Search Results

The isometric midthigh pull (IMTP) has been used to monitor changes in force, maximum rate of force development (mRFD), and impulse, with performance in this task being associated with performance in athletic tasks. Numerous postures have been adopted in the literature, which may affect the kinetic variables during the task; therefore, the aim of this investigation was to determine whether different knee-joint angles (120°, 130°, 140°, and 150°) and hip-joint angles (125° and 145°), including the subjects preferred posture, affect force, mRFD, and impulse during the IMTP. Intraclass correlation coefficients demonstrated high within-session reliability (r ≥ .870, P < .001) for all kinetic variables determined in all postures, excluding impulse measures during the 130° knee-flexion, 125° hip-flexion posture, which showed a low to moderate reliability (r = .666–.739, P < .001), while between-sessions testing demonstrated high reliability (r > .819, P < .001) for all kinetic variables. There were no significant differences in peak force (P > .05, Cohen d = 0.037, power = .408), mRFD (P > .05, Cohen d = 0.037, power = .409), or impulse at 100 ms (P > .05, Cohen d = 0.056, power = .609), 200 ms (P > .05, Cohen d = 0.057, power = .624), or 300 ms (P > .05, Cohen d = 0.061, power = .656) across postures. Smallest detectable differences demonstrated that changes in performance of >1.3% in peak isometric force, >10.3% in mRFD, >5.3% in impulse at 100 ms, >4.4% in impulse at 200 ms, and >7.1% in impulse at 300 ms should be considered meaningful, irrespective of posture.

Purpose: The Reactive Strength Index Modified (RSImod) has been recently identified and validated as a method of monitoring countermovement-jump (CMJ) performance. The kinetic and kinematic mechanisms that optimize a higher RSImod score are, however, currently unknown. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to compare entire CMJ force–, power–, velocity–, and displacement–time curves (termed temporal-phase analysis) of athletes who achieve high versus low RSImod scores. Methods: Fifty-three professional male rugby league players performed 3 maximal-effort CMJs on a force platform, and variables of interest were calculated via forward dynamics. The top (high RSImod group) and bottom (low RSImod group) of 20 athletes’ CMJ kinetic- and kinematic-time curves were compared. Results: The high-RSImod group (0.53 ± 0.05 vs 0.36 ± 0.03) jumped higher (37.7 ± 3.9 vs 31.8 ± 3.2 cm) with a shorter time to takeoff (TTT) (0.707 ± 0.043 vs 0.881 ± 0.122 s). This was achieved by a more rapid unweighting phase followed by greater eccentric and concentric force, velocity, and power for large portions (including peak values) of the jump, but a similar countermovement displacement. The attainment of a high RSImod score therefore required a taller, but thinner, active impulse. Conclusions: Athletes who perform the CMJ with a high RSImod, as achieved by high jumps with a short TTT, demonstrate superior force, power, velocity, and impulse during both the eccentric and concentric phases of the jump. Practitioners who include the RSImod calculation in their testing batteries may assume that greater RSImod values are attributed to an increase in these underpinning kinetic and kinematic parameters.

Purpose: Skeletal-muscle function can be evaluated using force-times curves generated via the isometric midthigh pull (IMTP). Various sampling frequencies (500–1000 Hz) have been used for IMTP assessments; however, no research has investigated the influence of sampling frequency on IMTP kinetics. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of sampling frequency on kinetic variables during the IMTP, including peak force, time-specific force values (100, 150, and 200 ms), and rate of force development (RFD) at 3 time bands (0–100, 0–150, 0–200 ms). Methods: Academy rugby league players (n = 30, age 17.5 ± 1.1 y, height 1.80 ± 0.06 m, mass 85.4 ± 10.3 kg) performed 3 IMTP trials on a force platform sampling at 2000 Hz, which was subsequently down-sampled to 1500, 1000, and 500 Hz for analysis. Results: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and coefficients of variation (CV) demonstrated high within-session reliability for all force and RFD variables across all sampling frequencies (ICC ≥ .80, CV ≤ 14.4%) except RFD 0–100 and 0–150, which demonstrated slightly greater levels of variance (CV = 18.0–24.1%). Repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed no significant differences (P > .05, Cohen d ≤ 0.0171) in kinetic variables between sampling frequencies. Overall, high reliability was observed across all sampling frequencies for peak force, time-specific force, and RFD 0- to 200-ms variables, with no significant differences (P > .05) for each kinetic variable across sampling frequencies. Conclusions: Practitioners and scientists may consider sampling as low as 500 Hz when measuring peak force, time-specific force values, and RFD at predetermined time bands during the IMTP for accurate and reliable data.

Purpose: To determine the reliability and variability of the Dynamic Strength Index (DSI) calculated from squat-jump (SJ) vs countermovement-jump (CMJ) peak force (PF) and to compare DSI values between methods. Methods: Male youth soccer and rugby league players (N = 27; age 17.2 ± 0.7 y, height 173.9 ± 5.7 cm, body mass 71.1 ± 7.2 kg) performed 3 trials of the SJ, CMJ, and isometric midthigh pull (IMTP) on 2 separate days. DSI was calculated by dividing the PF during each jump by the IMTP PF. Results: DSI-SJ exhibited moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = .419) within-session reliability and high variability (percentage coefficient of variation [%CV] = 15.91) during session 1; however, this improved noticeably during session 2 (ICC = .948, %CV = 4.03). In contrast, DSI-CMJ showed nearly perfect within-session reliability (ICC = .920–.952) and low variability (%CV = 3.80–4.57) for both sessions. Moreover, DSI-SJ values demonstrated a small yet significant increase between sessions (P = .01, d = 0.37), whereas only a trivial and nonsignificant increase was observed for DSI-CMJ between sessions (P = .796, d = 0.07). Between-sessions reliability was very high for the DSI-SJ (ICC = .741) and nearly perfect for the DSI-CMJ (ICC = .924). There was no significant or meaningful difference (P = .261, d = 0.12) between DSI-SJ (0.82 ± 0.18) and DSI-CMJ (0.84 ± 0.15). Conclusions: Practitioners should use DSI-CMJ, as it is a more reliable measure than DSI-SJ, although it produces similar ratios.