| Title |
Rate of force development: physiological and methodological considerations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-016-3346-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicola A. Maffiuletti, Per Aagaard, Anthony J. Blazevich, Jonathan Folland, Neale Tillin, Jacques Duchateau |
| Abstract |
The evaluation of rate of force development during rapid contractions has recently become quite popular for characterising explosive strength of athletes, elderly individuals and patients. The main aims of this narrative review are to describe the neuromuscular determinants of rate of force development and to discuss various methodological considerations inherent to its evaluation for research and clinical purposes. Rate of force development (1) seems to be mainly determined by the capacity to produce maximal voluntary activation in the early phase of an explosive contraction (first 50-75 ms), particularly as a result of increased motor unit discharge rate; (2) can be improved by both explosive-type and heavy-resistance strength training in different subject populations, mainly through an improvement in rapid muscle activation; (3) is quite difficult to evaluate in a valid and reliable way. Therefore, we provide evidence-based practical recommendations for rational quantification of rate of force development in both laboratory and clinical settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 388 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 63 | 16% |
| United States | 60 | 15% |
| Spain | 33 | 9% |
| Canada | 14 | 4% |
| Australia | 14 | 4% |
| Ireland | 11 | 3% |
| Brazil | 7 | 2% |
| Japan | 6 | 2% |
| Finland | 5 | 1% |
| Other | 49 | 13% |
| Unknown | 126 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 266 | 69% |
| Scientists | 101 | 26% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 17 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 3 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,814 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1803 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 323 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 293 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 217 | 12% |
| Researcher | 103 | 6% |
| Other | 87 | 5% |
| Other | 310 | 17% |
| Unknown | 481 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 803 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 129 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 111 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 49 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 34 | 2% |
| Other | 129 | 7% |
| Unknown | 559 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 247. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 December 2023.
All research outputs
#154,108
of 25,866,425 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#29
of 4,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,618
of 313,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#1
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,866,425 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,404 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,893 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.