↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of an Individualized Training Based on Force-Velocity Profiling during Jumping

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
200 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
991 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness of an Individualized Training Based on Force-Velocity Profiling during Jumping
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2016.00677
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pedro Jiménez-Reyes, Pierre Samozino, Matt Brughelli, Jean-Benoît Morin

Abstract

Ballistic performances are determined by both the maximal lower limb power output (Pmax ) and their individual force-velocity (F-v) mechanical profile, especially the F-v imbalance (FVimb ): difference between the athlete's actual and optimal profile. An optimized training should aim to increase Pmax and/or reduce FVimb . The aim of this study was to test whether an individualized training program based on the individual F-v profile would decrease subjects' individual FVimb and in turn improve vertical jump performance. FVimb was used as the reference to assign participants to different training intervention groups. Eighty four subjects were assigned to three groups: an "optimized" group divided into velocity-deficit, force-deficit, and well-balanced sub-groups based on subjects' FVimb , a "non-optimized" group for which the training program was not specifically based on FVimb and a control group. All subjects underwent a 9-week specific resistance training program. The programs were designed to reduce FVimb for the optimized groups (with specific programs for sub-groups based on individual FVimb values), while the non-optimized group followed a classical program exactly similar for all subjects. All subjects in the three optimized training sub-groups (velocity-deficit, force-deficit, and well-balanced) increased their jumping performance (12.7 ± 5.7% ES = 0.93 ± 0.09, 14.2 ± 7.3% ES = 1.00 ± 0.17, and 7.2 ± 4.5% ES = 0.70 ± 0.36, respectively) with jump height improvement for all subjects, whereas the results were much more variable and unclear in the non-optimized group. This greater change in jump height was associated with a markedly reduced FVimb for both force-deficit (57.9 ± 34.7% decrease in FVimb ) and velocity-deficit (20.1 ± 4.3%) subjects, and unclear or small changes in Pmax (-0.40 ± 8.4% and +10.5 ± 5.2%, respectively). An individualized training program specifically based on FVimb (gap between the actual and optimal F-v profiles of each individual) was more efficient at improving jumping performance (i.e., unloaded squat jump height) than a traditional resistance training common to all subjects regardless of their FVimb . Although improving both FVimb and Pmax has to be considered to improve ballistic performance, the present results showed that reducing FVimb without even increasing Pmax lead to clearly beneficial jump performance changes. Thus, FVimb could be considered as a potentially useful variable for prescribing optimal resistance training to improve ballistic performance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 387 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 991 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 988 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 167 17%
Student > Bachelor 155 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 92 9%
Researcher 49 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 47 5%
Other 208 21%
Unknown 273 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 522 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 3%
Unspecified 30 3%
Social Sciences 17 2%
Other 55 6%
Unknown 299 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 268. 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 16 July 2023.
All research outputs
#136,190
of 25,646,963 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#70
of 15,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,031
of 424,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#1
of 232 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,646,963 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 15,711 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. 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 424,422 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 232 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 99% of its contemporaries.