INCREASED POPULARITY IN THE UTILIZATION OF FORCE PLATES TO MEASURE COUNTERMOVEMENT JUMPS (CMJS) FOR PERFORMANCE MONITORING WARRANTS THE NEED FOR STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING COACHES AND SPORT SCIENTISTS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND ITS FORCE-TIME CHARACTERISTICS AND THE CALCULATION OF ITS ASSOCIATED VARIABLES. THIS ARTICLE AIMS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON HOW TO UNDERSTAND AND ANALYZE THE FORCE-TIME CURVE OF CMJS IN MICROSOFT EXCEL, THUS PROVIDING PRACTITIONERS AN INEXPENSIVE AND ACCESSIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO READILY AVAILABLE SOFTWARE ON THE MARKET.

This study examined concurrent validity of countermovement vertical jump reactive strength index modified and force–time characteristics recorded using a 1-dimensional portable and laboratory force plate system. Twenty-eight men performed bilateral countermovement vertical jumps on 2 portable force plates placed on top of 2 in-ground force plates, both recording vertical ground reaction force at 1000 Hz. Time to takeoff; jump height; reactive strength index modified; and braking and propulsion impulse, mean net force, and duration were calculated from the vertical force from both force plate systems. Results from both systems were highly correlated (r ≥ .99). There were small (d < 0.12) but significant differences between their respective braking impulse, braking mean net force, propulsion impulse, and propulsion mean net force (P < .001). However, limits of agreement yielded a mean value of 1.7% relative to the laboratory force plate system (95% confidence limits, 0.9%–2.5%), indicating very good agreement across all of the dependent variables. The largest limits of agreement were for jump height (2.1%), time to takeoff (3.4%), and reactive strength index modified (3.8%). The portable force plate system provides a valid method of obtaining reactive strength measures, and several underpinning force–time variables, from unloaded countermovement vertical jump. Thus, practitioners can use both force plates interchangeably.

This review will revisit practitioner understanding of the development of power, before outlining some of the key mechanical parameters that contribute to power development. This understanding will help with planning and periodization of strength and power training, which is explored in part 2 of this 2-part review. This review (part 1) discusses the force-time and force-velocity curve and addresses recent criticism in using terms such as power, rate of force development, and explosiveness, over impulse. These terms are distinguished mechanically and conceptually for the benefit of the scientist and coach, and are essential for effective sharing of data and practice.

To equivalent jump squat data. Resistance-trained men performed 2 push press (n = 17; age: 25.4 ± 7.4 years; height: 183.4 ± 5 cm; body mass: 87 ± 15.6 kg) and jump squat (n = 8 of original 17; age: 28.7 ± 8.1 years; height: 184.3 ± 5.5 cm; mass: 98 ± 5.3 kg) singles with 10–90% of their push press and back squat 1 repetition maximum (1RM), respectively, in 10% 1RM increments while standing on a force platform. Push press peak and mean power was maximized with 75.3 ± 16.4 and 64.7 ± 20% 1RM, respectively, and impulses applied to these loads were 243 ± 29 N·s and 231 ± 36 N·s. Increasing and decreasing load, from the load that maximized peak and mean power, by 10 and 20% 1RM reduced peak and mean power by 6–15% (p ≤ 0.05). Push press and jump squat maximum peak power (7%, p = 0.08) and the impulse that was applied to the load that maximized peak (8%, p = 0.17) and mean (13%, p = 0.91) power were not significantly different, but push press maximum mean power was significantly greater than the jump squat equivalent (∼9.5%, p = 0.03). The mechanical demand of the push press is comparable with the jump squat and could provide a time-efficient combination of lower-body power and upper-body and trunk strength training....

The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the bar-mounted PUSH Band^TM 2.0 to determine peak and mean velocity during the bench press exercise with a moderate (60% one repetition maximum [1RM]) and heavy (90% 1RM) load. We did this by simultaneously recording peak and mean velocity using the PUSH Band^TM 2.0 and three-dimensional motion capture from participants bench pressing with 60% and 90% 1RM. We used ordinary least products regression to assess within-session reliability and whether the PUSH Band^TM 2.0 could accurately predict motion capture velocity. Results showed that PUSH Band^TM 2.0 and motion capture peak and mean velocity reliability was acceptable with both loads. While there was a tendency for the PUSH Band^TM 2.0 to slightly overestimate peak and mean velocity, there was no fixed bias. However, mean velocity with 60 and 90% 1RM demonstrated proportional bias (differences between predicted and motion capture values increase with magnitude). Therefore, PUSH Band^TM 2.0 peak velocity with 60 and 90% 1RM is valid, but mean velocity is not.

In part 1 of this two-part review, we addressed the recent criticisms of the use of terms such as power, rate of force development, and explosiveness, over impulse. These terms were distinguished mechanically and conceptually for the benefit of the scientist and coach. In part 2, we use the key mechanical parameters underpinning power development and its relationship with the force–time characteristics and force–velocity profile of sporting movements, to evidence the planning of training drills and assist the strength and conditioning coach in devising periodized training programs.