Optimal Mechanical Force‐Velocity Profile for Sprint Acceleration Performance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Samozino ◽  
Nicolas Peyrot ◽  
Pascal Edouard ◽  
Ryu Nagahara ◽  
Pedro Jimenez‐Reyes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Velocity Profile ◽  
Mechanical Force ◽  
Force Velocity

Differences in Sprint Mechanical Force–Velocity Profile Between Trained Soccer and Futsal Players

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 478-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Jiménez-Reyes ◽  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Victor Cuadrado-Peñafiel ◽  
Juan A. Párraga-Montilla ◽  
José A. Morcillo-Losa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Velocity Profile ◽  
Testing Procedure ◽  
Mechanical Force ◽  
Resultant Force ◽  
Soccer Players ◽  
Maximal Power ◽  
Time Data ◽  
Force Velocity ◽  
High Level ◽  
Different Levels

Purpose: To compare the sprint mechanical force–velocity (F–V) profile between soccer and futsal players. A secondary aim was, within each sport, to study the differences in sprint mechanical F–V profile between sexes and players of different levels. Methods: A total of 102 soccer players (63 men) and 77 futsal players (49 men) who were competing from the elite to amateur levels in the Spanish league participated in this investigation. The testing procedure consisted of 3 unloaded maximal 40-m sprints. The velocity–time data recorded by a radar device were used to calculate the variables of the sprint acceleration F–V profile (maximal theoretical force [F0], maximal theoretical velocity [V0], maximal power [Pmax], decrease in the ratio of horizontal to resultant force [DRF], and maximal ratio of horizontal to resultant force [RFpeak]). Results: Futsal players showed a higher F0 than soccer players (effect size [ES] range: 0.11–0.74), while V0 (ES range: −0.48 to −1.15) and DRF (ES range: −0.75 to −1.45) was higher for soccer players. No significant differences were observed between soccer and futsal players for Pmax (ES range: −0.43 to 0.19) and RFpeak (ES range: −0.49 to 0.30). Men and high-level players presented an overall enhanced F–V profile compared with women and their lower-level counterparts, respectively. Conclusions: The higher F0 and lower V0 of futsal players could be caused by the game’s specific demands (larger number of accelerations but over shorter distances than in soccer). These results show that the sprint mechanical F–V profile is able to distinguish between soccer and futsal players.

Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation enhances strength training volume but not the force–velocity profile

2020 ◽  
Vol 120 (8) ◽  
pp. 1881-1891 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Alix-Fages ◽  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Giancarlo Calderón-Nadal ◽  
David Colomer-Poveda ◽  
Salvador Romero-Arenas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Velocity Profile ◽  
Strength Training ◽  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Training Volume ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Force Velocity

scholarly journals Determining strength training needs using the force-velocity profile of elite female handball and volleyball players

2020 ◽  
pp. 174795412096404
Author(s):  
Leonidas Petridis ◽  
Gergely Pálinkás ◽  
Zsófia Tróznai ◽  
Bettina Béres ◽  
Katinka Utczás
Keyword(s):  
Velocity Profile ◽  
Strength Training ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Female Athletes ◽  
Vertical Jump ◽  
Body Height ◽  
Maximum Velocity ◽  
Total Force ◽  
Volleyball Players ◽  
Force Velocity

The aim of this study was to assess the vertical jump performance and the force-velocity profile of elite female handball and volleyball players. Forty-one female athletes were measured, 28 handball players (age: 24.0 ± 3.6 years, body height: 1.75 ± 0.05 m, body mass: 69.0 ± 7.3 kg) and 13 volleyball players (age: 24.1 ± 5.2 years, body height: 1.83 ± 0.07 m and body mass: 74.9 ± 7.9 kg). All players performed unloaded and loaded countermovement jumps (CMJ) on a force platform. The theoretical maximal force ( F0), the theoretical maximum velocity ( v0), the theoretical maximal power ( Pmax), the slope of the F-v relationship ( Sfv) and the force-velocity imbalance ( FVimb) were calculated. Mean value of vertical jump height was 0.33 ± 0.03m, with no difference between handball and volleyball players. Mean values of F0, v0, Pmax, Sfv and FVimb for all players were 31.2 ± 2.6 N/kg, 3.10 ± 0.50 m·s−1, 24.2 ± 3.2 w/kg, -10.32 ± 2.09 Ns/m/kg and 28.1 ± 13.3% respectively. Two players had a low magnitude velocity-deficit, whereas most of the players exhibited a low to high force-deficit. A strong correlation was found between the ratio of measured to optimal F-v slope with the change in the proportion of net force to total force during unloaded and loaded conditions. The findings suggest that it would be beneficial for these athletes to first decrease their force deficit through mainly maximal strength training before implementing training to further maximize power output. Establishment of the F-v profile could be a useful diagnostic tool for coaches to optimize strength training and to design training intervention based on the individual need of each athlete.

Influence of Resisted Sled-Pull Training on the Sprint Force-Velocity Profile of Male High-School Athletes

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (10) ◽  
pp. 2751-2759
Author(s):  
Micheál J. Cahill ◽  
Jon L. Oliver ◽  
John B. Cronin ◽  
Kenneth Clark ◽  
Matt R. Cross ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High School ◽  
Velocity Profile ◽  
High School Athletes ◽  
Male High School ◽  
Force Velocity

Association of the Vertical and Horizontal Force-Velocity Profile and Acceleration With Change of Direction Ability in Various Sports

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Andrés Baena-Raya ◽  
Alberto Soriano-Maldonado ◽  
Filipe Conceição ◽  
Pedro Jiménez-Reyes ◽  
Manuel A. Rodríguez-Pérez
Keyword(s):  
Velocity Profile ◽  
Horizontal Force ◽  
Change Of Direction ◽  
Force Velocity

Optimal Force–Velocity Profile in Ballistic Movements—Altius

2012 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 313-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
PIERRE SAMOZINO ◽  
ENRICO REJC ◽  
PIETRO ENRICO DI PRAMPERO ◽  
ALAIN BELLI ◽  
JEAN-BENOÎT MORIN
Keyword(s):  
Velocity Profile ◽  
Optimal Force ◽  
Force Velocity ◽  
Ballistic Movements

Effect of countermovement on power–force–velocity profile

2014 ◽  
Vol 114 (11) ◽  
pp. 2281-2288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Jiménez-Reyes ◽  
Pierre Samozino ◽  
Víctor Cuadrado-Peñafiel ◽  
Filipe Conceição ◽  
Juan José González-Badillo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Velocity Profile ◽  
Force Velocity

scholarly journals Enhancing the Force-Velocity Profile of Athletes Using Weightlifting Derivatives

2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy J. Suchomel ◽  
Paul Comfort ◽  
Jason P. Lake
Keyword(s):  
Velocity Profile ◽  
Force Velocity

Lower Limb Force, Velocity, Power Capabilities during Leg Press and Squat Movements

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (14) ◽  
pp. 1083-1089 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johnny Padulo ◽  
Gian Migliaccio ◽  
Luca Ardigò ◽  
Bruno Leban ◽  
Marco Cosso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Velocity Profile ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Power Output ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Maximal Power ◽  
Maximal Power Output ◽  
Optimal Velocity ◽  
Leg Press ◽  
Maximal Force ◽  
Force Velocity

AbstractThe aim was to compare lower-limb power, force, and velocity capabilities between squat and leg press movements. Ten healthy sportsmen performed ballistic lower-limb push-offs against 5-to-12 different loads during both the squat and leg press. Individual linear force-velocity and polynomial power-velocity relationships were determined for both movements from push-off mean force and velocity measured continuously with a pressure sensor and linear encoder. Maximal power output, theoretical maximal force and velocity, force-velocity profile and optimal velocity were computed. During the squat, maximal power output (17.7±3.59 vs. 10.9±1.39 W·kg−1), theoretical maximal velocity (1.66±0.29 vs. 0.88±0.18 m·s−1), optimal velocity (0.839±0.144 vs. 0.465±0.107 m·s−1), and force-velocity profile (−27.2±8.5 vs. −64.3±29.5 N·s·m−1·kg−1) values were significantly higher than during the leg press (p=0.000, effect size=1.72–3.23), whereas theoretical maximal force values (43.1±8.6 vs. 51.9±14.0 N·kg−1, p=0.034, effect size=0.75) were significantly lower. The mechanical capabilities of the lower-limb extensors were different in the squat compared with the leg press with higher maximal power due to much higher velocity capabilities (e.g. ability to produce force at high velocities) even if moderately lower maximal force qualities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document