首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      


Measuring what matters in isometric multi-joint rate of force development
Authors:David Drake  Rodney A Kennedy  Eric S Wallace
Institution:1. School of Sport, Ulster University, Northern Ireland;2. Ulster Rugby, Irish Rugby Football Union, Dublin, IrelandDaviddrake87@gmail.comORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-0440-7097;4. School of Sport, Ulster University, Northern IrelandORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1312-1683
Abstract:ABSTRACT

This study aimed to evaluate responsiveness (ability to detect change) of isometric force-time measures to neuromuscular fatigue in resistance-trained participants using two differing protocols that modified both the instructions provided to participants and the duration of the test. Both protocols were completed at two knee joint angles in the isometric squat test. Ten participants volunteered to take part in this study (age: 27.0 ± 4.5 years, strength training experience: 7.7 ± 2.6 years). Isometric peak force (ISqTpeak) and isometric explosive force (ISqTexp) test protocols were assessed at two joint angles (knee angle 100° and 125°) pre-high intensity strength training, immediately post strength training, 24-h post, 48-h post and analysed for peak and RFD performance. Participants completed eight sets of three repetitions of the back-squat exercise as the high-intensity strength training. Results showed the highest standardised response means (SRM) detected was peak force using the ISqTpeak 100, SRM ?1.97 compared to an SRM of ?1.31 for RFD 200 ms in the ISqTexp 125. Peak force was the most responsive variable using the ISqTpeak protocol, whereas the ISqTexp protocol was most responsive for RFD measures. Therefore, ISqTpeak and ISqTexp test protocols should not be used interchangeably to evaluate RFD variables.
Keywords:Responsiveness  explosive force  maximal strength  neuromuscular performance
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号