM prediction: A resistance exercises: A meta-analysis.
novel methodology based on the force- Sports Med 45: 1191–1205, 2015.
38. Moss BM, Refsnes PE, Abildgaard A,
velocity and load-velocity relationships. 53. Sreckovic S, Cuk I, Djuric S, Nedeljkovic A,
Nicolaysen K, and Jensen J. Effects of
Eur J Appl Physiol 116: 2035–2043, Mirkov D, and Jaric S. Evaluation of force-
maximal effort strength training with
2016. velocity and power-velocity relationship of
different loads on dynamic strength, cross-
sectional area, load-power and load- 45. Rahmani A, Samozino P, Morin JB, and arm muscles. Eur J Appl Physiol 115:
velocity relationships. Eur J Appl Physiol Morel B. A simple method for assessing 1779–1787, 2015.
Occup Physiol 75: 193–199, 1997. upper limb force-velocity profile in bench 54. Vandewalle H, Peres G, Heller J, Panel J,
press. Int J Sports Physiol Perform: 1–23, and Monod H. Force-velocity relationship
39. Muñoz-Lopez M, Marchante D, Cano-Ruiz
2017 [Epub ahead of print]. and maximal power on a cycle ergometer—
MA, Chicharro JL, and Balsalobre-
Fernandez C. Load, force and power- 46. Samozino P, Edouard P, Sangnier S, Correlation with the height of a vertical
velocity relationships in the prone pull-up Brughelli M, Gimenez P, and Morin JB. jump. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol
exercise. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, Force-velocity profile: Imbalance 56: 650–656, 1987.
2017 [Epub ahead of print]. determination and effect on lower limb 55. Vandewalle H, Peres G, and Monod H.
ballistic performance. Int J Sports Med 35: Standard anaerobic exercise tests. Sports
40. Pallarés JG, Sánchez-Medina L, Pérez CE,
505–510, 2014. Med 4: 268–289, 1987.
De La Cruz-Sánchez E, and Mora-
Rodriguez R. Imposing a pause between 47. Samozino P, Morin JB, Hintzy F, and Belli A. 56. Yamauchi J, Mishima C, Nakayama S, and
the eccentric and concentric phases A simple method for measuring force, Ishii N. Force-velocity, force-power
increases the reliability of isoinertial velocity and power output during squat relationships of bilateral and unilateral leg
strength assessments. J Sports Sci 32: jump. J Biomech 41: 2940–2945, 2008. multi-joint movements in young and elderly
1165–1175, 2014. 48. Samozino P, Rejc E, Di Prampero PE, Belli women. J Biomech 42: 2151–2157,
41. Pérez-Castilla A, Garcı́a-Ramos A, Feriche A, and Morin JB. Optimal force-velocity 2009.
B, Padial P, and Jaric S. Reliability and profile in ballistic movements-Altius: Citius 57. Zivkovic MZ, Djuric S, Cuk I, Suzovic D,
validity of the “two-load method” to or Fortius? Med Sci Sports Exerc 44: 313– and Jaric S. A simple method for
determine leg extensors maximal 322, 2012. assessment of muscle force, velocity, and
mechanical capacities. In: Current 49. Samozino P, Rejc E, Di Prampero PE, Belli power producing capacities from
Research in Motor Control V. Bridging A, and Morin JB. Force-velocity properties’ functional movement tasks. J Sports Sci
Motor Control and Biomechanics. Stomka contribution to bilateral deficit during 35: 1287–1293, 2017.

13
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

View publication stats