Eur J Appl Physiol (2008) 102:299–305
DOI 10.1007/s00421-007-0585-6
O R I G I N A L A R T I CL E
Peak lifting velocities of men and women for the reduced inertia
squat exercise using force control
David C. Paulus · Raoul F. Reiser II · Wade O. Troxell
Accepted: 24 September 2007 / Published online: 13 October 2007
© Springer-Verlag 2007
Abstract The purpose of the research was to determine
peak velocities for the reduced inertia squat exercise at
various resistance levels based on an isometric strength
assessment for both men and women. On a Smith machine
modiWed for pneumatic resistance, 12 males and 12 females
previously trained college-age participants performed a
maximal isometric strength assessment with knee angles of
90°, 110°, 130°, 150° and 170° (180° = full extension) fol-
lowed by dynamic maximal eVort squats with resistance
maintained at 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80% of their lowest maxi-
mum isometric strength. No interaction existed between the
men and women during isometric strength tests with the
men stronger in every joint position (P < 0.05). The lowest
isometric strength occurred at 90° without variation. There
was an interaction between men and women for peak lifting
velocity during the dynamic lifts (P = 0.021) with the men
producing higher velocities at all levels of resistance
(P < 0.05). The diVerence in peak velocity between the
sexes was greatest at the lowest resistance level and that
diVerence was less signiWcant at the higher resistance lev-
els. The relationship between resistance force and peak lift-
ing velocity is applicable to increasing the eYciency of the
D. C. Paulus (&)
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Arkansas-Fort Smith, P.O. Box 3649,
Fort Smith, AR 72913-3649, USA
e-mail: dpaulus@uafortsmith.edu
R. F. Reiser II
Department of Health and Exercise Science,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
W. O. Troxell
OYce of the Dean of Engineering,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
squat by maximizing force output per repetition by varying
the resistance as the lifter approaches peak velocity similar
to isokinetics with preloading and active instead of reactive
resistance.
Keywords Force · Peak velocity · Squat · Isometric ·
Sex diVerences
Introduction
In order to improve the eYciency of a workout program,
exercises are often chosen that target more than one muscle
group. Based on the speciWcity principle, it is also ideal if
the exercise replicates the motion for which improvements
in performance are desired (Harman 2000). As a result, a
common exercise for increasing strength and/or power of
the lower extremities and back is the squat exercise (Abel-
beck 2002). The squat stresses the low-back, hip, and knee
extensors as well as the ankle plantarXexors in a coordi-
nated multi-joint manner similar to rising from a chair,
climbing a set of stairs, or propelling oneself upward during
a vertical jump.
During the traditional free-weight squat exercise, the
weighted barbell provides an external resistance to the
shoulders. In order for the lifter to accelerate this mass from
rest, he/she must exert a force greater than that of the
loaded barbell. The reaction force the barbell exerts on the
shoulders will equal the weight of the barbell plus (or
minus) an inertial force. This inertial force is the product of
the mass of the barbell and its acceleration. The accelera-
tion is not constant during the concentric phase of the exer-
cise; it is positive (upward) as the barbell is accelerated
from rest until a peak velocity is reached, and the accelera-
tion is negative (downward) as the barbell “decelerates”
123
300
back to rest. Hence, the total force at the shoulders will ini-
tially be greater than the weight of the barbell followed by a
period where it is less than the weight on the barbell. At the
completion of the exercise, the acceleration is zero, and the
external force is equal to the weight of the barbell. Because
the acceleration of the lift dictates the Xuctuation in force,
the magnitude of the force required to reach a peak velocity
is proportionally reduced while returning the barbell back
to rest. As a result of these requirements, the applied force
may not be optimal throughout the entire range of motion
of the exercise.
One potential modiWcation that could be performed is to
jump at the end of the exercise. This would allow for
greater force production over a greater range of motion
(ROM) than the traditional exercise (Newton et al. 1996).
However, it may also be more dangerous, because a landing
phase is added where not only the lifter, but also the bar-
bell, must be brought safely back to a resting position.
Alternately, specialized equipment (MAX, ProSpot Fitness,
Lawrenceville, GA, USA) could be utilized to avoid danger
during landing.
With the advancement of technology, the squat may now
be performed using a computer controlled application of
force instead of mass. A common form of this is the isoki-
netic exercise which involves working against an accom-
modating reaction resistance with an upper limit set on
velocity that the user cannot exceed (Potach and Borden
2000). While this application addresses the reduced force
limitation during the second half of a traditional weight
loaded exercise, the range of motion spent accelerating
from rest to the set velocity is virtually unresisted, and the
muscles are not pre-loaded. Research shows that this lack
of load prior to muscle action retards strength development
(Hunter and Culpepper 1995; Kovaleski et al. 1995).
The squat exercise has an ascending strength curve.
That means that more weight could be lifted if the last half
or quarter of a repetition is performed instead of the com-
plete ROM (Fleck and Kraemer 2004). In an attempt to
match the increase or decrease in strength (strength curve)
throughout the ROM, exercise equipment manufacturers
have created variable resistance with lever arms, cams,
spring-type resistance bands, or pulley arrangements to
force the muscle to contract near maximally throughout
the ROM to yield maximal strength gains. However,
because of variations in limb length, the point of attach-
ment of the muscle’s tendons to the bones, and torso size
none of the mechanical arrangements successfully match
all individuals’ strength curves for a particular exercise
(Fleck and Kraemer 2004). Thus, the resistance level
would need to vary according to a parameter other than a
Wxed cam-like proportion that is based on the force–dis-
placement relationship to match each individual’s strength
capacity.
123
Eur J Appl Physiol (2008) 102:299–305
Another possibility is to maintain a constant level of
resistance by means other than lifting a mass while allow-
ing the lifter to change the velocity as his/her changing bio-
mechanics allows. This would allow the person to exert
maximally during the initial stages of the exercise, poten-
tially improving the person’s ability to produce force at
high velocities while at the same time provide a second half
to the repetition where force is not solely dictated by iner-
tial requirements. Pneumatic resistance is an option to min-
imize these inertial eVects, and it also has the potential for
instantaneous load changes by increasing or decreasing the
resistance pressure to create variable resistance as found in
isokinetics. Pneumatic resistance also incorporates preload-
ing with active loading rather than reactive resistance. As a
result, this may be a highly eYcient training method that is
very realistic to activities of sport and daily living. Further-
more, since power is expected to be increased by such a
modality, and power has been found to be critically impor-
tant for the elderly in preventing falls (Skelton et al. 2002),
there may be a very broad appeal to use reduced inertia
controllable resistance exercise for those interested in
eYcient strength gains regardless of age or athletic ability
and objective.
In order to determine the eVectiveness of force con-
trolled exercise, a variety of studies will need to be per-
formed. One of the Wrst questions that need to be addressed
is related to level of eVort and obtainable peak velocities.
Since velocity is zero at the start and end of the lift, there
will be limits to how fast the barbell can be moved in
between. If the resistance level was to be varied instanta-
neously based on velocity, the resistance should be con-
trolled upon the approach of peak velocity for greater force
output before deceleration begins. Knowledge of the peak
velocity attainable with a particular resistance level could
be applied to future work in developing a control system
that can provide optimal resistance before deceleration
occurs. Therefore, the goal of this investigation was to
determine peak velocities of the reduced inertia squat using
force control. Force levels were based on an isometrically
obtained maximum strength. Furthermore, samples of both
sexes were examined to explore a possible diVerence in
characteristic proWle, as peak velocity with the speciWc
pneumatic resistance apparatus has not been published.
Methods
Subjects
After receiving university-approved informed consent, 12
men and 12 women [men: age = 20.3 § 2.1 years,
height = 181.8 § 8.3 cm, mass = 80.4 § 16.0 kg, BMI =
24.3 § 3.3 kg/m2; women: age = 21.0 § 2.2 years, height =
Eur J Appl Physiol (2008) 102:299–305
174.3 § 5.6 cm, mass = 71.4 § 16.4 kg, BMI = 25.6 §
5.2 kg/m2] completed the exercise protocol. Participants
were healthy, with no history of back pain or musculoskele-
tal condition that would compromise their abilities to per-
form the squat exercise, as self-reported in a health history
questionnaire. The only athletic criterion for participation
in the study was familiarity with the squat exercise by
incorporating it into previous resistance training programs.
Height and body mass were measured in bare feet.
Apparatus
A free-weight lifting cage and Smith attachment (NT1600/
1610, Nautilus, Inc., Louisville, CO, USA) designed for
performing linear motion squats was modiWed to provide
isometric as well as dynamic constant pneumatic resistance
(Paulus et al. 2004) (Fig. 1). A single pneumatic cylinder
was mounted above the Nautilus cage to provide resistance
to the barbell. The piston in the cylinder is equipped with a
magnet that is read by a linear position transducer. A veloc-
ity processor diVerentiates the position signal with time to
Fig. 1 Front view of the entire apparatus. The pneumatic cylinder and
valves are mounted above the Smith cage with the data collection com-
puter to the right
301
give the instantaneous velocity, and a data acquisition card
transfers the data to and from LabVIEW (National Instru-
ments Corporation, Austin, TX, USA) code with a sam-
pling frequency of 50 Hz. The data were digitally Wltered
with a LABView Mean Wlter to eliminate the eVect of a
very small voltage superimposed to the output of the trans-
ducer (Driss et al. 2002).
Technique
Before any data were collected, the participants were
instructed to warm-up on a recumbent exercise bike from 5
to 10 min with the intensity at the discretion of the subject
to prepare for maximal exertion. Each subject performed
the squat with his or her feet positioned such that the center
of gravity of the system was directly over his or her feet
resembling the normal barbell squat. A minimum of four
practice attempts for each lifting protocol were performed
to establish familiarity and complete their warm-up. Sub-
jects were given verbal encouragement to lift maximally
and were asked to judge if they exerted maximally after
each lift. If the response indicated that they could have tried
harder, another attempt was performed in place of the sub
maximal lift.
Isometric lifting protocol
Isometric strength was Wrst assessed with a series of two tri-
als of maximal isometric muscle actions with negligible
joint movement at each of the following knee angles: 90°,
110°, 130°, 150°, and 170° Xexion (180° = full extension).
The starting position was that of the traditional free-weight
barbell squat, and each subject exerted force with his or her
feet positioned such that the center of gravity of the system
was directly over his or her feet resembling the normal bar-
bell squat. A manual goniometer (Lafayette Instrument Co,
Inc., Lafayette, IN, USA) was used to measure each partici-
pant’s knee angle, and the barbell height was adjusted
accordingly such that the participant maintained the knee
angle with his or her body conWgured in the proper form
used during the squat exercise (Baechle and Earle 2000).
The mechanical stops of the Smith machine were moved to
support the barbell at the desired location. This way, the bar-
bell would not force the participant downward should the
subject lose his or her balance or need to stop for any reason.
Next, the cylinder was pressurized to the desired level
such that the barbell could be moved upward slightly to
accommodate for the compressibility of air, but less than
two centimeters. Then the cylinder was closed oV, the sub-
ject exerted maximally, using a safe building of eVort to
maximum and then slowly backing oV of maximum eVort
over a 5 s interval, and the peak force was recorded. After
the data point was taken, the cylinder pressure was relieved
123
302
and the barbell was moved to the next corresponding knee
angle. The subjects rested from 2 to 5 min between exer-
tions, the mechanical stops were set in place, and the proce-
dure was repeated. The isometric series was completed in
random order then repeated in reverse order. The peak force
at each knee angle was averaged between the two trials for
a representative value, and the maximal voluntary isometric
force (MVIF) was normalized by bodyweight plus the bar-
bell weight (9.32 N) for each knee angle.
Dynamic lifting protocol
The next repetitions were full range of motion squats at the
constant resistance levels of 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80% of the
weakest isometric exertion with two trials per resistance
level. The purpose of this series was to determine peak
velocities in the range of the subjects’ isometric strength
assessment. According to Tihanyi et al. (1985), four data
points are enough to generate the force–velocity (F–V)
curve. The mechanical stops were placed such that the bar-
bell would not drop below 90° knee Xexion as discussed for
the isometric series. The subjects were instructed to stand
beneath the barbell and support it with their shoulders as
they released the barbell hooks from the rack. They then
slowly lowered the barbell to the mechanical stops and
paused brieXy at the bottom. Each subject was instructed to
exert maximally such that they moved the barbell as quickly
as possible and to rack the barbell at the end of the lift. Con-
trolling deceleration at the top of the lift is not an issue since
pneumatic resistance has considerably less inertia such that
when the lifter stops pushing, the barbell stops moving. The
subjects rested 2–5 min between exertions. Each subject
performed several loaded and unloaded practice attempts at
his or her discretion until the subject indicated they were
prepared to perform the lift. Foot spacing was not assessed;
however, it was held constant between the tests.
The order of resistance level was randomly selected, and
then the series was repeated in reverse order. The two peak
velocities at each resistance level (Fig. 2) were then aver-
aged for a representative value.
Fig. 2 Exemplar velocity–time curve for one subject during the con-
centric (raising) portion of the lift. The peak velocity data point is
boxed
123
Eur J Appl Physiol (2008) 102:299–305
Statistical analyses
Intraclass correlation coeYcients were calculated between
the two trials for reliability testing. Age and anthropomet-
rics were compared across sex with independent t-tests. The
eVects of sex and condition (knee angle for isometric and
velocity for dynamic) were examined with a 2 £ 5
repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) per-
formed in SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sci-
ences, Chicago, IL, USA). The level of statistical
signiWcance was set at P < 0.05 for all statistical analysis. If
the interaction between sex and condition was found to be
signiWcant, then simple main eVects were analyzed to deter-
mine the diVerences between sex and conditions. If diVer-
ences were found across condition for each sex, then a post-
hoc, one-way repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni
conWdence interval adjustments were conducted to deter-
mine where the diVerences existed.
If the interaction between sex and condition was not found
to be signiWcant, but the main eVect for condition was signiW-
cant, then a post-hoc one-way repeated measures ANOVA
with Bonferroni conWdence level adjustment was conducted
to investigate the location of the diVerences in the whole
group. Regardless of the signiWcance of the interaction
between sex and condition, if the main eVect for sex was
found to be signiWcant, simple main eVects were conducted
to determine the condition(s) where diVerences occurred.
Results
The men were signiWcantly taller (P = 0.0008); however,
the men’s and women’s weight and BMI were not signiW-
cantly diVerent (P = 0.210 and 0.391, respectively). The
age of the men compared to the women was also not signiW-
cantly diVerent (P = 0.802).
Isometric results
The intraclass correlation coeYcients between the MVIF
recorded for the two trials per knee angle for the entire
group were 0.90–0.98 (Table 1) indicating the trial to trial
reliability of the data. The interaction between sex and iso-
metric force development per knee angle was not signiW-
cant (P = 0.536), but the main eVect for condition was
signiWcant (P = 0.001) (Fig. 3). The location of the diVer-
ences in the whole group reveal that the forces at 90° and
110° are signiWcantly diVerent from each other as well as
with those at 130°, 150°, and 170° (P · 0.02). However,
the forces at 130°, 150°, and 170° were not signiWcantly
diVerent from each other (P ¸ 0.097). The lowest MVIF
over the range of motion occurred at 90° knee Xexion angle
in every subject without variation.
Eur J Appl Physiol (2008) 102:299–305 303

Table 1 Intraclass correlation coeYcients between the two trials of

MVIF per knee angle
Knee Intraclass correlation
angle (°) coeYcient

90 0.98
110 0.93
130 0.91
150 0.90
170 0.92

Fig. 4 Peak velocity with diVerent loads set as percent MVIF with
men faster than the women at every level of eVort (P · 0.015) and a
signiWcant decrease in peak velocity as resistance level increased for
both the men and women (P < 0.001 each)

every level of eVort (P · 0.015). Assessing the eVects

across level of eVort showed a signiWcant decrease in peak
velocity as resistance level increased for both the men and
women (P < 0.001 each).

Discussion
Fig. 3 Maximal voluntary isometric force normalized by body weight
and barbell at diVerent knee angles (P < 0.05 at every point between The squat exercise exhibited an inverse relationship
the sexes). The forces at 90° and 110° are signiWcantly diVerent from
between peak velocity and resistance level. Such a relation-
each other as well as with those at 130°, 150°, and 170° (P · 0.02).
The forces at 130°, 150°, and 170° were not signiWcantly diVerent from ship agrees with Vanderwalle et al. (1987) and Driss et al.
each other (P ¸ 0.097) (2002) who found a linear relationship obtained during
cycling, another multi-articular movement. This relation-
ship between force and velocity was also found in studies
Dynamic results involving the squat exercise with dynamic constant external
resistance (Rahmani et al. 2001; Bosco et al. 1995; Zink
The intraclass correlation coeYcients between the peak et al. 2006; Cormie et al. 2007); Bosco et al. (1995)
velocities recorded for the two trials per resistance level for recorded average velocity with lifting masses set as per-
the entire group were 0.70–0.88 (Table 2). The ANOVA centage of body mass with 14 men and 7 women track and
revealed a signiWcant interaction existed between sex and Weld athletes, whereas Rahmani et al. (2001) recorded aver-
velocity during the dynamic trials (P = 0.021) (Fig. 4). The age velocity with each participant lifting absolute load
diVerence in peak velocity between the sexes was greatest increments using 15 international alpine skiing racers with-
at the lowest resistance level and that diVerence was less out specifying sex. Zink et al. (2006) and Cormie et al.
signiWcant at the higher resistance levels. The simple main (2007) recorded peak velocity reached while lifting a mass
eVects showed that men were faster than the women at as a percentage of 1RM, and both show an inverse relation-
ship such that as the resistance level increased the peak
Table 2 Intraclass correlation coeYcients between the two trials of velocity decreased, which agrees with the trends on Fig. 4.
peak velocity per resistance level which was set as percentage of weak- Kellis et al. (2005) also recorded barbell linear velocity
est MVIF which decreased signiWcantly with increasing external load.
Resistance Intraclass correlation Sex related diVerences exist that could account for the
MVIF (%) coeYcient diVerences in forces and velocities between the sexes includ-
ing muscle Wber cross-sectional area, Wber type ratios, and
40 0.83
hormonal diVerences. Although muscle Wbers in men and
50 0.87
women are similar in Wber-type distribution and histochemi-
60 0.88
cal characteristics, men tend to have larger muscle Wber
70 0.87
cross-sectional area than women (Miller et al. 1992) which
80 0.70
could account for men producing higher forces. However,

123
304
there is no diVerence between the sexes when comparing
strength relative to cross-sectional area, indicating muscle
quality is not speciWc to sex (Miller et al. 1992; Castro el
al.1995). In terms of absolute strength, women generally
have about two-thirds the strength of men (Lauback 1976),
but expressing strength relative to body weight, the lower-
body strength of women has been found to be similar to that
of men (Hurley and Hagberg 1998) which agrees with the
lack of interaction between sex and normalized MVIF.
It has been suggested that testosterone is more than an
anabolic agent and may cause a dramatic potentiation eVect
on neural factors and may favor the transition of type II
Wbers to more glycolitic proWles (for review, see Kraemer
1992). Because of this, Bosco (1995) speculates that the sex
diVerences observed from maximal knee extension velocity
might be strongly inXuenced by hormone diVerences such
that the adaptive changes of sex hormones were more pro-
nounced in the male compared to female athletes because
of the 5-year explosive and strength training history of the
subjects in the study. However, he concludes that hormone,
neuron and mechanical measurements should be combined
in future experiments to validate the hypothesis. The lack
of training history of the subjects is a limitation of the cur-
rent study and makes it diYcult to isolate one particular
variable such as adaptive changes of sex hormones as the
main cause of diVerence in results between the sexes. The
only requirement for participation in the study was famil-
iarity with the squat exercise by incorporating it into previ-
ous resistance training programs. Moreover, variability of
the results could have been reduced if all of the subjects had
similar training experience and Wtness levels.
Men producing higher velocities (and consequently
power) could also be related to muscle Wber type either by
having a higher ratio of type II (fast twitch) to type I (slow
twitch) Wbers or by having a larger cross sectional area of
type II Wbers. For example, women’s maximal power
(force £ velocity) output in absolute terms as well as relative
to muscle size is lower than men’s maximal power in some
physical tasks (Alway et al. 1989). The reason for this is not
fully understood, but it could be attributed to diVerences in
type I and type II muscle Wber cross sectional area and diVer-
ences in rate of force development between the sexes.
Women have a smaller cross-sectional area than males in
both type I and II muscle Wbers (Alway et al. 1989, 1992;
Miller et al. 1992; Ryushi et al. 1988; Staron et al. 2000)
with females’ type I Wbers closer to their male counterparts
in cross-section than are females’ type II Wbers. Also,
females’ type I Wbers can be equivalent or even larger in
cross-sectional area than their type II Wbers (Alway et al.
1989; Staron et al. 1989, 2000). The diVerence in women
having a smaller type II relative to type I muscle Wber area
could result in women producing lower velocity and power
output per cross sectional area than men (Alway 1989;
123
Eur J Appl Physiol (2008) 102:299–305
Staron et al. 1989, 1994). Also, Wber type aVects the rate of
force development which could aVect power output. There-
fore power development could be aVected by the Wndings
that the average woman’s skeletal muscles have a slower
rate of force development than the average man’s (Komi
and Karlsson 1978; Ryushi et al. 1988).
Although the men in the study were on average heavier
than the women, as would be expected, the variability of
body mass within the group prevented this parameter from
being statistically signiWcant. Both groups have high vari-
ability in weight leading to no statistical diVerence between
the groups. Body mass index is an alternative to body mass
for quantiWcation of subject characteristics. However, it has
its own limitations which include overestimating body fat
in very muscular people or underestimating body fat in
those of advanced age who have lost muscle mass. Over-
weight is deWned as a BMI of 25–29.9 kg/m2 and obesity as
BMI ¸ 30 kg/m2 (Vega and Jimenez 2004). Thirty-eight
percent of the human subjects that participated in this
research had a BMI greater than 25 kg/m2, and the remain-
der was within the normal range. In order to eliminate the
eVects of body weight, the results were normalized by body
weight plus the weight of the barbell to generalize the F–V
relationships since, in general, a heavier person is expected
to be stronger (Vega and Jimenez 2004). If the subjects
were slightly overweight because of body fat, the F–V rela-
tionship could be diVerent than that of a lean population.
Also, it should be noted that a t-test of BMI between the
sexes did not reveal a signiWcant diVerence, and the F–V
relationship could have variation if the diVerence in BMI
between the sexes was signiWcant.
In conclusion, peak velocities were recorded at various
resistance levels based on an isometrically obtained strength
assessment of the reduced inertia squat exercise for both men
and women. The results of this study are applicable to improv-
ing the eYciency of squat exercise by incorporating controlled
resistance based on velocity to maximize force output per rep-
etition while maintaining the preloading of free weights with-
out the inertial eVects that reduce force during deceleration.
Factors that still need to be addressed include developing a
control system along with the hardware capable of instanta-
neously varying the load as the lifter approaches peak veloc-
ity. Because of the interaction between sex and peak lifting
velocity, such control strategy development should take into
consideration the diVerences between the sexes.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by the Colorado
Space Consortium; NASA Space Grant (Grant # 532711).
References
Abelbeck KG (2002) Biomechanical model and evaluation of linear
motion squat type exercise. J Strength Cond Res 16(4):516–524
Eur J Appl Physiol (2008) 102:299–305
Alway SE, Grumbt WH, Gonyea WJ, Stary-Gundersen J (1989) Con-
trast in muscle and myoWbers of elite male and female bodybuild-
ers. J Appl Physiol 67:24–31
Alway SE, Grumbt WH, Stary-Gundersen J, Gonyea WJ (1992)
EVects of resistance training on elbow Xwxors of highly compet-
itive bodybuilders. J Appl Physiol 72:1512–1521
Baechle TR, Earle RW (2000) Resistance training and spotting tech-
niques. In: Baechle TR, Earle RW (eds) Essentials of strength
training and conditioning. Human Kinetics, Champaign, pp 345–
400
Bosco C, Belli A, Astrua M, Tihanyi J, Pozzo R, Kellis S, Tsarpela O,
Foti C, Manno R, Tranquilli C (1995) A dynamometer for evalu-
ation of dynamic muscle work. Eur J Appl Physiol 70:379–386
Castro M, McCann D, ShaVrath J, Adams W (1995) Peak torque per
unit cross-sectional area diVers between strength-training and un-
trained adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 27:397–403
Cormie P, McCaulley G, Triplett N, McBride J (2007) Optimal loading
for maximal power output during lower-body resistance exer-
cises. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39:340–349
Driss T, Vandewalle H, Le Chevalier JM, Monod H (2002) Force–
velocity relationship on a cycle ergometer and knee-extensor
strength indices. Can J Appl Physiol 27(3):250–262
Fleck SJ, Kraemer WJ (2004) Designing resistance training programs.
Human Kinetics, Champaign, pp 31–33
Harman E (2000) The biomechanics of resistance exercise. In: Baechle
TR, Earle RW (eds) Essentials of strength training and condition-
ing. Human Kinetics, Champaign, pp 25–55
Hunter GR, Culpepper MI (1995) Joint angle speciWcity of Wxed mass
versus hydraulic resistance knee Xexion training. J Strength Cond
Res 9(1):13–16
Hurley B, Hagberg J (1998) Optimizing health in older persons: aero-
bic or strength training? In: Holloszy J (ed) Exercise and sport sci-
ences reviews. Wilkins & Wilkins, Philidelphia, pp 61–89
Kellis E, Arampatzi F, Papadopoulos C (2005) Muscle co-activation
around the knee in drop jumping using the cocontraction index. J
Sports Sci 23(10):1045–1055
Komi PV, Karlsson J (1978) Skeletal muscle Wber types, enzyme activ-
ities and physical performance in young males and females. Acta
Physiol Scand 103:210–218
Kovaleski JE, Heitman RH, Trundle TL, Gilley WF (1995) Isotonic
preload versus isokinetic knee extension resistance training. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 27(6):895–899
Kraemer WJ (1992) Hormonal mechanisms related to the expression of
muscular strength and power. In: Komi PH (ed) Strength and
power in sport. ScientiWc Publications, Oxford, pp 64–67
Lauback L (1976) Comparative muscle strength of men and women: a
review of the literature. Aviat Space Environ Med 47:534–542
305
Miller A, MacDougall J, Tarnopolsky M, Sale D (1992) Gender diVer-
ences in strength and muscle Wber characteristics. Eur J Appl
Physiol 66:254–262
Newton RU, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K, Humphries BJ, Murphy AJ
(1996) Kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activation during explo-
sive upper body movements. J Appl Biomech 12:31–43
Paulus DC, Reiser RF, Troxell WO (2004) Pneumatic strength assess-
ment device: design and isometric measurement. Biomed Sci In-
strum 40:277–282
Potach H, Borden R (2000) Rehabilitation and reconditioning. In: Bae-
chle TR, Earle RW (eds) Essentials of strength training and con-
ditioning. Human Kinetics, Champaign, pp 529–545
Rahmani A, Viale F, Dalleau G, Lacour JR (2001) Force/velocity and
power/velocity relationships in squat exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol
83(3):227–332
Ryushi T, Hakkinen K, Kauhanen H. Komi PV (1988) Muscle Wber
characteristics, muscle cross-sectional area an d force production
in strength athletes, physically active males and females. Scand J
Sports Sci 10:7–15
Skelton DA, Kennedy J, Rutherford OM (2002) Explosive power and
asymmetry leg muscle function in frequent fallers and non-fallers
aged over 65. Age Ageing 31:119–125
Staron RS, Malicky ES, Falkel JE, Hagerman FC, Dudley GA (1989)
Muscle hypertrophy and fast Wber type conversions in heavy
resistance-trained women. Eur J Appl Physiol 60:71–79
Staron RS, Karapondo DL, Kraemer WJ, Fry AC, Gordon Se, Falkel
JE, Hagerman FC, Hikida RS (1994) Skeletal muscle adaptations
during the early phase of heavy-resistance training in men and
women. JAP 76:1247–1255
Staron RS, Murray TF, Gilders RM, Hagerman RC, Hikida RS, Ragg
KE (2000) InXuence of resistance training on serum lipid and
lipoprotein concentrations in young men and women. J Strength
Cond Res 14:37–44
Tihanyi J, Apor P, Petrekanits M (1985) Force-velocity-power charac-
teristics for extensors of lower extremities. Biomechanics IX-B.
University Park Press, Baltimore, pp 707–712
Vandewalle H, Peres G, Heller J, Panel J, Monod H (1987) Force/
velocity relationship and maximal power on a cycle ergomoter
correlation with the height of a vertical jump. Eur J Appl Physiol
56:650–656
Vega CL, Jimenez CE (2004) Clients with nutritional and metabolic
concerns. In: Baechle TR, Earle RW (eds) Essentials of personal
training. Human Kinetics, Champaign, pp 483–512I
Zink AJ, Perry AC, Robertson BL, Roach KE, Signorile JF (2006)
Peak power, ground reaction forces, and velocity during the squat
exercise performed at diVerent loads. J Strength Cond Res
20(3):658–664
123