Recent studies have brought new insights into the evaluation of power-force-velocity profiles in both ballistic push-offs (eg, jumps) and sprint movements. These are major physical components of performance in many sports, and the methods the authors developed and validated are based on data that are now rather simple to obtain in field conditions (eg, body mass, jump height, sprint times, or velocity). The promising aspect of these approaches is that they allow for more individualized and accurate evaluation, monitoring, and training practices, the success of which is highly dependent on the correct collection, generation, and interpretation of athletes’ mechanical outputs. The authors therefore wanted to provide a practical vade mecum to sports practitioners interested in implementing these power-force-velocity–profiling approaches. After providing a summary of theoretical and practical definitions for the main variables, the authors first detail how vertical profiling can be used to manage ballistic push-off performance, with emphasis on the concept of optimal force–velocity profile and the associated force–velocity imbalance. Furthermore, they discuss these same concepts with regard to horizontal profiling in the management of sprinting performance. These sections are illustrated by typical examples from the authors’ practice. Finally, they provide a practical and operational synthesis and outline future challenges that will help further develop these approaches.
Interpreting Power-Force-Velocity Profiles for Individualized and Specific Training
Jean-Benoît Morin and Pierre Samozino
Impairment of Sprint Mechanical Properties in an Actual Soccer Match: A Pilot Study
Ryu Nagahara, Jean-Benoit Morin, and Masaaki Koido
To assess soccer-specific impairment of mechanical properties in accelerated sprinting and its relation with activity profiles during an actual match.
Thirteen male field players completed 4 sprint measurements, wherein running speed was obtained using a laser distance-measurement system, before and after the 2 halves of 2 soccer matches. Macroscopic mechanical properties (theoretical maximal horizontal force [F0], maximal horizontal sprinting power [Pmax], and theoretical maximal sprinting velocity [V0]) during the 35-m sprint acceleration were calculated from speed–time data. Players’ activity profiles during the matches were collected using global positioning system units.
After the match, although F0 and Pmax did not significantly change, V0 was reduced (P = .038), and the magnitude of this reduction correlated with distance (positive) and number (negative) of high-speed running, number of running (negative), and other low-intensity activity distance (negative) during the match. Moreover, Pmax decreased immediately before the second half (P = .014).
The results suggest that soccer-specific fatigue probably impairs players’ maximal velocity capabilities more than their maximal horizontal force-production abilities at initial acceleration. Furthermore, long-distance running, especially at high speed, during the match may induce relatively large impairment of maximal velocity capabilities. In addition, the capability of producing maximal horizontal power during sprinting is presumably impaired during halftime of a soccer match with passive recovery. These findings could be useful for players and coaches aiming to train effectively to maintain sprinting performance throughout a soccer match when planning a training program.
The Elevated Track in Pole Vault: An Advantage During Run-Up?
Johan Cassirame, Hervé Sanchez, and Jean-Benoit Morin
Background: Approach speed is a major determinant of pole-vault performance. Athletic jump events such as long jump, triple jump, and pole vault can utilize an elevated track for the runway. Feedback from athletes indicates a benefit of using an elevated track on their results. However, there is no evidence that elevated tracks increase athletes’ performance. Purpose: To investigate the potential advantage of using an elevated track during elite pole-vault competitions on run-up speed parameters. Methods: Performance and run-up criteria (speed, stride rate, contact, and aerial time) were measured from 20 high-level male pole-vaulters during official competitions on either a regular or an elevated track. Parameters comparisons were made between both conditions, and run-up parameters were confronted to speed modification on the elevated track. Results: Statistical analyses indicated that for the elevated track, there was a small improvement in final speed (1.1%), stride rate (1.1%), and takeoff distance (3.1%) and a small reduction in aerial time (−1.9%). The study highlighted different individual responses depending on athletes’ capabilities. The authors noted that speed improvement was largely correlated with stride-rate improvement (r = .61) and contact-time reduction (r = −.51) for slower athletes. Conclusions: Elevated tracks can increase final approach speed in pole vault and positively influence performance. Interindividual responses were observed in these findings.
The Validity and Reliability of an iPhone App for Measuring Running Mechanics
Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández, Hovannes Agopyan, and Jean-Benoit Morin
The purpose of this investigation was to analyze the validity of an iPhone application (Runmatic) for measuring running mechanics. To do this, 96 steps from 12 different runs at speeds ranging from 2.77–5.55 m·s−1 were recorded simultaneously with Runmatic, as well as with an opto-electronic device installed on a motorized treadmill to measure the contact and aerial time of each step. Additionally, several running mechanics variables were calculated using the contact and aerial times measured, and previously validated equations. Several statistics were computed to test the validity and reliability of Runmatic in comparison with the opto-electronic device for the measurement of contact time, aerial time, vertical oscillation, leg stiffness, maximum relative force, and step frequency. The running mechanics values obtained with both the app and the opto-electronic device showed a high degree of correlation (r = .94–.99, p < .001). Moreover, there was very close agreement between instruments as revealed by the ICC (2,1) (ICC = 0.965–0.991). Finally, both Runmatic and the opto-electronic device showed almost identical reliability levels when measuring each set of 8 steps for every run recorded. In conclusion, Runmatic has been proven to be a highly reliable tool for measuring the running mechanics studied in this work.
Etiology of Neuromuscular Fatigue After Repeated Sprints Depends on Exercise Modality
Katja Tomazin, Jean-Benoit Morin, and Guillaume Y. Millet
To compare neuromuscular fatigue induced by repeated-sprint running vs cycling.
Eleven active male participants performed 2 repeated-maximal-sprint protocols (5×6 s, 24-s rest periods, 4 sets, 3 min between sets), 1 in running (treadmill) and 1 in cycling (cycle ergometer). Neuromuscular function, evaluated before (PRE); 30 s after the first (S1), the second (S2), and the last set (LAST); and 5 min after the last set (POST5) determined the knee-extensor maximal voluntary torque (MVC); voluntary activation (VA); single-twitch (Tw), high- (Db100), and low- (Db10) frequency torque; and maximal muscle compound action potential (M-wave) amplitude and duration of vastus lateralis.
Peak power output decreased from 14.6 ± 2.2 to 12.4 ± 2.5 W/kg in cycling (P < .01) and from 21.4 ± 2.6 to 15.2 ± 2.6 W/kg in running (P < .001). MVC declined significantly from S1 in running but only from LAST in cycling. VA decreased after S2 (~–7%, P < .05) and LAST (~–9%, P < .01) set in repeated-sprint running and did not change in cycling. Tw, Db100, and Db10/Db100 decreased to a similar extent in both protocols (all P < .001 post-LAST). Both protocols induced a similar level of peripheral fatigue (ie, low-frequency peripheral fatigue, no changes in M-wave characteristics), while underlying mechanisms probably differed. Central fatigue was found only after running.
Findings about neuromuscular fatigue resulting from RS cycling cannot be transferred to RS running.
A Simple Method for Assessing Upper-Limb Force–Velocity Profile in Bench Press
Abderrahmane Rahmani, Pierre Samozino, Jean-Benoit Morin, and Baptiste Morel
Purpose: To analyze the reliability and validity of a field computation method based on easy-to-measure data to assess the mean force (
Intrasession and Intersession Reliability of Running Mechanics During Treadmill Sprints
Olivier Girard, Franck Brocherie, Jean-Benoit Morin, and Grégoire P. Millet
To determine the intrasession and intersession (ie, within- and between-days) reliability in treadmill sprinting-performance outcomes and associated running mechanics.
After familiarization, 13 male recreational sportsmen (team- and racket-sport background) performed three 5-s sprints on an instrumented treadmill with 2 min recovery on 3 different days, 5–7 d apart. Intrasession (comparison of the 3 sprints of the first session) and intersession (comparison of the average of the 3 sprints across days) reliability of performance, kinetics, kinematics, and spring-mass variables were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficients of variation (CV%).
Intrasession reliability was high (ICC > .94 and CV < 8%). Intersession reliability was good for performance indices (.83 < ICC < .89 and CV < 10%, yet with larger variability for mean velocity than for distance covered or propulsive power) and kinetic parameters (ICC > .94 and CV < 5%, yet with larger variability for mean horizontal forces than for mean vertical forces) and ranged from good to high for all kinematic (.88 < ICC < .95 and CV ≤ 3.5%) and spring-mass variables (.86 < ICC < .99 and CV ≤ 6.5%). Compared with intrasession, minimal detectable differences were on average twice larger for intersession designs, except for sprint kinetics.
Instrumented treadmill sprint offers a reliable method of assessing running mechanics during single sprints either within the same session or between days.
How Fast Is a Horizontal Squat Jump?
Pierre Samozino, Jean Romain Rivière, Jérémy Rossi, Jean-Benoit Morin, and Pedro Jimenez-Reyes
Velocity strength training requires exercise modalities that allow athletes to reach very high movement velocity, which is limited during vertical movements involving body weight. Purpose: To quantify the mechanical outputs developed during horizontal squat jumps (HSJs), notably the movement velocity, in comparison with vertical squat jumps (SJs) with and without loads. Methods: Thirteen healthy male athletes performed SJs without additional loads (SJ0) and with a load of ∼60% of body mass (SJ60), and during HSJs performed lying on a roller device with (assisted HSJ [AHSJ]) and without (HSJ) rubber-band assistance. Instantaneous lower-limb extension velocity, force, and power output were measured and averaged over the push-off phase. Results: The force was significantly higher during SJ60 than during SJ0, which was higher than during HSJ and AHSJ. Extension velocity was significantly different across all conditions, with 0.86 (0.07), 1.29 (0.10), 1.59 (0.19), and 1.83 (0.19) m·s−1 for SJ60, SJ0, HSJ, and AHSJ conditions, respectively. Differences in force and velocity values between SJ0 and the other conditions were large to extremely large. Differences were observed in power values only between SJ60 and SJ0, SJ60 and AHSJ, and SJ0 and HSJ. Conclusions: HSJ modalities allow athletes to reach very to extremely largely greater lower-limb extension velocities (HSJ +24.0% [16%], AHSJ +42.8% [17.4%]) compared to those achieved during SJ0. HSJ and AHSJ modalities are inexpensive and practical modalities to train limb-extension velocity capabilities, that is, the ability of the neuromuscular system to produce force at high contraction velocities.
Is the Concept, Method, or Measurement to Blame for Testing Error? An Illustration Using the Force-Velocity-Power Profile
Pierre Samozino, Jean Romain Rivière, Pedro Jimenez-Reyes, Matt R. Cross, and Jean-Benoît Morin
When poor reliability of “output” variables is reported, it can be difficult to discern whether blame lies with the measurement (ie, the inputs) or the overarching concept. This commentary addresses this issue, using the force-velocity-power (FvP) profile in jumping to illustrate the interplay between concept, method, and measurement reliability. While FvP testing has risen in popularity and accessibility, some studies have challenged the reliability and subsequent utility of the concept itself without clearly considering the potential for imprecise procedures to impact reliability measures. To this end, simulations based on virtual athletes confirmed that push-off distance and jump-height variability should be <4% to 5% to guarantee well-fitted force–velocity relationships and acceptable typical error (<10%) in FvP outputs, which was in line with previous experimental findings. Thus, while arguably acceptable in isolation, the 5% to 10% variability in push-off distance or jump height reported in the critiquing studies suggests that their methods were not reliable enough (lack of familiarization, inaccurate procedures, or submaximal efforts) to infer underpinning force-production capacities. Instead of challenging only the concept of FvP relationship testing, an alternative conclusion should have considered the context in which the results were observed: If procedures’ and/or tasks’ execution is too variable, FvP outputs will be unreliable. As for some other neuromuscular or physiological testing, the FvP relationship, which magnifies measurement errors, is unreliable when the input measurements or testing procedures are inaccurate independently from the method or concept used. Field “simple” methods require the same methodological rigor as “lab” methods to obtain reliable output data.
Optimal Loading for Maximizing Power During Sled-Resisted Sprinting
Matt R. Cross, Matt Brughelli, Pierre Samozino, Scott R. Brown, and Jean-Benoit Morin
To ascertain whether force-velocity-power relationships could be compiled from a battery of sled-resisted overground sprints and to clarify and compare the optimal loading conditions for maximizing power production for different athlete cohorts.
Recreational mixed-sport athletes (n = 12) and sprinters (n = 15) performed multiple trials of maximal sprints unloaded and towing a selection of sled masses (20–120% body mass [BM]). Velocity data were collected by sports radar, and kinetics at peak velocity were quantified using friction coefficients and aerodynamic drag. Individual force–velocity and power–velocity relationships were generated using linear and quadratic relationships, respectively. Mechanical and optimal loading variables were subsequently calculated and test–retest reliability assessed.
Individual force–velocity and power–velocity relationships were accurately fitted with regression models (R 2 > .977, P < .001) and were reliable (ES = 0.05–0.50, ICC = .73–.97, CV = 1.0–5.4%). The normal loading that maximized peak power was 78% ± 6% and 82% ± 8% of BM, representing a resistance of 3.37 and 3.62 N/kg at 4.19 ± 0.19 and 4.90 ± 0.18 m/s (recreational athletes and sprinters, respectively). Optimal force and normal load did not clearly differentiate between cohorts, although sprinters developed greater maximal power (17.2–26.5%, ES = 0.97–2.13, P < .02) at much greater velocities (16.9%, ES = 3.73, P < .001).
Mechanical relationships can be accurately profiled using common sled-training equipment. Notably, the optimal loading conditions determined in this study (69–96% of BM, dependent on friction conditions) represent much greater resistance than current guidelines (~7–20% of BM). This method has potential value in quantifying individualized training parameters for optimized development of horizontal power.