See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286779658

Muscular Strength and Power

Chapter · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

4 9,036

1 author:

Gavin L Moir
East Stroudsburg University
111 PUBLICATIONS 2,385 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gavin L Moir on 13 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CHAPTER 5
FPO
Muscular Strength
and Power
© photo credit

Chapter Objectives
At the end of this chapter, you will be able to:

• Define muscular strength

• Describe the different indices of muscular strength, including maximal muscular strength, speed-strength,
explosive muscular strength, and reactive strength, and identify their importance in different sports
• Define muscular power and its importance in different sports
• Explain the determinants of muscular strength and power
• Explain the transformation of muscular forces to joint moments
• Explain the transformation of joint moments to external forces

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 193 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 194 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

Key Terms
Absolute maximum strength High-load speed-strength Ratio scaling Stiffness
Allometric scaling Low-load speed-strength Reactive strength Voluntary maximum strength
Bilateral deficit Maximal dynamic strength Reactive strength index
Electromechanical delay Maximal isometric strength Repetition maximum testing
Explosive muscular strength Rate of force development Sticking region

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 194 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 Defining Muscular Strength 195

Chapter Overview
Muscular strength is defined in terms of the magnitude of force developed during
a specific movement task. The force generated by the activation of muscles is trans-
formed into moments acting at the joints; these moments are then further trans-
formed into an external force that changes the motion of the athlete’s body or an
object with which the athlete is in contact. As such, all sports rely on the application
of force, and, therefore, muscular strength is important for all athletes. However, there
are different indices of muscular strength (e.g., maximal strength, explosive strength),
each of which has implications for different sporting activities. In this chapter, we
describe these different indices of muscular strength and highlight their importance
for specific sports. Furthermore, we describe the relationship between muscular
strength and muscular power, and explore the important role of muscular power in
sport. We begin the chapter by defining muscular strength.

Defining Muscular Strength

Muscular strength can be defined as the ability of a muscle or a group of muscles to
produce a force against an external resistance (Moir, 2012). In most sporting situ-
ations, that external resistance is provided by the mass of a body—either the mass
of the performer or the mass of an implement (e.g., soccer ball, baseball bat)—and
­success is often dependent upon the change in motion of the specific mass. A force
is an agent that changes or tends to change the motion of a body. The relationship
between the change in motion of a body of given mass and the applied force is pro-
vided by Newton’s second law of motion, which can be written as follows:

F
a = Eq. (5.1)
m

where a is the linear acceleration of the body, F is the applied force, and m is the mass
of the body.
Equation (5.1) informs us that the change in motion of a body is proportional to
the applied force and acts in the same direction as the applied force, but is inversely
proportional to the mass of the body. Therefore, a greater force must be applied to a
7.26-kg shot during the shot put event to achieve the same acceleration as that of an
800-g javelin. Furthermore, Equation (5.1) can be rearranged to allow us to determine
the influence of the mass of the body on the magnitude of the applied force:

F = ma Eq. (5.2)

where F is the applied force, m is the mass of the body, and a is the linear acceleration
of the body. We can use Equation (5.2) to determine that the magnitude of the applied
force, and therefore the expression of muscle strength, is largely dependent upon the
magnitude of the mass being accelerated. For example, Figure 5.1 shows the peak
vertical ground reaction force for two athletes during the performance of squat jumps
performed with different external loads. Each athlete produces a greater peak force
as the magnitude of the external load is increased; the greatest forces will be exerted
against the greatest resistances.

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 195 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 196 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

3000

2500

2000

Force (N)
1500

1000

500
Athlete A
Athlete B
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
External load (kg)

Figure 5.1 The peak vertical ground reaction force achieved by two athletes
performing jump squats with different external loads on a force platform. The
external loads were provided by a barbell and ranged from 0% to 85% of the load
equivalent to each athlete’s one-repetition maximum parallel back squat (1-RM).
Athlete A has a body mass of 83.7 kg and a 1-RM of 195.0 kg; athlete B has a body
mass of 83.2 kg and a 1-RM of 117.5 kg. For both athletes, the peak force achieved
during the jump squats increases with the magnitude of the external load that
provides resistance to the movement. Therefore, the maximal dynamic force
generated by each athlete, and thus the maximal dynamic muscular strength, will
be achieved under the heaviest external load that each could move in a single
repetition. Athlete A is able to produce greater peak forces than athlete B under all
loading conditions and, therefore, is the stronger athlete in this specific task.

The dependence of force upon the magnitude of the external mass being acceler-
ated means that dynamic muscular strength can be determined from the load moved
during a specific movement, forming the basis of repetition maximum testing. Spe-
cifically, the greatest load that can be lifted in a given movement for a single repetition
is the one-repetition maximum (1-RM) for the athlete, which provides a measure of
the maximal dynamic strength of the athlete. Such tests can involve concentric- or
eccentric-only muscle actions, although typically they involve the stretch–shortening
cycle. The greatest mass lifted during such tests is typically normalized to the mass
of the athlete to account for the role of body size in confounding the measure (see
Strength and Power Concept 5.1). Notice that the mass of the body to which
the force is applied provides an inertial resistance to the movement. It is unlikely in
any sporting situation that the resistance will be purely inertial, given that gravity
(weight), friction, and drag forces may all contribute to the resistive force depending
on the direction in which the mass is displaced, the surface across which the mass is
displaced, and the fluid through which the mass is displaced, respectively.

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 196 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 Defining Muscular Strength 197

Strength and Power Concept 5.1

Normalizing measures of muscular strength for body size
It is a common assumption that bigger athletes tend to be stronger than smaller
athletes. This assertion leads us to consider what the physical criterion is for
determining who is “bigger” and who is “smaller.” Typically, the measure used
is body mass. Body mass is a convenient measure that characterizes the size of
the athlete, and evidence shows that more massive athletes tend to be stronger
than their less massive counterparts (Crewther, Gill, Weatherby,& Lowe, 2009).
To account for this body–size bias, the values representing a given measure of
muscular strength are often normalized to the mass of the athlete:

Normalized muscular strength = strength measure/body mass Eq. (5.3)

This normalization method is known as ratio scaling. However, such normaliza-

tion methods assume that muscular force is directly proportional to body mass
and have actually been shown to bias the measure of muscular strength in the
favor of the less massive athlete (Crewther et al., 2009).

Allometric scaling is predicated upon geometric similarity—namely, the

notion that all human bodies have the same shape, differing only in size
(Jaric, Mirkov, & Markovic, 2005). Consequently, all lengths are proportional
to a ­characteristic length of the body, while all areas are proportional to the
square of the characteristic length and all volumes are proportional to the cube
of the characteristic length. If height is selected as the characteristic length
­measurement for a body, the area of the body is proportional to the square
of the height (height2), with the volume of the body being proportional to
the cube of the height (height3). Given that mass is related to the volume of
a body, these ­simple relationships can be used to determine that any length
characteristic of the body is proportional to mass1/3 and any area characteristic
of the body is proportional to mass2/3. Given that muscle force is proportional
to the cross-sectional area of the muscle, it should increase in proportion to
mass2/3. Therefore, the allometric scaling parameter of mass2/3 should be used to
­normalize measures of muscular strength:

Allometrically scaled muscular strength = strength measure/body mass2/3

Eq. (5.4)

This allometric scaling parameter has been recommended for tests of muscular
force and power (Jaric et al., 2005). It has also been shown to effectively normal-
ize muscular strength to body size (Crewther et al., 2009).

The magnitude of the muscular force generated voluntarily is limited by the level
of muscular activation achieved by the athlete. Neural inhibitory mechanisms may
limit the activation of muscles during voluntary contractions, such that the force
generated voluntarily may not reflect the maximal capabilities of the individual. Pro-
tocols have been developed whereby an electrical stimulus (ES) is superimposed upon

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 197 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 198 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

a maximal voluntary contraction to determine the maximal force of the stimulated

muscles (Westing, Seger, & Thorstensson, 1990). Such protocols provide information
about the intrinsic properties of the stimulated muscles; thus they have been termed
measures of absolute maximum strength as opposed to voluntary maximum
strength (Zatsiorsky, 1995). In vivo maximal force measurements using ES proto-
cols have shown that absolute strength is greater than voluntary strength only dur-
ing eccentric muscle actions (Westing et al., 1990). Electrically evoked measures of
force are not always strongly associated with voluntary measures of muscle strength
­(Andersen & Aagaard, 2006), highlighting the importance of the activation dynamics
on measures of muscular strength.
Returning to the data shown in Figure 5.1, notice that the regression line for
­athlete A is always above that for athlete B. From this fact, we can determine that
athlete A is able to produce the greatest peak forces across a range of external loads;
thus athlete A is the stronger of the two individuals in terms of this specific task.
Indeed, even during the unloaded condition when the athlete’s body weight provides
the external resistance, athlete A is still able to generate the greater peak force. This
demonstrates that stronger athletes are able to generate greater forces even against low
external loads (Moss, Refsnes, Abildgaard, Nicolaysen, & Jensen, 1997).
Figure 5.2 shows the values of peak force generated during the jump squats when
the external load is expressed as a percentage of the athlete’s 1-RM. The vertical line at
30% 1-RM reflects the demarcation between measurements of low-load speed-strength
and measurements of high-load speed-strength (Newton & Dugan, 2002). When the
external load is relatively low (less than 30% 1-RM), the athlete is able to develop higher
movement velocities than during conditions when the external load is higher (greater
than 30% 1-RM) due to the lower mass involved, as per Equation (5.1). Notice in
Figure 5.2 that athlete A has both greater low-load and high-load speed-strength than
athlete B, although the differences are more pronounced as the external load increases.
Identifying these different indices of speed-strength provides an insight into an athlete’s
ability to generate force under conditions characterized by different external loads.
For example, in sports where athletes are required to exert forces against their own
body weight, such as when sprinting and jumping, low-load speed-strength will be
important. Conversely, during sports such as American football, rugby, and weight-
lifting, where the external load against which athletes are required to exert a force is
increased, high-load speed-strength becomes important. Furthermore, the different
indices of speed-strength will respond to different specific training stimuli (Cormie,
McCauley, & McBride, 2007).
The external force can also be measured as an athlete exerts a force against an
immovable body. The measurement of the force exerted under such circumstances
provides a measure of the athlete’s muscular strength, with the peak force represent-
ing the maximal isometric strength of the athlete (Figure 5.3). In many sports, an
­athlete has limited time to develop force (Table 5.1). During tests of maximal isometric
strength, the time taken to achieve peak force has been shown to be approximately 400
ms (Aagaard, Simonsen, Andersen, Magnusson, & Dyhre-Poulsen, 2002; Narici et al.,
1996). Comparing this to the times shown in Table 5.1, we can see that in many sports
an athlete is unable to generate maximal force; in such cases, measures of force genera-
tion during short time periods may be more revealing of the capability of an athlete.
The assessment of the magnitude of force generated during a given time period
constitutes a measure of explosive muscular strength (Schmidtbleicher, 1992). The
expression of explosive muscular strength is characterized by a high rate of force

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 198 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 Defining Muscular Strength 199

3000
Low-load High-load
speed-strength speed-strength
2500

2000
Force (N)

1500

1000

500
Athlete A
Athlete B
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
External load (% 1-RM)

Figure 5.2 The peak vertical ground reaction force achieved by two athletes
performing jump squats with different external loads on a force platform. Athlete A
has a body mass of 83.7 kg and a 1-RM of 195.0 kg; athlete B has a body mass of 83.2
kg and a 1-RM of 117.5 kg. The external loads were provided by a barbell and ranged
from 0% to 85% of the load equivalent to each athlete’s one-repetition maximum
parallel back squat (1-RM). The vertical line at the external load equivalent to 30%
1-RM represents the demarcation between low-load speed-strength
(less than 30% 1-RM) and high-load speed-strength (more than 30% 1-RM).
Athlete A is able to produce greater peak forces than athlete B under all loading
conditions and so demonstrates greater low-load speed-strength and high-load
speed-strength. The difference between the two athletes becomes more
pronounced under high-load conditions; thus athlete A has much greater
high-load speed-strength than athlete B.

development (RFD) and can be measured during both dynamic and isometric tasks
(Haff et al., 2005; Haff et al., 1997; Moir, Garcia, & Dwyer, 2009). Various measures
can be employed to quantify explosive muscular strength, all of which are derived
from the force–time trace collected during specific tasks (Table 5.2). The time
period over which the RFD is assessed has been divided into “early” (less than 50 ms)
and “late” (150–250 ms) periods during tasks (Andersen & Aagaard, 2006). Such a
demarcation is very informative (see Applied Research 5.1), as early RFD appears
to reflect different neuromuscular qualities than late RFD, correlating more strongly
with performance in different athletic tasks while also responding differently to dif-
ferent training regimens (Andersen, Andersen, Zebis, & Aagaard, 2010; Oliveira,
Oliveira, Rizatto, & Denadai, 2013; Tillin, Pain, & Folland, 2013). The importance of
explosive strength in sport is highlighted in Worked Example 5.1, while the cal-
culations of the different force–time variables used to quantify explosive strength are
shown in Worked Example 5.2.

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 199 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 200 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

1400

1200

1000

800

Force (N)
600

400

200

0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
Time (s)

Athlete A
Athlete B

Figure 5.3 The net vertical ground reaction force for two athletes performing
isometric back squats on a force plate. The squat was performed with an internal
knee angle of 90° and each athlete was instructed to exert maximal force against
an immovable resistance for a 3-s period. The body weight of each athlete has
been removed from the respective force trace. Athlete A has a body mass of 84.3
kg and a 1-RM parallel back squat of 175.0 kg; athlete B has a body mass of 79.6 kg
and a 1-RM parallel back squat of 110.0 kg. Athlete A is able to achieve a greater
peak isometric force and, therefore, has greater maximal isometric strength than
athlete B in this specific task.

The forces developed by an athlete in short time periods are below the peak force
that an athlete is able to achieve during a given task. Thus maximal and explosive
measures represent different indices of muscular strength, even though both are
determined by the magnitude of the force generated. There is a relationship between
measures of maximal and explosive strength, with maximal strength being strongly
related to RFD (Andersen & Aagaard, 2006; Haff et al., 1997; Stone et al., 2003).
(See Applied Research 5.1.) Researchers have proposed that maximal muscular
strength forms the theoretical foundation upon which explosive strength is devel-
oped (Schmidtbleicher, 1992). Just as the magnitude of the force that an athlete is
able to exert depends on the external mass being accelerated during dynamic tasks,
so dynamic RFD depends on the magnitude of the external mass, with greater RFD
values being achieved under conditions of low external loads (Haff et al., 1997; Stone
et al., 2003).
Another expression of muscular strength is reactive strength, defined as the ability
to tolerate high stretch-loads and rapidly transition from eccentric to concentric mus-
cle actions in tasks involving the stretch–shortening cycle (Newton & Dugan, 2002).

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 200 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 Defining Muscular Strength 201

Table 5.1
The Time Available for Force Development in Various Sporting Tasks
Sporting Task Time for Force Development (s)
Countermovement jump takeoff ≤ 0.330
Long jump and high jump takeoff ≤ 0.220
Baseball delivery ≤ 0.170
Javelin delivery ≤ 0.140
Gymnastic tumbling takeoff ≤ 0.125
Stance phase of sprint running ≤ 0.120
Soccer kick (foot–ball contact) ≤ 0.010
Data from Dapena, J., & Chung, C. S. (1988). Vertical and radial motions of the body during
the take-off phase of high jumping. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 20, 290–302;
Escamilla, R. F., Fleisig, G. S., Barrentine, S. W., Zheng, N., & Andrews, J. R. (1998). Kinematic
comparisons of throwing different types of baseball pitches. Journal of Applied Biomechanics,
14, 1–23; Feltner, M. E., Fraschetti, D. J., & Crisp, R. J. (1999). Upper extremity augmentation
of lower extremity kinetics during countermovement vertical jumps. Journal of Sports Sciences,
17, 449–466; Kuitunen, S., Komi, P. V., & Kyröläinen, H. (2002). Knee and ankle joint stiffness
in sprint running. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 34, 166–173; Liu, H., Leigh, S.,
& Yu, B. (2010). Sequence of upper and lower extremity motions in javelin throwing. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 13, 1459–1467; Luhtanen, P., & Komi, P. V. (1979). Mechanical power and
segmental contributions to force impulses in long jump take-off. European Journal of Applied
Physiology, 41, 267–274; McNeal, J. R., Sands, W. A., & Shultz, B. B. (2007). Muscle activation
characteristics of tumbling take-offs. Sports Biomechanics, 6, 375–390; Nunome, H., Lake, M.,
Georgakis, A., & Stergioulas, L. K. (2006). Impact phase of kinematics of instep kicking in
soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 11–22.

Table 5.2
Force–Time Variables That Can Be Used to Quantify Explosive Muscular
Strength in a Given Task
Variable Definition
Time of Fpeak The time associated with the occurrence of peak force during a
specific task. Lower values reflect greater explosive muscular strength.
RFD The slope of the force–time curve. Average RFD (RFDave) refers to the
slope from the beginning of the force application to the occurrence
of peak force. Peak RFD (RFDpeak) refers to the maximal slope of
the force–time trace. Large values of both RFDave and RFDpeak reflect
greater explosive muscular strength.
RFD across finite The slope of the force–time curve across finite time periods from
time periods the beginning of the force application. Typically, 50-ms time periods
are used, with times less than 50 ms denoting “early” RFD and times
greater than 150 ms denoting “late” RFD. Large RFD values within
each time period reflect greater explosive muscular strength.
Note: RFD = rate of force development; Fpeak = peak force; RFDave = average rate of force development;
RFDpeak = peak rate of force development.

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 201 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 202 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

Applied Research 5.1

The relationship between measures of maximal and explosive
muscular strength
The authors recorded the maximal voluntary and electrically evoked isometric RFD in a knee
extension task during different time periods ranging from 0–10 ms to 0–250 ms. These time
periods were used to define “early” (RFD < 50 ms) and “late” (RFD = 150–250 ms) phases of
the muscle activity. Maximal strength was measured as the maximal force generated during
an isometric knee extension task, and correlations were performed on the maximal strength
and RFD data. Maximal voluntary RFD was moderately to strongly correlated with maximal
isometric strength, and the magnitude of the relationship increased from early RFD (r ≈
0.40) to late RFD (r ≈ 0.90). Furthermore, early voluntary RFD was more strongly related to
electrically evoked characteristics of the active muscle (r ≈ 0.60) than was late voluntary RFD
(r ≈ 0.30). The authors concluded that early voluntary RFD is more related to the intrinsic
properties of skeletal muscle, while late voluntary RFD is more influenced by the maximal
strength capabilities of the individual.
Andersen, L. L., & Aagaard, P. (2006). Influence of maximal muscle strength and intrinsic muscle
contractile properties on contractile rate of force development. European Journal of Applied
Physiology, 96, 46–52.

Worked Example 5.1

The importance of explosive strength in sprint running
Each stance phase of a 100-m sprint race represents the only time that the athlete is able to use
the ground reaction force (GRF) to generate an impulse that increases the momentum of the
center of mass (CM). When the athlete is sprinting at maximal velocity, the CM descends over
the first half of the stance and ascends over the second half. At touchdown, the sprinter’s CM
possesses negative vertical momentum, which will be reduced to zero at mid-stance by the
action of the vertical impulse associated with the GRF. Furthermore, the vertical component
of the GRF must also exert an impulse equal to that associated with bodyweight during the
stance phase because of gravity. The stance phases associated with maximal-velocity sprinting
in well-trained sprinters are typically around 0.10 s (Bezodis, Kerwin, & Salo, 2008; Kuitunen,
Komi, & Kyröläinen, 2002), so the vertical impulse must be generated in a very short period
of time (half of the stance period), requiring a high rate of force development (RFD).
Calculate the RFD associated with the GRF required for a sprinter with a body mass of
75 kg to generate a vertical impulse to reduce the negative vertical momentum to 0 kg m/s
over the first half of the stance. To do so, we will use a vertical velocity of the CM at
touchdown of − 0.50 m/s (Mero, Luhtanen, & Komi, 1986) and a total stance duration of
0.11 s. We will use the impulse–momentum relationship.
i. Calculate the vertical momentum of the CM
at touchdown p = mv
ii. Answer p = 75 × − 0.50 = − 37.5 kg m/s
iii. Calculate the GRF impulse required to
reduce p to 0 kg m/s JΔp = pf − pi
iv. Answer JΔp = 0 − − 37.5 = 37.5 Ns
v. Calculate the body weight impulse during
half of stance JBW = Ft
vi. Answer JBW = (75 × − 9.81) × 0.055 = − 40.5 Ns

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 202 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 Defining Muscular Strength 203

The value of − 40.5 Ns represents the impulse acting downward due to body weight. This
will be countered by the impulse associated with the GRF acting upward. Therefore, we will
remove the negative sense from the value.
vii. Sum JΔp and JBW to provide the total vertical GRF impulse JGRF = 78.0 Ns
We now know that over the first half of the stance (0.055 s), the vertical impulse associated
with the GRF needs to be 78.0 Ns to arrest the downward momentum of the CM and to
support body weight. (Notice that the same magnitude of vertical GRF impulse is required
over the second half of the stance to generate a vertical velocity of 0.50 m/s at takeoff to project
the athlete into the flight phase.) We can use the trapezoid rule to determine the change in
force that will provide an area under the force–time trace equal to 78.0 Ns. Assuming that the
GRF begins at 0 N (Fi ), this will then give the peak GRF (Ff ) during the first half of stance.
viii. Use the trapezoid rule to determine the
peak GRF (Ff ) during the stance JGRF = [(Fi + Ff )/2] × t
ix. Rearrange the trapezoid rule Ff = 2 × (JGRF/t)
x. Answer Ff = 2 × (78.0/0.055) = 2836 N
xi. Calculate the RFD required to develop
2836 N in 0.055 s RFD = 2,836/0.055 = 51,564 N/s
Therefore, to generate the required vertical impulse during the first half of the stance,
the athlete must be able to produce a RFD of 51,564 N/s. Furthermore, notice that the
magnitude of the peak vertical GRF required in this situation, which is approximately 4
times body weight, is being generated unilaterally.
This analysis is predicated on the vertical GRF rising at a constant rate over the first
half of the stance (and then falling at the same rate over the second half of the stance),
something that does not actually occur in vivo. Specifically, Figure 5.4 shows the vertical
GRF generated when the RFD is a constant of 51,564 N/s and the rate of force relaxation is

3000

2500

2000
Force (N)

1500

1000

500

0
0.00 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.10
Time (s)

Figure 5.4 The vertical ground reaction force generated with a constant rate
of force development of 51,564 N/s and a constant rate of force relaxation of
–51,564 N/s.
(continues)

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 203 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 204 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

(continued)

3675 5
Fy
2940 Fz 4

2205 3

FPO

Normalized GRF (BW)

1470 2

GRF (N)
735 1

0 0
0.14 0.21 0.28
–735 Time (s) –1

–1470 –2

Figure 5.5 The vertical and horizontal components of the ground reaction
force for an elite athlete sprinting at maximal velocity.
Reproduced from Bezodis, I. N., Kerwin, D. G., & Salo, A. I. T. (2008). Lower-limb mechanics during the
support phase of maximum-velocity sprint running. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40, 707–715.

a constant − 51,564 N/s, as per our earlier example. Figure 5.5 shows the actual vertical
GRF recorded from an elite sprinter running at maximal velocity.
Notice that while the magnitude of the peak GRF is similar between the two graphs, the
overall shape differs greatly. The RFD recorded in vivo does not remain constant; indeed, it
appears to be greater than that calculated in our example. However, despite the assumptions
involved in the preceding analysis, we can determine that an elite sprinter is required to
produce large peak vertical ground reaction forces during the stance phases associated with
maximal-velocity sprinting and that the athlete must have high RFD to achieve these forces
during the short durations of the stance phases. If the athlete is incapable of producing a
high RFD, then he or she must remain in contact with the ground for a greater duration to
reduce the negative vertical momentum of the CM to zero and to support body weight. This
would result in a reduction in the athlete’s running velocity. Therefore, explosive strength is
very important for sprint athletes.

Worked Example 5.2

Quantifying explosive muscular strength during isometric back squats
Explosive muscular strength can be determined by calculating force–time variables
collected from a force plate or a dynamometer during a given task. Here we calculate
the rate of force development variables defined in Table 5.2 for two athletes performing
isometric back squats on two force plates to provide the ground reaction force generated
by each during a 3-s period. Athlete A has a body mass of 84.3 kg and a 1-RM parallel back
squat of 175.0 kg; athlete B has a body mass of 79.6 kg and a 1-RM parallel back squat of
110.0 kg. The force–time traces for each athlete are shown in Figure 5.3. Table 5.3 shows

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 204 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 Defining Muscular Strength 205

Table 5.3
Average Rate of Force Development, Peak Rate of Force Development,
and Time of Peak Force Calculated for Two Athletes During an
Isometric Back Squat
Athlete Fpeak (N) Time Fpeak (s) RFDave (N/s) RFDpeak (N/s)
A 1216 2.01 605 3482
B 759 2.89 263 1603
Note: Fpeak = peak force; Time Fpeak = time of peak force; RFDave = average rate of force development;
RFDpeak = peak rate of force development.

the calculated values of peak force (Fpeak), time of peak force (Time Fpeak), average rate of
force development (RFDave), and peak rate of force development (RFDpeak) derived from the
force–time traces.
As per Table 5.2, RFDave is calculated as the ratio of Fpeak and Time Fpeak, while RFDpeak is
calculated as the greatest value of the first derivative of force with respect to time. Notice
that athlete A is able to produce a greater Fpeak and achieves this force earlier in the task
compared to athlete B; athlete A, therefore, has the greater RFDave of the two. Furthermore,
the RFDpeak for athlete A is greater than that for athlete B. Table 5.4 shows the RFD
values recorded during 50-ms time periods up to a time of 300 ms. These time periods
include what some authors refer to as the early (< 50 ms) and late (> 150 ms) phases of
RFD (Andersen & Aagaard, 2006). Notice that athlete A is able to achieve greater values of
explosive muscular strength regardless of the measure used.

Table 5.4
Rate of Force Development Values Recorded During 50-ms Time
Periods Calculated for Two Athletes During an Isometric Back Squat
RFD50 RFD100 RFD150 RFD200 RFD250 RFD300
Athlete (N/s) (N/s) (N/s) (N/s) (N/s) (N/s)
A 2032 2362 2640 2844 2929 2877
B 866 1011 1163 1271 1320 1317
Note: RFD50 = rate of force development in 50 ms; RFD100 = rate of force development in 100 ms;
RFD150 = rate of force development in 150 ms; RFD200 = rate of force development in 200 ms;
RFD250 = rate of force development in 250 ms; RFD300 = rate of force development in 300 ms.

Schmidtbleicher (1992) proposed that tasks involving the stretch–shortening cycle

(SSC) can be divided into categories of fast and slow depending on the duration of
the contraction times and the displacement of the joints during the task. Specifically,
fast SSC tasks are characterized by short contraction times (< 250 ms) and low joint
displacements (e.g., drop jumps), whereas slow SSC tasks are characterized by longer
contraction times and greater joint displacements (e.g., countermovement jumps).
The fast SSC tasks produce high stretch-loads and constitute measures of reactive

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 205 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 206 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

strength, an index of which can be quantified during a drop jump as follows (Flanagan
& Comyns, 2008):

 v2 
 2 g 
Reactive strength index = Eq. (5.5)
t

where v is takeoff velocity, g is the acceleration due to gravity, and t is the time of force
application. Notice that the term v2/2g returns the jump height achieved during the
drop jump, and that takeoff velocity is equal to the ratio of the net vertical impulse
of the ground reaction force and body mass (∫Fdt/m). Thus, Equation (5.5) can be
rewritten as follows:

( ∫ F dt / m ) / 2 g
2

Reactive strength index = Eq. (5.6)

t
Inspection of Equation (5.6) informs us that the reactive strength index for an athlete
will increase in proportion to the square of the net impulse that the individual is able to
generate during the contact phase of the task and decrease in proportion to the square
of body mass. Furthermore, the reactive strength index will decrease in proportion to
the increase in contact time during the task. Therefore, a high reactive strength index
is characterized by the application of a large relative impulse in a short period of time.
Reactive strength would appear to be qualitatively similar to the measure of explosive
strength discussed previously. However, the measurement of reactive strength is spe-
cific to tasks involving the stretch–shortening cycle, so it may have greater utility in
sporting tasks such as sprint running, change of direction, and jumping activities.
The measure of reactive strength relates to the stiffness generated during a task
involving the stretch–shortening cycle. Stiffness, which refers to the resistance of a
body to a deformation (Brughelli & Cronin, 2008), can be calculated during a test of
reactive strength such as a drop jump as follows:

F
kvert = Eq. (5.7)
∆s

where kVERT is the vertical stiffness of the athlete, F is the peak vertical ground reaction
force, and Δs is the change in displacement of the center of mass (CM) during the con-
tact phase of the jump. During the performance of a drop jump, we could expect F and
Δs to occur at the same time. We can compare Equation (5.7) with Equation (5.6) and
identify the similarities. Specifically, Equation (5.6) informs us that an athlete who is
able to generate a large relative vertical impulse during a short contact phase of a drop
jump will demonstrate high reactive strength. It would also be expected that this athlete
will achieve a large peak vertical ground reaction force while preventing the CM from
descending over a large displacement due to the large force generation. This would
result in a large kVERT value for the athlete given the terms of Equation (5.7). The impor-
tance of vertical stiffness is highlighted in Worked Example 5.3.
Stiffness values can also be determined for the leg as follows:

F
kleg = Eq. (5.8)
∆l

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 206 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 Defining Muscular Strength 207

Worked Example 5.3

The importance of vertical stiffness in sprint running
Vertical stiffness can be determined from the ratio of the ground reaction force acting on
an athlete and the change in displacement of the individual’s center of mass (CM) during
the application of the ground reaction force. We will return to the data presented in Worked
Example 5.1 for an athlete with a body mass of 75 kg sprinting at maximal velocity with
a stance duration of 0.11 s. Figure 5.6 shows the hypothetical vertical ground reaction
force data that we calculated for the athlete during the stance phase with a constant rate of
force development of 51,564 N/s.
We can integrate the data shown in Figure 5.6 to provide the vertical velocity and the vertical
displacement of the CM during the stance phase. These data are displayed in Figure 5.7.
We can determine that the CM falls 0.023 m during the stance phase and that this displacement
coincides with the attainment of the maximal vertical ground reaction force of 2836 N (see
Figures 5.6 and 5.7). Calculate the vertical stiffness for the athlete during the stance phase.
i. Calculate vertical stiffness using Equation (5.7) Vertical stiffness = F/Δs
ii. Input the known variables Vertical stiffness = 2836/0.023
iii. Answer Vertical stiffness = 123.3 kN/m
Notice how the vertical stiffness measure relates to the RFD of the athlete. Specifically, the
RFD of 51,564 N/s allows the generation of 2836 N of force in 0.055 s. Given this RFD, the CM
descends only 0.023 m during 0.055 s of the stance phase. If the athlete were unable to achieve
this RFD, then the stance duration would have to be increased to accommodate the reduction
in the vertical velocity of the CM. The high RFD required to achieve the acceleration of the
CM may, in fact, be possible only because of the vertical stiffness of the athlete. If the athlete
were unable to generate the required vertical stiffness of 123.3 kN/m, then his or her RFD
would be reduced, requiring the athlete to increase the stance duration and, therefore, reduce
the running velocity. The vertical stiffness of the athlete is largely determined by the interaction
of the stiffness of the hip, knee, and ankle joints during the stance phase of sprinting.

3000

2500

2000
Force (N)

1500

1000

500

0
0.00 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.10
Time (s)

Figure 5.6 The vertical ground reaction force generated with a constant rate of force
development of 51,564 N/s and a constant rate of force relaxation of − 51,564 N/s.
(continues)

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 207 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 208 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

(continued)
0.80 0.005

0.000
0.40
–0.005

Displacement (m)
Velocity (m/s)
0.00 –0.010
0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.10

–0.015
–0.40
–0.020

–0.80 –0.025
Time (s)

Velocity
Displacement

Figure 5.7 The vertical velocity and displacement of the center of mass during
the stance phase of maximal-velocity sprint running.

where kleg is the stiffness of the leg, F is the peak ground reaction force, and Dl is the
change in the length of the leg during the force application. Leg stiffness will be deter-
mined from the interaction of the stiffness of the hip, knee, and ankle joints during
the test of reactive strength:
M
kjoint = Eq. (5.9)
∆θ
where kjoint is the joint stiffness, M is the peak joint moment, and Δq is the change in
joint angular displacement during force application. Stiffness has been identified as a
modulator of RFD (Brughelli & Cronin, 2008).

The Importance of Muscular Strength in Sport

Measures of maximal muscular strength, both dynamic and isometric, have been shown to
be important in a variety of sports, including baseball, basketball, American football, rugby,
soccer, and sprint running; in all of these sports, the better athletes demonstrate the greater
levels of maximal muscular strength (Baker & Newton, 2006; Bartlett, Storey, & Simons,
1989; Cometti, Maffiuletti, Pousson, Chatard, & Maffulli, 2001; Fry & Kraemer, 1991; Latin,
Berg, & Baechle, 1994; Meckel, Atterbom, Grodjinovsky, Ben-Sira, & Rostein, 1995; Mero,
Luhtanen, & Komi, 1983; Mero, Luhtanen, Viitasalo, & Komi, 1981; Wisløff, Castagna,
Helgerud, Jones, & Hoff, 2004). RFD has been proposed as one of the most important
variables to explain performance in activities where great acceleration is required
(Aagaard et al., 2002; Cronin & Sleivert, 2005; González-Badillo & Marques, 2010), and
high RFD has been associated with jumping performance (McLellan, Lovell, & Gass,
2011) and sprint running performance (Wilson, Lyttle, Ostrowski, & Murphy, 1995).

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 208 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 The Importance of Muscular Strength in Sport 209

The time over which RFD is assessed affects the relationship with athletic tasks. Specifi-
cally, high values of RFD within 100 ms have been found to be strongly related to sprint
performance, while high RFD values during times greater than 100 ms are more related
to vertical jump performance (Tillin et al., 2013).
Low-load speed-strength, as measured by the force generated during an unloaded
vertical jump, has been shown to be strongly correlated with sprinting performance
(Mero, 1988; Mero et al., 1981; Young, McLean, & Ardagna, 1995), as has high-load
speed-strength (Sleivert & Taingahue, 2004). Reactive strength, as measured by drop
jump performance, has been shown to correlate strongly with sprinting performance
(Cunningham et al., 2013; Mero, 1988; Mero et al., 1981; Smirniotou et al., 2008) and
change of direction tasks (Young, James, & Montgomery, 2002). Finally, leg stiffness as
measured in a hopping task has been shown to correlate strongly with maximal sprint-
ing speed (Bret, Rahmani, Dufour, Messonnier, & Lacour, 2002; Chelly & Denis, 2001).
Table 5.5 summarizes the different indices of muscular strength and their importance
in sports performance.

Table 5.5
Indices of Muscular Strength
Strength Index Description
Absolute maximal The greatest force generated when an electrical stimulus is superimposed upon a maximal
strength voluntary contraction during a given task.
This index provides information about the intrinsic properties of the stimulated muscles.
Voluntary maximal The greatest force generated voluntarily during a given dynamic task.
dynamic strength Repetition maximum testing can be used to determine the maximal dynamic strength.
The one-repetition maximum (1-RM) is the maximum load that can be lifted in a single
repetition through an appropriate range of motion using the correct technique.
The tasks can be concentric only or eccentric only, although they usually involve the
stretch–shortening cycle.
High maximal dynamic strength is strongly correlated with the level of sports performance.
Voluntary maximal The greatest external force exerted against an immovable body.
isometric strength High maximal isometric strength is strongly correlated with the level of sports performance.
Speed-strength The force generated under conditions where the movement velocity is varied by altering the
external load.
An external load less than or equal to 30% 1-RM is used to determine low-load speed-strength;
a load more than 30% 1-RM is used to determine high-load speed-strength.
Both low-load and high-load speed-strength are strongly correlated with sprinting performance.
Explosive strength The magnitude of force generated during a given time period characterized by high rates of
force development (RFD).
RFD is typically divided into “early” (less than 50 ms) and “late” (more than 150 ms) periods
during dynamic and isometric tasks.
RFD can be measured during both dynamic and isometric tasks.
High RFD is strongly correlated with jumping and sprinting performance.
Reactive strength The ability to tolerate high stretch-loads and rapidly transition from eccentric to concentric
muscle actions in tasks involving the stretch–shortening cycle.
This index is characterized by high vertical, leg, and joint stiffness.
High reactive strength (stiffness) is strongly correlated with sprinting, change of direction,
and jumping performance.

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 209 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 210 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

Defining Muscular Power

Power is defined as the rate at which work is done and can be determined from the
product of the applied force and the velocity of the body. Alternatively, given that the
work performed on a body changes the mechanical energy of the body (translational
or rotational kinetic energy, gravitational potential energy, strain potential energy),
net power can be determined from the rate of change of energy of the body to which
the force is applied. Clearly, then, the variables of force and power are related. In turn,
one should expect a relationship between muscular strength and power output. In
the literature, numerous authors have shown that those athletes with greater levels
of maximal dynamic muscular strength demonstrate greater muscular power output
(Moss et al., 1997; Peterson, Alvar, & Rhea, 2006). However, while RFD and power
are sometimes used interchangeably, it should be recognized that they are distinct
mechanical variables (see Strength and Power Concept 5.2).
The relationship between power output and the force applied to a body can be
expressed as follows:
Fs
P = Eq. (5.10)
t

Strength and Power Concept 5.2

Rate of force development and mechanical power are
distinct variables
Some practitioners use the terms “RFD” and “power” interchangeably. This ten-
dency probably arises from the dependence of both variables on the applica-
tion of a force onto a body as well as the use of a rate in the calculation of both
variables; RFD is quantified as the rate at which a force is applied to a body,
while mechanical power is the rate at which mechanical work is done by a force
that is applied to a body. Given these definitions, mechanical power can be
calculated only if the applied force actually performs mechanical work; that is,
the point of application of the force must be displaced as the force is applied
to the body. That the force does mechanical work is not a requirement when
measuring RFD. Consider the situation during an isometric task where a force
is applied to an immovable body. Under such mechanical constraints, the RFD
can be determined but the force will not have performed any mechanical work,
because the point of its application on the body is not displaced. (Metabolic
work, however, is done during the isometric task to generate muscular force.)

Some authors have proposed RFD as one of a number of muscular qualities that
contributes to mechanical power output developed during a given task (Newton
& Dugan, 2002). From the mechanical expression of power given in Equation
(5.10), it can be determined that the mechanical power output increases with
the magnitude of the applied force, decreasing with an increase in the time over
which the force acts. It follows that a large power output will be achieved if a
large force is developed in a short period of time. In turn, a high RFD would allow
the generation of a large mechanical power output. However, this relationship is
valid only if the force developed does work on the body to which it is applied.

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 210 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 Defining Muscular Power  211

where P is the average mechanical power output, F is the average force applied, s is the
displacement undergone by the body in the same direction as the force acts, and t is
the time over which the force is applied to the body. Equation (5.10) informs us that
power is the rate at which a force does mechanical work on a body and can be rewrit-
ten as follows:
P = Fv Eq. (5.11)

where P is the mechanical power output, F is the magnitude of the applied force, and v
is the linear velocity of the body. It follows that the mechanical power output during a
given movement will depend on the mass of the body to which the athlete applies his or
her force, given the effect this will have on the velocity of the body (see Equation 5.1).
However, the magnitude of the external load that elicits maximal power output depends
on the nature of the specific movements used, with a load equivalent to 0% squat 1-RM
maximizing power output during the squat jump exercise, while a load of 50% 1-RM
maximizes power output during the squat exercise (Cormie, McCauley, Triplett, &
McBride, 2007). A load equivalent to 80% 1-RM has been shown to elicit maximal
power output during the clean exercise (Cormie, McCauley, Triplett, & McBride, 2007).
See Strength and Power Concept 5.3.

Strength and Power Concept 5.3

The external load that elicits maximal power output
depends on the specific movement
Maximal power output for both isolated muscle fibers and single-joint move-
ments is elicited when the external resistance is equivalent to 30% of the
maximal isometric force (Cormie, McGuidan, & Newton, 2011). By comparison,
for multiple-joint movements, the external load that maximizes power output
varies between 0% and 80% of the maximal dynamic strength depending on
the specific movement. For example, maximal power output occurs at 0% squat
1-RM during the squat jump, whereas a load of approximately 50% squat 1-RM
maximizes power output during a squat (Cormie, McCauley, Triplett, & McBride,
2007). The differences in the load that elicits maximal power output between
these two exercises likely reflects the ballistic nature of the squat jump: In this
task, the load must possess positive vertical velocity at takeoff. In contrast,
the squat has a non-ballistic nature, such that the velocity of the load is con-
strained to equal 0 m/s at the end of its ascent. The ballistic nature of the squat
jump allows the generation of high forces under relatively low-load conditions
because the duration of the acceleration of the load is greater.

Notice that body mass as well as the mass of the external load is being acceler-
ated in the squat jump. This requirement is absent when performing the bal-
listic bench-throw exercise, which increases the relative load that elicits maximal
power; loads equivalent to 30–45% bench press 1-RM have been identified in
the research (Cormie et al., 2011). In weightlifting movements like the clean, the
load that maximizes power output has been found to be 80% of 1-RM (Cormie,
McCauley, Triplett, & McBride, 2007). Although this movement requires high
(continues)

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 211 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 212 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

(continued)
velocities of the load during the movement, the 1-RM for the clean is determined
using the lift itself. It is likely that if the 1-RM load was determined from a non-
ballistic exercise such as a deadlift, then the load that maximized power output in
the clean would be a much lower percentage of the 1-RM (Cormie et al., 2011).

Equations (5.10) and (5.11) inform us that a given power output could be achieved
by either the application of a large force or the achievement of a high movement velocity.
For example, it is theoretically possible that the same power output might be produced
in a specific movement either by the application of a large force with a relatively low
movement velocity or by the application of a smaller force with a larger movement
velocity. Furthermore, knowledge of the relative contributions of force and velocity to
the power output generated by an athlete can guide the practitioner in determining
the most appropriate training methods to develop power output (Samonzino, Rejc,
Di Prampero, Belli, & Morin, 2012). A method to determine the contribution of force
and movement velocity to power output is shown in Worked Example 5.4.

Worked Example 5.4

Quantifying the contributions of force and movement velocity to
power output
Samonzino et al. (2012) propose that plotting the force against the velocity achieved during
vertical jumps performed with different external loads can provide an indication of the relative
contribution of force and velocity to each athlete’s power output. Table 5.6 shows the values
of the average normalized vertical ground reaction force (GRF), average vertical velocity,
and the normalized average power output for two athletes recorded during squat jumps with
external loads ranging from 0% to 85% of 1-RM back squat. The jumps were performed

Table 5.6
Average Normalized Vertical Force, Average Vertical Velocity, and
Normalized Average Power Output for Two Athletes Recorded During
Squat Jumps with External Loads Ranging from 0% to 85% of 1-RM
Back Squat
Load Force (N/kg) Velocity (m/s) Power Output (W/kg)
Athlete A Athlete B Athlete A Athlete B Athlete A Athlete B
0% 1-RM 11.0 9.5 2.46 2.36 50.3 43.1
12% 1-RM 12.9 10.4 2.00 1.93 43.4 34.4
27% 1-RM 15.9 11.1 1.59 1.72 35.7 32.5
42% 1-RM 16.8 12.3 1.14 1.29 28.6 27.8
56% 1-RM 18.7 13.3 0.93 1.16 26.0 24.5
71% 1-RM 19.9 14.6 0.81 0.91 20.7 21.4
85% 1-RM 21.4 15.5 0.63 0.77 19.0 18.9
Note: 1-RM = one-repetition maximum.

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 212 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 Defining Muscular Power  213

25
Athlete A
Athlete B
20

15 y = –5.442x + 24.10
Force (N/kg)

10

y = –3.727x + 17.78

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.8 The force–velocity characteristics of two athletes calculated from

the average vertical force and average vertical velocity values during jump
squats performed under different load conditions from 0% to 85% of the load
associated with their one-repetition maximum parallel back squat. The first
term in each regression equation denotes the slope of the regression line, with a
greater value reflecting a steeper slope and therefore a greater reliance on force.
The second term in each regression equation denotes the maximal isometric
force for each athlete.

on force plates to provide the GRF, while the velocity of the barbell was recorded from an
opto-reflective motion analysis system. Athlete A has a body mass of 83.7 kg and a 1-RM back
squat of 195.0 kg; athlete B has a body mass of 83.2 kg and a 1-RM back squat of 117.5 kg.
Both athletes achieve their maximal power output under the unloaded jumping condition.
Athlete A tends to produce greater power outputs than athlete B under all of the loading
conditions, although the difference becomes negligible at the higher percentages of 1-RM.
Figure 5.8 shows the average vertical GRF plotted against the average vertical velocity
for the two athletes. The regression equations for each athlete are displayed on the graph.
Notice that each graph in Figure 5.8 has a different slope, signifying a difference in the
relative contributions of force and velocity to the production of power output for both
athletes: Athlete A, who has the greatest dynamic strength, generates power through the
application of large forces (as demonstrated by the larger slope of the regression), while
athlete B, who is weaker, tends to rely on relatively greater velocity under the different
load conditions (as demonstrated by the smaller slope of the regression line). Previous
research has demonstrated that the slope of the force–velocity relationship assessed in such
a manner can be altered through specific training (Cormie, McGuigan, & Newton, 2010);
such an analysis, therefore, can be used to determine the training goals for the athlete. For
example, improvements in power output for athlete A may be elicited by concentrating on
training methods to increase velocity (e.g., low-load speed-strength training, overspeed
training), while athlete B is likely to benefit from training methods that increase force
production (e.g., high-load speed-strength training).

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 213 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 214 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

The Importance of Muscular Power in Sport

Given the relationship of mechanical power output to the change in mechanical
energy of a body, it should be apparent that muscular power output can be used to
distinguish between athletes with different performance levels. Indeed, researchers
have demonstrated that elite rugby players have greater power output than lower-
level players in both upper- and lower-body exercises (Baker, 2001; Hansen, Cronin,
Pickering, & Douglas, 2011), while higher-level collegiate American football players
demonstrate greater power outputs compared to their lower-level counterparts (Fry
& Kraemer, 1991). Furthermore, starting football players are able to produce greater
power outputs than nonstarters (Barker et al., 1993). Muscular power output has also
been shown to be strongly correlated with sprint performance (Chelly & Denis, 2001;
Sleivert & Taingahue, 2004). Vertical jump height is often used as a surrogate measure
of muscular power output of the lower body; elite soccer players have been shown to
jump higher than lower-level players (Cometti et al., 2001). Vertical jump height is
also strongly correlated with sprint performance, with the fastest sprinters producing
the greatest jump heights (Mero et al., 1983; Mero et al., 1981).

Determinants of Muscular Strength and Power

Usually what is measured during an assessment of muscular strength and/or muscu-
lar power output is a variable reflecting the mechanical output in a specific task (e.g.,
the mass lifted, the magnitude of the ground reaction force, the product of the force
applied to the mass and the velocity of that mass), rather than a direct measurement
of muscular forces being undertaken. Of course, any of these mechanical outputs
will be largely determined by the forces generated by the active muscles during the
specific task, but the practitioner requires an understanding of how muscle tension
is transformed into the mechanical output measured to select an appropriate test of
strength and power and to develop an appropriate training program to improve these
variables. This requires an understanding of which factors determine muscle tension,
how muscular tension is transformed into joint moments, and how joint moments are
transformed into external forces.

Factors Determining Muscle Tension

The mechanical output developed by an active muscle depends on a number of factors.
The influence of these factors on muscle tension, rate of force development, and power
output is summarized in Table 5.7.
Although the various factors that affect the tension developed by a muscle are
relatively well researched and understood, measuring individual muscle forces in vivo
is a very difficult task. One approach is to take direct measurements of tendon forces
(e.g., the Achilles tendon buckle; Finni, Komi, & Lukkariniemi, 1998), although such
approaches are very invasive. Others have used imaging technologies (e.g., ultrasound,
magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]; Maganaris, 2001) for this purpose (see Worked
Example 5.5). While these techniques are certainly less invasive, the tasks that can
be performed by the individual under investigation are necessarily single-joint move-
ments. More recently, forward dynamic models of the human motor system have been
used to allow the determination of individual muscle forces during more complex,
multiple-joint movement tasks (Erdemir, McLean, Herzog, & van den Bogert, 2007).

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 214 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 Determinants of Muscular Strength and Power 215

Table 5.7
Factors Affecting the Tension Developed by a Muscle
Factor Affecting
Muscle Tension Explanation
Length of the muscle Muscle tension is decreased when muscle fibers operate above or
below the optimal length.
Velocity of dynamic Eccentric muscle tension > isometric tension > concentric
muscle actions muscle tension.
Maximal power is achieved at 30% of maximal isometric tension.
The force–velocity properties of skeletal muscle are largely
determined by the predominant fiber type.
Fiber type Tension per fiber cross-sectional area (specific tension) is greater
in type II fibers.
Maximal shortening velocities are greater in type II fibers.
Rate of force development is greater in type II fibers.
Power output per fiber cross-sectional area is greater in type II
fibers.
Cross-sectional area Muscle tension increases linearly with cross-sectional area (CSA).
Increasing CSA is likely to increase power output.
Architecture Greater pennation angles are associated with greater muscle
tension.
Greater pennation angles produce greater power output.
Greater fiber length is associated with greater shortening
velocities.
Greater fiber lengths are associated with greater power output.
Activation dynamics Greater motor unit recruitment produces greater muscle
tension, rate of force development, and power output.
Increased rate coding produces greater muscle tension, rate of
force development, and power output.
Timing and duration of activation of an individual muscle
determine the tension, rate of force development, and power
output during cyclical actions.
Spinal reflexes Group Ia and II afferents make excitatory (agonist) and
inhibitory (antagonist) connections with a -motoneurons.
Group Ib afferents make inhibitory (agonist) and excitatory
(antagonist) connections with a -motoneurons.
Contractile history Greater muscle tension and power output occur when fibers are
stretched before shortening (stretch–shortening cycle).
Muscle fiber tension, rate of force development, and power
output can be increased or decreased through previous activity
via post-activation potentiation (PAP) and fatigue, respectively.
Type II fibers demonstrate greater PAP and greater fatigue than
type I fibers.
Reproduced from Cormie, P., McGuigan, M. R., & Newton, R. U. (2011). Developing
maximal neuromuscular power. Part 1: Biological basis of maximal power production.
Sports Medicine, 41, 17–38.

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 215 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 216 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

Worked Example 5.5

Calculating muscle forces using ultrasonography and magnetic
resonance imaging
Maganaris (2001) had individuals perform electrically evoked contractions of the soleus
muscle in a dynamometer at different joint angles to record the isometric moment at
the ankle joint. Ultrasound-based measurements were also collected during the task to
provide the pennation angle of the soleus, while MRI-based measurements were taken
to provide the moment arm of the Achilles tendon. The data collected are shown in
Table 5.8.
The author calculated the force at the Achilles tendon under each joint angle by dividing
the moment by the moment arm. The soleus muscle force was then calculated by dividing
the tendon force by the cosine of the pennation angle.

i. Calculate the tendon force (FT) FT = M/d

ii. Calculate the muscle force (FM) FM = FT /cosq
These calculations for the original data appear in Table 5.9. Note that the muscle force
exceeds the tendon force due to the contribution of each fiber to the overall force being
proportional to the cosine of the pennation angle. Moreover, both tendon and muscle force
depend on the joint angle during the task.

Table 5.8
Isometric Moment, Achilles Tendon Moment Arm, and Pennation
Angle During Electrically Evoked Contractions of the Soleus at
Different Ankle Joint Angles
Joint Angle (degrees)
− 30 − 15 0 15 30 45
Moment (Nm) 144 149 107 68 32 12
Tendon moment arm (m) 0.051 0.054 0.060 0.066 0.070 0.072
Pennation angle (degrees) 32 35 40 45 50 55
Note: Negative angles refer to dorsiflexion; 0° angle refers to the neutral (anatomic) position.

Table 5.9
Achilles Tendon and Soleus Muscle Forces During Electrically Evoked
Contractions of the Soleus at Different Ankle Joint Angles
Joint Angle (degrees)
− 30 − 15 0 15 30 45
Tendon force (N) 2824 2759 1783 1030 457 167
Muscle force (N) 3330 3368 2328 1457 711 291
Note: Negative angles refer to dorsiflexion; 0° angle refers to the neutral (anatomic) position.

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 216 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 Determinants of Muscular Strength and Power 217

Transforming Muscle Tension to Joint Moments

The force generated by a muscle is transmitted to the bones to which that muscle is
attached to produce a moment about a joint. Recall that a moment of force is deter-
mined by the magnitude of the force and the moment arm of the force:
M = Fd Eq. (5.12)

where M is the moment of force, F is the magnitude of the applied force, and d is the
moment arm of the force (the perpendicular distance between the line of action of
the force and the fulcrum). Equation (5.12) informs us that a given joint moment
will be influenced not only by the magnitude of the muscular force developed, which
is affected by numerous variables (Table 5.7), but also by the moment arm of the
muscle. The muscle moment arm is greatly affected by the joint angle adopted dur-
ing a given movement task (Dostal & Andrews, 1981; Tsaopoulos, Baltzopoulos,
Richards, & Maganaris, 2009). One can therefore expect a given joint moment to
be greatly affected by the posture adopted during the movement task. For example,
performing a vertical jump with the trunk held in an upright position, thereby pre-
venting rotation of the segment, results in reduction of the magnitude of the extensor
moment at the hip joint, with a concomitant but smaller increase in the moment at
the knee joint ­(Vanrenterghem, Lees, & De Clerque, 2008). Increasing the forward
inclination of the trunk during a back squat reduces the moment at the knee joint,
with a concomitant increase in the moment at the hip joint (Biscarini, Benventuti,
Botti, Mastrandrea, & Zanuso, 2011). The joint angle assumed will also influence the
length of the underlying muscles, and the magnitude of the joint moment will be
further affected by the joint angle. In addition, the external load during a strength
test produces a moment at a joint. Just as the moment arm associated with the mus-
cular force changes with the joint angle, so, too, the moment arm associated with
the external load used during a test of strength will differ as the joint is accelerated,
thereby influencing the load that can be lifted and, in turn, the magnitude of muscu-
lar strength recorded (see Worked Example 5.6).

Worked Example 5.6

The moment arm of the external load affects the assessment of
muscular strength
Consider the leg extension exercise performed in a weight machine to test the strength of
an athlete. In this single-joint exercise, an external load is lifted by the athlete, exerting a
knee extensor moment. Assume that the weight force associated with the mass added to the
machine acts at a distance l = 0.38 m distal to the knee joint (Figure 5.9). Calculate the
magnitude of the moment arm, d, associated with the weight force as the internal knee joint
angle, q, changes from 90° at the start of the movement to 180° at full extension.
i. Calculate the moment arm associated with each knee angle d = cos(180 − q) × l
ii. Answers are shown in Table 5.10
Notice that the magnitude of the moment arm associated with the weight force increases
as the knee joint is accelerated into extension and reaches a maximum when the knee is
fully extended. We can use the maximal moment arm to determine the maximal load that

(continues)

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 217 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 218 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

(continued)
d

Figure 5.9 Free-body diagram of the knee extension task. W is the weight
force associated with the load, l is the distance from the knee joint to the
placement of the load, d is the moment arm associated with the load, and θ is
the internal knee joint angle.

can be lifted assuming that the athlete is able to produce a maximal knee extensor moment
of 250 Nm.
i. Calculate the maximal load that can be lifted at the point of
maximal moment arm associated with the external load M = Fd
ii. Insert the known variables 250 = F × 0.38
iii. Rearrange for F F = 250/0.38
iv. Answer F = 658 N
v. Remove gravitational acceleration to return the mass of the load m = F/g
vi. Answer m = 67 kg
This value represents the maximal load that can be lifted by the athlete given a maximal
knee extensor moment of 250 Nm. If the weight machine is changed such that the load is
now placed 0.24 m distal to the knee joint, then the athlete will be able to lift a maximal
load of 106 kg; the athlete’s strength is substantially affected by the mechanics associated
with the movement used during the assessment.
In this simple analysis, the mass of the body segments involved in the movement and the
inertial forces have been ignored. Also, the magnitude of the knee extensor moment follows
a curvilinear relationship in vivo, being greatest at a knee angle of approximately 100°, but
decreasing by about 65% at 160° (Marginson & Eston, 2001). This means that the loads we
have just calculated could only be lifted at certain knee joint angles.

Table 5.10
Magnitude of the Moment Arm Associated with the Weight Force
Acting 0.38 m Distal to the Knee Joint at Selected Angles as the Internal
Knee Joint Is Extended from 90° to 180° During the Movement
Internal Knee Joint Angle (degrees) Load Moment Arm (m)
90 0.00
135 0.27
180 0.38

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 218 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 Determinants of Muscular Strength and Power 219

The effective mechanical advantage (EMA) of the active muscles can be determined
from the ratio of the muscle moment arm to the moment arm of the external force. Altera-
tions in the EMA during strength assessments have been proposed as the cause of the
sticking region, defined as a period of decreasing vertical velocity during the ascent of
the barbell that is evident when performing lifts with near maximal loads. Although the
moment arm of the external load relative to the joints has not been shown to change dur-
ing the sticking region of resistance exercise, the reduction in the moment arms associated
with the active muscles crossing those joints appears to be a likely cause of the sticking
region (Elliot, Wilson, & Kerr, 1989; Van den Tillaar, Sæterbakken, & Ettema, 2012). The
sticking region, therefore, represents the weakest point during a given movement and pro-
vides a constraint on any measure of muscular strength.
The transformation of muscle tension to a joint moment is further complicated
by the fact that there is unlikely to be a single muscle acting in isolation; rather, mul-
tiple muscles will be activated, some of which will act antagonistically. For example,
we can update Equation (5.12) to determine the magnitude of the net flexor–extensor
moment at the knee joint:

M NET = FVIdVI + FVL dVL + FVM dVM + FRF dRF − FBF dBF − FST dST − FSM dSM
Eq. (5.13)

where MNET is the magnitude of the net moment at the knee about the mediolateral
axis, FVIdVI is the moment produced by the vastus intermedius muscle, FVLdVL is the
moment produced by the vastus lateralis muscle, FVMdVM is the moment produced
by the vastus medialis muscle, FRFdRF is the moment produced by the rectus femoris
muscle at the knee joint, FBFdBF is the moment produced by the biceps femoris muscle
at the knee joint, FSTdST is the moment produced by the semitendinosus muscle at
the knee joint, and FSMdSM is the moment produced by the semimembranosus muscle
at the knee joint. Notice in Equation (5.13) that the moments produced by the knee
extensor muscle are positive while those produced by the knee flexors are negative.
Consequently, the magnitude of the net moment about a given joint will be deter-
mined by the sum of the activity of the products of individual muscle forces and the
moment arm associated with each muscle. It then becomes apparent that the net joint
moment will be determined by the timing of activation of multiple muscles as well as
their individual characteristics (e.g., muscle fiber length, muscle fiber type, physiologi-
cal cross-sectional area, pennation angle, moment arm).
Notice that Equation (5.13) has an infinite number of solutions to return a given
net joint moment due to unknown muscular forces and moment arms associated with
each of the muscles. This situation arises when using inverse dynamics to calculate
the net moment acting at a given joint; the contribution of individual muscles cannot
be determined in such a case. Forward dynamic techniques overcome this problem
and allow for the determination of the contribution of individual muscles to the joint
moments during specific movements.
The expression of explosive strength will be affected by the mechanical char-
acteristics of tendinous structures. A short delay (between 25 and 100 ms), known
as an electromechanical delay (EMD), occurs following the activation of a muscle
(measured via the electromyographic signal) until the force is detected; its source
likely resides in an initial stretch of the connective tissue following crossbridge cycling
(Zatsiorsky & Prilutsky, 2012). Indeed, the increased stiffness of tendinous structures
increases the rate of torque development (Bojsen-MØller, Magnusson, Rasmussen,
Kjær, & Aagaard, 2005). EMD is affected by the dynamic properties of the muscle

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 219 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 220 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

(i.e., length–tension and force–velocity relationships). Specifically, the requirement to

shorten rapidly during high-speed movements reduces the contractile elements’ abil-
ity to generate force, so the mechanical response will further lag behind the activation
dynamics (Caldwell & Li, 2000). The EMD is shorter for eccentric actions where the
connective tissue is pre-stretched compared to concentric actions, and it decreases
with an increase in lengthening velocity (Zatsiorsky & Prilutsky, 2012).

Transforming Joint Moments to an External Force

The net moments acting at the joints involved in a given task are transformed
into external forces that are exerted on the environment. For example, the vertical
ground reaction force during a vertical jump is largely determined by moments
acting at the hip, knee, and ankle joints during the propulsive phase of the task
(Figure 5.10).
The relationship between the joint moments and the external force produced in
a given movement is further revealed in analyses showing the concomitant increase
in the magnitude of the ground reaction force and the sum of the moments at the
hip, knee, and ankle joints as the external load increases in both non-ballistic (back
squat) and ballistic (squat jumps) movements (Flanagan & Salem, 2008; Moir, Gollie,
Davis, Guers, & Witmer, 2012). However, despite the relationship that exists between
the increase in the sum of the joint moments and the increase in the external force
in response to increased external loads during the assessment of muscular strength,
the contributions of the individual joint moments to the external force are more

30 6

5
25
4

Joint moment (Nm/kg)

20 3
Force (N/kg)

2
15
1

10 0

–1
5
–2

0 –3
0.00 0.50 1.50 2.00
Time (s)

Ground reaction force

Summed joint moments

Figure 5.10 The vertical component of the ground reaction force and the sum of
the hip, knee, and ankle joint moments during a vertical jump. Positive moments
refer to extensor moments. Notice how the ground reaction force increases as the
sum of the extensor moments at the joints increases.

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 220 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 Determinants of Muscular Strength and Power 221

complicated. For example, during the non-ballistic back squat, the largest moments
are observed at the hip joint, and the lowest moments are found at the ankle joint,
regardless of the external load (Flanagan & Salem, 2008). However, as the external
load lifted increases, the hip and ankle joints increase their contributions to the external
force while there is a concomitant decrease in knee joint moment (Flanagan & Salem,
2008). During a ballistic squat jump movement performed under different external
loads, the power output at the knee and the ankle joints follows the power output of
the external load, decreasing linearly as the mass of the external load increases (Moir
et al., 2012). However, the power output at the hip joint actually increases with loads
up to 42% of squat 1-RM, but then decreases thereafter (Figure 5.11). A similar
response in joint power is observed during submaximal and maximal vertical jumps
(Lees, Vanrenterghem, & De Clercq, 2004). Specifically, the ankle joint moment does
not increase when jump height increases from 65% to 83% of maximal height, while
the work at the knee and ankle joints remains unchanged during these efforts. The
moment and work at the hip joint increase concomitantly with jump height. Therefore,
submaximal jumping efforts may be sufficient to train the knee extensor and ankle
plantarflexor muscle groups. However, maximal effort jumps are required to provide
sufficient stimulus to train the hip extensor muscles.
What can be concluded from the preceding analysis is that the mechanical
behavior of the joints contributing to a given multiple-joint movement can be
summed to provide the mechanical output during the movement. At the same
time, the contributions of the individual joints may not change in proportion to
the mechanical output.
A number of constraints influence the transformation of joint moments into the
generation of an external force—constraints that can be categorized as anatomic, geo-
metric, and directional in nature (van Ingen Schenau, 1989). An anatomic constraint

40 3
Load
35 Hip
Knee
30 Ankle
Load power output (W/kg)

Joint power output (W/kg)

2
25

20

15
1
10

0 0
0 12 27 42 56 71 85
External load (% 1-RM)

Figure 5.11 The power output of the external load and power outputs at the hip,
knee, and ankle joints during vertical jumps performed with external loads from
0% to 85% squat 1-RM. Notice the decreases in the power output of the load and
at the knee and ankle joints as the mass of the external load increases. The power
output at the hip joint actually increases with the mass of the external load initially.

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 221 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 222 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

2.5

2.0

1.5

Joint moment (Nm/kg)

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.25 0.50 0.75
–0.5

–1.0

–1.5

–2.0
Time (s)

Hip joint moment

Knee joint moment
Ankle joint moment

Figure 5.12 The flexor–extensor moments at the hip, knee, and ankle joints
during the propulsive phase of a countermovement vertical jump. Positive values
reflect extensor joint moments. As takeoff approaches, the magnitude of the
extensor moment decreases at each of the joints and changes to a flexor moment
to reduce the angular velocity of the joint to zero, thereby preventing damage to
the joint structures.

is the requirement for zero angular velocity of a joint at the time of full extension. This
constraint ensures that the joint structures are not damaged, but requires the reduc-
tion of the magnitude of a joint moment prior to full extension or the activation of
antagonist muscles to decrease the angular velocity of the joint (Figure 5.12).
As a joint reaches the limits of its range of motion, the magnitude of the moment
exerted in that direction decreases. For example, as the hip joint reaches full exten-
sion during the ascent of the load during a back squat, the magnitude of the exten-
sor moment that can be generated is reduced; in turn, the contribution of the joint
moment to the external force is reduced. This imposes a geometric constraint on the
transformation of joint moments to an external force (see Worked Example 5.7).
The specific demands of the movement task that the athlete is performing will
determine where the external force acts on the body and in which direction the exter-
nal force acts, thereby imposing a directional constraint on the transformation of the
joint moment to the external force. Many movements require that the athlete not only
exert a large force against a body but also control the direction of the applied force
throughout the movement (e.g., the direction of the ground reaction force during the
stance phases of sprinting and during the contact phase of landing tasks). The location
of the center of pressure associated with the external force and the direction in which
the external force acts are affected by the relative magnitudes of the net joint moments
associated with the joints of the limb in contact with the surface. For example, the

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 222 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 Determinants of Muscular Strength and Power 223

Worked Example 5.7

Geometric constraint imposed on the transformation of joint rotation to
the translation of the center of mass
Consider a simple two-segment model of the lower body during a ballistic task that
requires the center of mass (CM) to be accelerated vertically by the forceful extension of
the joint (Figure 5.13).
The vertical velocity of the CM in this simple model depends on both the displacement and
the velocity of the joint as expressed in the following equation (van Ingen Schenau, 1989):

vCM = (l1 × l2 × sinθ / l12 × l22 − 2l1 × l2 × cosθ ) × dθ /dt

where vCM is the vertical velocity of the center of mass, l1 is the length of segment 1, l2 is
the length of segment 2, q is the angle between the segments, and dq/dt is the derivative
of the angle with respect to time (joint angular velocity). The term that appears in the
parentheses in the equation reflects the transfer of the joint rotation to the translation of
the CM; notice that this transfer will decrease to zero at the joint angle q of 0°. This result
can be demonstrated if we provide hypothetical values for the length of the segments in the
model (0.45 m) and then determine the magnitude of the transfer function for joint angles
between 90° and 180° (Table 5.11).
Notice from Table 5.11 that the magnitude of the transfer function decreases from its
maximum when the joint angle is 90° to a value of 0 when the joint is in full extension.
Therefore, the transformation of the rotation at the joint to the translation of the CM is
reduced as the joint approaches full extension—a geometric constraint imposed upon
joints in vivo that are required to generate a moment while they extend. This limits the
transformation of the joint moment to the external force. Of course, in tasks where this
situation might apply, such as during the vertical jump, multiple joints contribute to the
vertical velocity of the CM. For example, as the knee joint approaches full extension and
the transformation of its rotation to the translation of the CM is reduced, the ankle joint is

VCM

CM

I1

I2

Figure 5.13 A simple two-segment model of the lower body during a vertical
jump task. CM is the center of mass, νCM is the vertical velocity of the CM, l1 is the
length of segment 1, l2 is the length of segment 2, and q is the joint angle.
(continues)

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 223 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 224 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

(continued)
Table 5.11
Magnitude of the Transfer Function for Joint Angles Between 90°
and 180°
Joint Angle (degrees) Transfer Function
90 1.00
120 0.36
150 0.16
180 0.00

able to rotate to continue the translation of the CM. However, all joints have this geometric
constraint imposed upon them.
Notice in our example that the CM could still achieve high vertical velocity at the joint
angles of 120° and 150° due to the transform function being multiplied by the angular
velocity of the joint. However, the anatomic constraint imposed on the transformation
of joint rotations to translations (as highlighted in the text) would limit these angular
velocities as the full extension of the joint was approached.

application of a normal ground reaction force is achieved by the combination of net

extensor moments acting at the hip, knee, and ankle joints. However, increasing the
magnitude of the hip extensor moment while simultaneously changing the moment
at the knee joint to a flexor moment induces a positive anterior–posterior compo-
nent of the ground reaction force in addition to the normal component; producing
a large knee extensor moment in combination with flexor moments at the hip and
ankle joints changes the anterio-posterior component to a negative direction (Wells &
Evans, 1987), as shown in Table 5.12.

Table 5.12
Effect of Net Joint Moments at the Hip, Knee, and Ankle Joints on the
Direction of the Resultant Ground Reaction Force
Hip Moment Knee Moment Ankle Moment Direction of GRF
(Nm) (Nm) (Nm) (degrees)
41 − 13 15 60
3 13 5 90
− 31 33 −4 120
Notes: GRF = resultant ground reaction force. The direction of the ground reaction force is relative to
the right horizontal. Positive moments refer to extensor moments; negative moments refer to flexor
moments.
The task required individuals to lie on their side and apply an isometric force against a force platform
with the hip, knee, and ankle joints in positions of slight flexion. Each individual was instructed to
apply a constant force of equal magnitude (64 N) in the corresponding direction noted in the table.
Reproduced from Wells, R., & Evans, N. (1987). Functions and recruitment patterns of one- and
two-joint muscles under isometric and walking conditions. Human Movement Sciences, 6, 349–372.

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 224 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 Determinants of Muscular Strength and Power 225

F1 F2

Figure 5.14 The changes in magnitude and direction of the joint moments at
the hip and knee joints control the direction of the resultant force exerted by the
foot onto the ground (1 and 2). The open arrows refer to extensor moments. The
curvilinear length of the arrow denotes the magnitude of the net moment. The
generation of a large hip extensor moment combined with a smaller knee flexor
moment directs the applied force down and back, while a hip flexor moment
combined with a large knee extensor moment directs the applied force downward
and forward. The resultant ground reaction force, which would produce an
acceleration of the body, is simply a reaction to these applied forces.

During a ballistic movement such as the vertical jump, a similar alteration in

the relative magnitude of the hip, knee, and ankle joint moments is observed as an
attempt to control the direction of the resultant ground reaction force to satisfy the
requirement of maximizing the vertical velocity of the CM (Jacobs & van Ingen
Schenau, 1992a; van Ingen Schenau, 1989) (Figure 5.14). The relative magnitudes of
the hip, knee, and ankle joint moments determine the location of the center of pres-
sure associated with the external force as well as the direction in which the external
force acts; these magnitudes are largely dependent upon the activation of the biar-
ticular muscles crossing the joints (van Ingen Schenau, 1989). (See Strength and
Power Concept 5.4.) Thus the patterning of muscle activation exerts a very great
influence on the control of the direction of the external force generated in a given
movement and, therefore, on the outcome of a specific task (Bobbert & van Soest,
1994; Nagano & Gerritsen, 2001). (See Applied Research 5.2.) As a consequence,
the expression of muscular strength, defined by the mechanical output in a given task,
is strongly influenced by the muscle activation pattern. Furthermore, the coactivation
of monoarticular agonist and biarticular antagonists can serve a functional purpose in
multijoint tasks, as it allows energy to be transported between joints while satisfying
the anatomic and geometric constraints associated with transforming joint rotations
into translations of the external load (van Ingen Schenau, 1989).

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 225 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 226 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

Strength and Power Concept 5.4

The muscle activation pattern determines the direction
of the external force produced and, t­herefore,
the outcome in ballistic tasks
During ballistic movements such as the vertical jump, the relative contributions
of the hip, knee, and ankle joint moments are altered during the execution of
the movement as the athlete attempts to control the location of the center of
pressure associated with the ground reaction force and the direction that the
ground reaction force acts, which will determine the acceleration of the center
of mass (Bobbert & van Zandwijk, 1999). Specifically, early during propulsion,
the magnitude of the hip joint moment is increased prior to and more rapidly
than that of the knee and ankle joint moments, and the CM experiences an
upward and forward acceleration. As the time of takeoff approaches, the mag-
nitude of the knee and ankle joint moments increases, resulting in an almost
purely vertical acceleration of the CM at takeoff.

A specific activation pattern of the monoarticular and biarticular muscles cross-

ing the hip, knee, and ankle joints occurs to achieve the control of the ground
reaction force. That is, the increase in the magnitude of the hip extensor moment
is associated with the activation of the monoarticular hip extensor gluteus maxi-
mus, and the rise time in the activation of this muscle is strongly correlated with
the rise in the vertical component of the ground reaction force (Bobbert & van
Zandwijk, 1999). However, prior to this monoarticular muscle being activated, the
biarticular hamstrings (biceps femoris, semitendinosus) are activated, increasing
the magnitude of the hip extensor moment while concomitantly decreasing the
extensor moment at the knee joint. Indeed, due to the early activation of the ham-
strings, the horizontal component of the ground reaction force, which acts in the
positive direction (forward), increases more rapidly than the vertical component.

The activation of the monoarticular gluteus maximus and the biarticular ham-
strings reach maximal values relatively early in the propulsive phase, after which
the hip extensor moment begins to decrease as the CM accelerates vertically.
At the same time, the knee and ankle joint moments are increasing, so the
direction of the ground reaction force vector changes from being upward and
forward to being upward and backward such that the forward velocity of the
CM is reduced as the point of takeoff approaches. During this latter part of the
propulsive phase of the task, the ratio of the joint moments changes such that
the combined knee and ankle joint moments exceed the hip joint moment.
Furthermore, activation of the biarticular gastrocnemius couples knee exten-
sion with plantar flexion, allowing the ankle joint moment to contribute to the
vertical acceleration of the CM late in the propulsive phase while also reducing
the angular velocity of the knee joint. This combination compensates for the
geometric and anatomic constraints associated with the transformation of joint
rotations to translations (van Ingen Schenau, 1989).

If the jumping task were achieved only by the activation of the knee and/or
ankle extensors, then there would be a tendency to rotate the body backward.

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 226 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 Determinants of Muscular Strength and Power 227

In that case, the joint rotations would not be effectively transferred into the
vertical motion of the CM. Therefore, the increase in the knee and ankle joint
moments must occur after the increase in the magnitude of the hip joint to
ensure effective transfer from joint rotations to CM translation.

A proximal-to-distal sequencing of maximal activation of the monoarticular

muscles is observed during the jumping task (Bobbert & van Zandwijk, 1999;
Jacobs & van Ingen Schenau, 1992a). If the task were achieved simply by the
simultaneous activation of monoarticular muscles crossing the lower-body
joints, then the athlete would lose contact with the ground too early, limiting
the energy of the CM at takeoff and, in turn, limiting performance in the task.
The biarticular hamstrings and rectus femoris demonstrate reciprocal actions
during propulsion, such that the hamstrings are activated early during the task,
followed by the rectus femoris. Thus the monoarticular muscles increase their
activation and increase the work performed while the biarticular muscles play
a central role in controlling the distribution of joint moments, thereby control-
ling the location of the center of pressure and the direction of the external force
(Bobbert & van Soest, 2000; Jacobs & van Ingen Schenau, 1992a; Mathiyakom,
McNitt-Gray, & Wilcox, 2007; van Ingen Schenau, 1989). The reciprocal actions of
the biarticular hamstrings and rectus femoris have also been observed during
the acceleration phase of sprint running, where the requirement to control the
direction of the resultant ground reaction force represents the key constraint on
the task (Jacobs & van Ingen Schenau, 1992b). Successful execution in explosive
tasks is not just determined by the generation of large forces, but also through
the control of the direction in which the forces act.

Applied Research 5.2

Increased muscular strength requires concomitant changes in muscle
activation patterns to realize improvements in performance
The authors developed a computer simulation using forward dynamic methods of the human
motor system performing a vertical jump. The model comprised three joints representing the
hip, knee, and ankle joints. They were served by actuators that reflected the force–velocity,
length–tension, and activation dynamics of skeletal muscle in vivo. The kinematic and
kinetic data generated from the model during simulated jumps were validated against the
data collected from an elite athlete and were found to be representative. The authors used
the simulation model to determine the effects of changing the mechanical parameters on
the performance (jump height). It was found that increasing the strength of the lower-body
muscles actually resulted in a reduced jump height. Furthermore, jump height increased
with increased muscle strength only when the timing of the muscle activation was altered
accordingly.
The findings of this simulation study can be interpreted as indicating that an increase in
muscle strength will not necessarily be sufficient to increase performance in a task that relies
on the generation of high muscular forces. Rather, an alteration in the activation pattern of
the muscles is required to ensure that the muscular forces are combined appropriately to
maximize the external force produced and, in turn, the performance in the specific task.
Bobbert, M. F., & van Soest, A. J. (1994). Effects of muscle strengthening on vertical jump height: A
simulation study. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26, 1012–1020.

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 227 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 228 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

The required direction of the external force has important implications for the
mechanical factors that contribute to power output. For example, Samonzino et al.
(2012) provide evidence that as the direction of the external force becomes more hori-
zontal, the velocity capabilities of the athlete becomes more important than the force
capabilities in developing large power outputs; the opposite is true when the external
force is directed vertically. This relationship would have significant implications for
athletes participating in tasks requiring large vertical power outputs (e.g., jumping,
maximal-velocity sprinting) compared to those involved in tasks requiring large hori-
zontal power outputs (e.g., accelerative sprinting, change of direction).
The mechanical output from both limbs acting concomitantly (bilateral tasks) is less
than the sum of the output of the limbs acting separately (unilaterally), a phenomenon
known as the bilateral deficit (Rejc, Lazzer, Antonutto, Isola, & di Prampero, 2010):

Bilateral deficit =
(ULsum − BL ) Eq. (5.14)
ULsum

where ULsum is the sum of the mechanical output from each of the limbs assessed
separately, and BL is the mechanical output from the limbs assessed concurrently. The
bilateral deficit has been shown for both upper- and lower-body exercises and has
been attributed to alterations of the force–velocity relationship of the active muscles
(Bobbert, De Graaf, Jonk, & Casius, 2006) and neural inhibition during symmetrical
bilateral muscle activation (Hay, de Souza, & Fukashiro, 2006; Howard & Enoka, 1991;
Rejc et al., 2010). Recent experimental evidence has tended to support a change in the
activation patterns of the muscles involved in the specific task as an explanation for
the bilateral deficit (see Applied Research 5.3).

Applied Research 5.3

Unilateral tasks produce greater force and power at a given velocity
than bilateral tasks
In this study, the authors had individuals perform an explosive pushing task for the lower
body under both bilateral (BL) and unilateral (UL) conditions. Six resistances ranging from
50% to 200% of body weight were applied to each participant during the task to manipulate
the force and velocity generated. The force applied by the participants and the resulting
velocity of the movement were measured, allowing the calculation of power output under
each of the loading conditions. The electromyographic activity of the vastus lateralis (VL),
rectus femoris (RF), biceps femoris (BF), and the gastrocnemius medialis (GM) muscles
were also measured.
The researchers found that the force and the power output developed by each leg under the
six loading conditions were greater when the task was performed under the UL conditions
compared to the BL conditions, precluding the alteration in the force–velocity relationship
of the muscles as an explanation for the bilateral deficit. Greater EMG activity of VL and
RF were recorded in the UL conditions compared to the BL conditions, with no differences
observed in the activity of the BF and GM muscles. Furthermore, the coordination between
these muscles was different in the BL and UL conditions. The authors concluded that the
bilateral deficit resulted from changes in the activation pattern of the muscles during the
task and not changes in the force–velocity relationships of the activated muscles.
Rejc, E., Lazzer, S., Antonutto, G., Isola, M., & di Prampero, P. E. (2010). Bilateral deficit and EMG
activity during explosive lower limb contractions against different overloads. European Journal of
Applied Physiology, 108, 157–165.

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 228 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 Chapter Summary 229

Specificity of Muscular Strength and Power

The preceding discussion should inform us that muscular strength and power are specific
qualities, the magnitudes of which will depend on the mechanics of the task selected
in the assessment. For example, maximal isometric force production and isometric
RFD are influenced by the joint angle selected during the assessment task (Murphy,
Wilson, Pryor, & Newton, 1995). The specificity of muscular strength and power has
also been demonstrated in studies performed to investigate the effects of training modes
in increasing measures of muscular strength and power. For example, gains in muscular
strength and power have been shown to be greater in assessment tasks that were spe-
cific to the training exercises in terms of the type of muscle actions used (Abernethy
& Jurimäe, 1996; Rutherford & Jones, 1986), bilateral compared to unilateral exercises
Hakkinen et al., 1996; Häkkinen & Komi, 1983), and open-kinetic chain exercises
compared to closed-kinetic chain exercises (Augustsson, Esko, Thomeé, & Svantesson,
1998; Carroll, Abernethy, Logan, Barber, & McEniery, 1998). Furthermore, the posture
adopted during the movement task affects the ability of the athlete to generate force,
which then influences the magnitude of strength recorded.
For example, when the assessment of maximal dynamic muscular strength is per-
formed in a weight machine, the magnitude of the 1-RM load is different from that
when the same exercise is performed with free weights, although there is a difference
between upper- and lower-body exercises. Specifically, when the bench press exercise
is performed using a Smith machine that constrains the movement of the barbell to
purely vertical motion, the 1-RM load has been shown to be lower than that using free
weights, while the reverse was found for 1-RM loads during the back squat exercise
(Cotterman, Darby, & Skelly, 2005). Therefore, the strength and conditioning practi-
tioner should consider the mechanical characteristics of any exercises selected to train
or assess muscular strength and power.

Chapter Summary
Muscular strength is characterized by the ability of a muscle or a group of muscles
to produce a force against an external resistance. Many indices of muscular strength
exist. Maximal muscular strength is the ability to generate maximal force against a
large external resistance and can be measured under dynamic (concentric, eccentric,
stretch–shortening cycle) or isometric conditions. Speed-strength is measured as the
peak force produced under dynamic conditions with varying external loads, providing
low-load speed-strength (external load ≤ 30% 1-RM) and high-load speed-strength
(external load > 30% 1-RM). Explosive strength is characterized by high rates of force
development and can be recorded under dynamic or isometric conditions. Reactive
strength is the ability to tolerate high stretch-loads and rapidly transition from eccen-
tric to concentric muscle actions. Muscular power output can be determined from the
product of the force applied to a body and the movement velocity of the body, so the
same power output can be produced by different combinations of force and velocity.
Measures of muscular strength and power output have been shown to be strongly
correlated to successful performance in a number of sports and may be used to distin-
guish between athletes who compete at different levels. Muscular strength and power
output are typically inferred from the mechanical output during a given movement
task rather than assessing the force generated by the muscles directly. They are deter-
mined by a number of factors related to the intrinsic qualities of the musculotendi-
nous units. However, the transformation of muscle tension to joint moments and the

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 229 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 230 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

transformation of joint moments to external forces represent important determinants

of muscular strength and power output. Given the transformations of muscle tension
to joint moments and of joint moments to external forces, the assessment of muscular
strength and power output are likely to be specific to the movements used.

Review Questions and Projects

1. Which information can be provided by measures of absolute dynamic muscular
strength?
2. Explain the differences between ratio and allometric scaling methods for normal-
izing muscular strength to body mass.
3. Which tests could be performed to assess an athlete’s ability in fast and slow
stretch–shortening cycle tasks for the lower body?
4. Which muscular qualities influence early and late rates of force development?
5. Explain why a high rate of force development is important for a sprinter.
6. Explain the relationship between vertical stiffness and reactive strength.
7. Explain why there is likely to be a relationship between maximal dynamic muscular
strength and power output.
8. Explain how the rate of force development can influence power output.
9. Why is the external load that maximizes power output different between the squat
jump, the back squat, and the power clean exercises?
10. Describe a method to determine the contribution of force and movement velocity
to power output during a multiple-joint movement.
11. Explain the implications of the bilateral deficit for the strength and conditioning
practitioner.
12. Explain which factors influence the electromechanical delay and how they may
affect the rate of force development.
13. Explain the difficulties that arise when one attempts to determine the force
exerted by individual muscles during an assessment of muscular strength.
14. Explain the anatomic constraint associated with the transformation of a joint
moment to an external force.
15. Explain the geometric constraint associated with the transformation of a joint
moment to an external force.
16. Explain the directional constraint associated with the transformation of a joint
moment to an external force.
17. Explain why the muscle activation pattern is important in influencing the out-
come in an assessment of muscular strength or power.
18. How does the direction of the movement influence the contribution of force and
velocity to power output?

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 230 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 References 231

19. How does the multijoint motor system accommodate the geometric constraint
to the transformation of joint moments and turn it into an external force during
­ballistic movements?
20. Explain how the assessment of maximal dynamic muscular strength performed in
a Smith machine may differ from that performed with free weights.

References
Aagaard, P., Simonsen, E. B., Andersen, J. L., Magnusson, P., & Dyhre-Poulsen, P. (2002). Increased rate of
force development and neural drive of human skeletal muscle following resistance training. Journal
of Applied Physiology, 93, 1318–1326.
Abernethy, P. J., & Jurimäe, J. (1996). Cross-sectional and longitudinal uses of isoinertial, isometric, and
isokinetic dynamometry. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 28, 1180–1187.
Andersen, L. L., & Aagaard, P. (2006). Influence of maximal muscle strength and intrinsic muscle contractile
properties on contractile rate of force development. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 96, 46–52.
Andersen, L. L., Andersen, J. L., Zebis, M. K., & Aagaard, P. (2010). Early and late rate of force develop-
ment: Differential adaptive responses to resistance training. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and
Science in Sports, 20, 162–169.
Augustsson, J., Esko, A., Thomeé, R., & Svantesson, U. (1998). Weight training of the thigh muscles using
closed vs. open kinetic chain exercises: A comparison of performance enhancement. Journal of Sports
Physical Therapy, 27, 3–8.
Baker, D. (2001). Comparison of upper-body strength and power between professional and college-aged
rugby league players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15, 30–35.
Baker, D. G., & Newton, R. U. (2006). Discriminative analyses of various upper body tests in professional
rugby-league players. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 1, 347–360.
Barker, M., Wyatt, T. J., Johnson, R. L., Stone, M. H., O’Bryant, H. S., Poe, C., & Kent, M. (1993). Perfor-
mance factors, physiological assessment, physical characteristics, and football playing ability. Journal
of Strength and Conditioning Research, 7, 224–233.
Bartlett, L. R., Storey, M. D., & Simons, B. D. (1989). Measurement of upper extremity torque production
and its relationship to throwing speed in the competitive athlete. American Journal of Sports Medicine,
17, 89–91.
Bezodis, I. N., Kerwin, D. G., & Salo, A. I. T. (2008). Lower-limb mechanics during the support phase of
maximum-velocity sprint running. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40, 707–715.
Biscarini, A., Benventuti, P., Botti, F., Mastrandrea, F., & Zanuso, S. (2011). Modelling the joint torques
and loadings during squatting at the Smith machine. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29, 457–469.
Bobbert, M. F., De Graaf, W. W., Jonk, J. N., & Casius, L. J. R. (2006). Explanation of the bilateral deficit in
human vertical squat jumping. Journal of Applied Physiology, 100, 493–499.
Bobbert, M. F., & van Soest, A. J. (1994). Effects of muscle strengthening on vertical jump height: A
­simulation study. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26, 1012–1020.
Bobbert, M. F., & van Soest, A. J. (2000). Two-joint muscle offer the solution, but what was the problem?
Motor Control, 4, 48–52.
Bobbert, M. F., & van Zandwijk, J. P. (1999). Dynamics of force and muscle stimulation in human vertical
jumping. Medicine and Science and Sports and Exercise, 31, 303–310.
Bojsen-Møller, J., Magnusson, S. P., Rasmussen, L. R., Kjær, M., & Aagaard, P. (2005). Muscle performance
during maximal isometric and dynamic contractions is influenced by the stiffness of the tendinous
structures. Journal of Applied Physiology, 99, 986–994.
Bret, C., Rahmani, A., Dufour, A. B., Messonnier, L., & Lacour, J. R. (2002). Leg strength and stiffness as
ability factors in 100 m sprint running. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 42, 274–281.
Brughelli, M., & Cronin, J. (2008). A review of research on the mechanical stiffness in running and
jumping: Methodology and implications. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports,
18, 417–426.

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 231 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 232 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

Caldwell, G. E., & Li, L. (2000). How strongly is muscle activity associated with joint moments? Motor
Control, 4, 53–59.
Carroll, T. J., Abernethy, P. J., Logan, P. A., Barber, M., & McEniery, M. T. (1998). Resistance training
frequency: Strength and myosin heavy chain responses to two and three bouts per week. European
Journal of Applied Physiology, 78, 270–275.
Chelly, S. M., & Denis, C. (2001). Leg power and hopping stiffness: relationship with sprint running
­performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33, 326–333.
Cometti, G., Maffiuletti, N. A., Pousson, M., Chatard, J.-C., & Maffulli, N. (2001). Isokinetic strength and
anaerobic power of elite, subelite and amateur French soccer players. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 22, 45–51.
Cormie, P., McCauley, G. O., & McBride, J. M. (2007). Power versus strength-power jump squat training:
Influence on the load–power relationship. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 39, 996–1003.
Cormie, P., McCauley, G. O., Triplett, T. N., & McBride, J. M. (2007). Optimal loading for maximal lower-
body resistance exercises. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 39, 340–349.
Cormie, P., McGuigan, M. R., & Newton, R. U. (2010). Adaptations in athletic performance after ballistic
power versus strength training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 42, 1582–1598.
Cormie, P., McGuigan, M. R., & Newton, R. U. (2011). Developing maximal neuromuscular power. Part
1: Biological basis of maximal power production. Sports Medicine, 41, 17–38.
Cotterman, M. L., Darby, L. A., & Skelly, W. A. (2005). Comparison of muscle force production using the
Smith machine and free weights for bench press and squat exercises. Journal of Strength and Condi-
tioning Research, 19, 169–176.
Crewther, B. T., Gill, N., Weatherby, R. P., & Lowe, T. (2009). A comparison of ratio and allometric scaling
methods for normalizing power and strength in elite rugby union players. Journal of Sports Sciences,
27, 1575–1580.
Cronin, J., & Sleivert, G. (2005). Challenges in understanding the influence of maximal power training on
improving athletic performance. Sports Medicine, 35, 213–234.
Cunningham, D. J., West, D. J., Owen, N. J., Shearer, D. A., Finn, C. V., Bracken, R. M., . . . Kilduff, L. P.
(2013). Strength and power predictors of sprinting performance in professional rugby players.
­Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 53, 105–111.
Dostal, W. F., & Andrews, J. G. (1981). A three-dimensional biomechanical model of the hip musculature.
Journal of Biomechanics, 14, 803–812.
Elliott, B. C., Wilson, G. J., & Kerr, G. K. (1989). A biomechanical analysis of the sticking region in the
bench press. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 21, 450–462.
Erdemir, A., McLean, S., Herzog, W., & van den Bogert, A. J. (2007). Model-based estimation of muscle
forces exerted during movements. Clinical Biomechanics, 22, 131–154.
Finni, T., Komi, P. V., & Lukkariniemi, J. (1998). Achilles tendon loading during walking: Application of a
novel optic fiber technique. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 77, 289–291.
Flanagan, E. P., & Comyns, T. M. (2008). The use of contact time and the reactive strength index to opti-
mize fast stretch-shortening cycle training. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 30, 32–38.
Flanagan, S. P., & Salem, G. J. (2008). Lower extremity joint kinetic responses to external resistance varia-
tions. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 24, 58–68.
Fry, A. C., & Kraemer, W. J. (1991). Physical performance characteristics of American collegiate football
players. Journal of Applied Sport Science Research, 5, 126–138.
González-Badillo, J. J., & Marques, M. C. (2010). Relationship between kinematic factors and counter-
movement jump height in trained track and field athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 24, 3443–3447.
Haff, G. G., Carlock, J. M., Hartman, M. J., Kilgore, J. L., Kawamori, N., Jackson, J. R., . . . Stone, M. H.
(2005). Force–time curve characteristics of dynamic and isometric muscle actions of elite women
Olympic weightlifters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19, 741–748.
Haff, G. G., Stone, M. H., O’Bryant, H. S., Harman, E., Dinan, C., Johnson, R., & Han, K. H. (1997).
Force–time dependent characteristics of dynamic and isometric muscle actions. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 11, 269–272.
Häkkinen, K., Kallinen, M., Linnamo, V., Pastinen, U-M., Newton, R. U., & Kraemer, W. J. (1996). Neuro-
muscular adaptations during bilateral versus unilateral strength training in middle-aged and elderly
men and women. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 158, 77–88.

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 232 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 References 233

Häkkinen, K., & Komi, P. V. (1983). Electromyographic changes during strength training and detraining.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 15, 455–460.
Hansen, K. T., Cronin, J. B., Pickering, S. L., & Douglas, L. (2011). Do force–time and power–time measures
in a loaded jump squat differentiate between speed performance and playing level in elite and elite
junior rugby union players? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25, 2382–2391.
Hay, D., de Souza, V. A., & Fukashiro, S. (2006). Human bilateral deficit during a dynamic multi-joint leg
press movement. Human Movement Science, 25, 181–191.
Howard, J. D., & Enoka, R. M. (1991). Maximum bilateral contractions are modified by neutrally medi-
ated interlimb effects. Journal of Applied Physiology, 70, 306–316.
Jacobs, R., & van Ingen Schenau, G. J. (1992a). Control of an external force in leg extensions in humans.
Journal of Physiology, 457, 611–626.
Jacobs, R., & van Ingen Schenau, G. J. (1992b). Intermuscular coordination in a sprint push-off. Journal of
Biomechanics, 25, 953–965.
Jaric, S., Mirkov, D., & Markovic, G. (2005). Normalizing physical performance tests for body size: A
­proposal for standardization. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19, 467–474.
Kuitunen, S., Komi, P. V., & Kyröläinen, H. (2002). Knee and ankle joint stiffness in sprint running. Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise, 34, 166–173.
Latin, R. W., Berg, K., & Baechle, T. (1994). Physical and performance characteristics of NCAA Division I
male basketball players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 8, 214–218.
Lees, A., Vanrenterghem, J., & De Clercq, D. (2004). The maximal and submaximal vertical jump: Implica-
tions for strength and conditioning. Journal of Strength and Conditioning, 18, 787–791.
Maganaris, C. N. (2001). Force-length characteristics of in vivo human skeletal muscle. Acta Physiologica
Scandinavica, 172, 279–285.
Marginson, V., & Eston, R. (2001). The relationship between torque and joint angle during knee extension
in boys and men. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 875–880.
Mathiyakom, W., McNitt-Gray, J. L., & Wilcox, R. R. (2007). Regulation of angular impulse during two
forward translating tasks. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 23, 149–161.
McLellan, C. P., Lovell, D. I., & Gass, G. C. (2011). The role of rate of force development on vertical jump
performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25, 379–385.
Meckel, Y., Atterbom, H., Grodjinovsky, A., Ben-Sira, D., & Rostein, A. (1995). Physiological characteristics
of female 100 metre sprinters of different performance levels. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical
Fitness, 35, 169–175.
Mero, A. (1988). Force–time characteristics and running velocity of male sprinters during the acceleration
phase of sprinting. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59, 94–98.
Mero, A., Luhtanen, P., & Komi, P. V. (1983). A biomechanical study of the sprint start. Scandinavian
Journal of Sports Science, 5, 20–28.
Mero, A., Luhtanen, P., & Komi, P. V. (1986). Segmental contribution to velocity of center of gravity during con-
tact at different speeds in male and female sprinters. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 12, 215–235.
Mero, A., Luhtanen, P., Viitasalo, J. T., & Komi, P. V. (1981). Relationships between the maximal running
velocity, muscle fiber characteristics, force production and force relaxation of sprinters. Scandinavian
Journal of Sports Science, 3, 16–22.
Moir, G. L. (2012). Muscular strength. In T. Miller (Ed.), NCSA’s guide to tests and assessments (pp. 147–191).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Moir, G. L., Garcia, A., & Dwyer, G. B. (2009). Intersession reliability of kinematic and kinetic variables
during vertical jumps in men and women. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance,
4, 317–330.
Moir, G. L., Gollie, J. M., Davis, S. E., Guers, J. J., & Witmer, C. A. (2012). The effects of load on system and
lower-body joint kinetics during jump squats. Sports Biomechanics, 11, 492–506.
Moss, B. M., Refsnes, P. E., Abildgaard, A., Nicolaysen, K., & Jensen, J. (1997). Effects of maximal effort
strength training with different loads on dynamic strength, cross-sectional area, load–power, and
load–velocity relationships. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 75, 193–199.
Murphy, A. J., Wilson, G. J., Pryor, J. F., & Newton, R. U. (1995). Isometric assessment of muscular function:
The effect of joint angle. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 11, 205–215.
Nagano, A., & Gerritsen, K. G. M. (2001). Effects of neuromuscular strength training on vertical jumping
performance: A computer simulation study. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 17, 113–128.

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd 233 02/02/15 10:26 PM

 234 Chapter 5 Muscular Strength and Power

Narici, M. V., Hoppeler, H., Kayser, B., Landoni, L., Claassen, H., Gavardi, C., . . . Cerretelli, P. (1996).
Human quadriceps cross-sectional area, torque and neural activation during 6 months strength
training. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 157, 175–186.
Newton, R. U., & Dugan, E. (2002). Application of strength diagnosis. Strength and Conditioning Journal,
24, 50–59.
Oliveira, F. B. D., Oliveira, A. S. C., Rizatto, G. F., & Denadai, B. S. (2013). Resistance training for explosive
and maximal strength: Effects on early and late rate of force development. Journal of Sports Science in
Medicine, 12, 402–408.
Peterson, M. D., Alvar, B. A., & Rhea, M. R. (2006). The contribution of maximal force production to
explosive movement among young collegiate athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
20, 867–873.
Rejc, E., Lazzer, S., Antonutto, G., Isola, M., & di Prampero, P. E. (2010). Bilateral deficit and EMG
activity during explosive lower limb contractions against different overloads. European Journal of
Applied Physiology, 108, 157–165.
Rutherford, O. M., & Jones, D. A. (1986). The role of learning and coordination in strength training.
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 55, 100–105.
Samonzino, P., Rejc, E., Di Prampero, P. E., Belli, A., & Morin, J.-B. (2012). Optimal force–velocity profile in
ballistic movements: Altius: citius or fortius? Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 44, 313–322.
Schmidtbleicher, D. (1992). Training for power events. In P. V. Komi (Ed.), Strength and power in sport
(pp. 381–385). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Sleivert, G., & Taingahue, M. (2004). The relationship between maximal jump-squat power and sprint
acceleration in athletes. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 91, 46–52.
Smirniotou, A., Katsikas, C., Paradisis, G., Argeitaki, P., Zacharogiannis, E., & Tziortzis, S. (2008).
Strength–power parameters as predictors of sprinting performance. Journal of Sports Medicine and
Physical Fitness, 48, 447–454.
Stone, M. H., Sanborn, K., O’Bryant, H. S., Hartman, M., Stone, M. E., Proulx, C., . . . Hruby, J. (2003).
Maximum strength–power–performance relationships in collegiate throwers. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 17, 739–745.
Tillin, N. A., Pain, M. T. G., & Folland, J. (2013). Explosive force production during isometric squats
­correlates with athletic performance in rugby union players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31, 66–76.
Tsaopoulos, D. E., Baltzopoulos, V., Richards, P. J., & Maganaris, C. N. (2009). A comparison of d ­ ifferent
two-dimensional approaches for the determination of the patellar tendon moment arm length.
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 105, 809–814.
Van den Tillaar, R., Sæterbakken, A. H., & Ettema, G. J. (2012). Is the occurrence of the sticking region
the result of diminishing potentiation in bench press? Journal of Sports Sciences, 30, 591–599.
van Ingen Schenau, G. J. (1989). From rotation to translation: Constraints on multi-joint movements and
the unique action of biarticular muscles. Human Movement Sciences, 8, 301–337.
Vanrenterghem, J., Lees, A., & De Clerque, D. (2008). Effect of forward trunk inclination on joint power
output in vertical jumping. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22, 708–714.
Wells, R., & Evans, N. (1987). Functions and recruitment patterns of one- and two-joint muscles under
isometric and walking conditions. Human Movement Sciences, 6, 349–372.
Westing, S. H., Seger, J. Y., & Thorstensson, A. (1990). Effects of electrical stimulation on eccentric and
concentric torque–velocity relationships during knee extension in man. Acta Physiologica, 140, 17–22.
Wilson, G. J., Lyttle, A. D., Ostrowski, K. J., & Murphy, A. J. (1995). Assessing dynamic performance: A com-
parison of rate of force development tests. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 9, 176–181.
WislØff, U., Castagna, C., Helgerud, J., Jones, R., & Hoff, J. (2004). Strong correlation of maximal squat
strength with sprint performance and vertical jump height in elite soccer players. British Journal of
Sports Medicine, 38, 285–288.
Young, W. B., James, R., & Montgomery, I. (2002). Is muscle power related to running speed with changes
of direction? Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 42, 282–288.
Young, W., McLean, B., & Ardagna, J. (1995). Relationship between strength qualities and sprinting per-
formance. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 35, 13–19.
Zatsiorsky, V. M. (1995). Science and practice of strength training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Zatsiorsky, V. M., & Prilutsky, B. I. (2012). Biomechanics of skeletal muscle. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

9781284022124_CH05_PASS04.indd
View publication stats 234 02/02/15 10:26 PM