摘要：Recently, the two-point method of force–velocity (F–V) profiling of multi-joint human movements has been introduced and validated. In this study, we investigated the validity of estimating the jumping F–V profile using only bodyweight jump and isometric maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) task. Participants (n = 30) performed 3 repetitions of squat (SJ) and counter-movement jumps (CMJ), each at loads that were progressively increased by 10 kg increments, with the number of loads depending on the individual’s ability. Then, 3 isometric MVC trials were performed in 3 knee angles (30°, 60° and 90°). F–V profiling of SJ and CMJ were performed using the multiple-point method, the two-point method, and the novel Jump-MVC method. The results showed poor to fair validity of the novel Jump-MVC method for assessing jumping F–V profile (most ICC 10%, significant systematic bias present, and the presence of proportional bias). The exception was the estimation of theoretical maximal power, which was highly valid for both SJ and CMJ (ICC = 0.91–0.95; CV = 5.0–6.3%). In contrast, validity of the two-point method was excellent (all ICC > 0.90; CV = 2–6%). Although additional studies are needed, present results suggest that the F–V profiling of vertical jumps should be performed using the two-point method with distal loads.
其他摘要：Abstract Recently, the two-point method of force–velocity (F–V) profiling of multi-joint human movements has been introduced and validated. In this study, we investigated the validity of estimating the jumping F–V profile using only bodyweight jump and isometric maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) task. Participants (n = 30) performed 3 repetitions of squat (SJ) and counter-movement jumps (CMJ), each at loads that were progressively increased by 10 kg increments, with the number of loads depending on the individual’s ability. Then, 3 isometric MVC trials were performed in 3 knee angles (30°, 60° and 90°). F–V profiling of SJ and CMJ were performed using the multiple-point method, the two-point method, and the novel Jump-MVC method. The results showed poor to fair validity of the novel Jump-MVC method for assessing jumping F–V profile (most ICC 10%, significant systematic bias present, and the presence of proportional bias). The exception was the estimation of theoretical maximal power, which was highly valid for both SJ and CMJ (ICC = 0.91–0.95; CV = 5.0–6.3%). In contrast, validity of the two-point method was excellent (all ICC > 0.90; CV = 2–6%). Although additional studies are needed, present results suggest that the F–V profiling of vertical jumps should be performed using the two-point method with distal loads.
