Purpose: To quantify the magnitude of the association between the same variables of the force–velocity (FV) profile and the performance variables (unloaded-squat-jump height and 20-m sprint time) obtained during jumping and sprinting testing and to determine which mechanical capacity (ie, maximum force [F 0], maximum velocity [V 0], or maximum power [P max]) presents the highest association with the performance variables. Methods: The FV profile of 19 elite female soccer players (age 23.4 [3.8] y, height 166.4 [5.6] cm, body mass 59.7 [4.7] kg) was determined during the jumping and sprinting tasks. The F 0, V 0, FV slope, P max, and FV imbalance (difference respect to the optimal FV profile in jumping and the decrease in the ratio of horizontal force production in sprinting) were determined for each task. Results: Very large correlations between both tasks were observed for P max (r = .75) and the performance variables (r = −.73), as well as moderate correlations for V 0 (r = .49), while the F 0 (r = −.14), the FV slope (r = −.09), and the FV imbalance (r = .07) were not significantly correlated between both tasks. The P max obtained during each specific task was the mechanical capacity most correlated with its performance variable (r = .84 in jumping and r = .99 in sprinting). Conclusions: The absence of significant correlations between some of the FV relationship parameters suggests that, for an individualized training prescription based on the FV profile, both jumping and sprinting testing procedures should be performed with elite female soccer players.
Ramón Marcote-Pequeño, Amador García-Ramos, Víctor Cuadrado-Peñafiel, Jorge M. González-Hernández, Miguel Ángel Gómez and Pedro Jiménez-Reyes
Jesualdo Cuevas-Aburto, Ivan Jukic, Jorge Miguel González-Hernández, Danica Janicijevic, Paola Barboza-González, Luis Javier Chirosa-Ríos and Amador García-Ramos
Purpose: To compare the effects of 2 upper-body strength-training programs differing in set configuration on bench press 1-repetition maximum (BP1RM), bench press throw peak velocity against 30 kg (BPT30), and handball throwing velocity. Methods: Thirty-five men were randomly assigned to a traditional group (TRG; n = 12), rest redistribution group (RRG; n = 13), or control group (n = 10). The training program was conducted with the bench press exercise and lasted 6 weeks (2 sessions per week): TRG—6 sets × 5 repetitions with 3 minutes of interset rest; RRG—1 set × 30 repetitions with 31 seconds of interrepetition rest. The total rest period (15 min) and load intensity (75% 1RM) were the same for both experimental groups. Subjects performed all repetitions at maximal intended velocity, and the load was adjusted on a daily basis from velocity recordings. Results: A significant time × group interaction was observed for both BP1RM and BPT30 (P < .01) due to the higher values observed at posttest compared with pretest for TRG (effect size [ES] = 0.77) and RRG (ES = 0.56–0.59) but not for the control group (ES ≤ 0.08). The changes in BP1RM and BPT30 did not differ between TRG and RRG (ES = 0.04 and 0.05, respectively). No significant differences in handball throwing velocity were observed between the pretest and posttest (ES = 0.16, 0.22, and 0.02 for TRG, RRG, and control group, respectively). Conclusions: Resistance-training programs based on not-to-failure traditional and rest redistribution set configurations induce similar changes in BP1RM, BPT30, and handball throwing velocity.