Optimal two-point loading strategy for accurate leg press force–velocity assessment

Takuya Nishioka; Shota Yamaguchi; Ayumi Yoshikawa; Naoki Ikeda; Daiki Hajima; Naoko Yabuno; Yasuhiro Kunita; Yuta Hashimoto; Anna Aoki; Miina Takahashi; Kazunori Nosaka; Takayuki Inami

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0356566

Abstract

Accurate assessment of an individual force–velocity (F–V) profile is essential for prescribing targeted resistance training; however, F–V outcomes depend strongly on the testing method used. This study examined the concurrent validity of the F–V relationship in a horizontal leg press exercise by comparing two-point methods, which use pairs of different loads relative to body weight, with a multiple-point method using a wider range of loads. Sixteen men (mean ± SD, age: 20.0 ± 1.4 years, height: 172.4 ± 6.3 cm, body mass: 69.2 ± 7.6 kg) performed maximal-effort horizontal dynamic leg press actions on a device equipped with pneumatic artificial muscles (ddrobotec^®, Switzerland) against eleven external loads (100%–300% of body weight [BW] in 20% increments). The F–V relationship was obtained using 10 two-point methods that paired a 100% BW load with each of the additional loads (120%–300% BW) and also from all points. The F–V relationship parameters were compared between the two-point methods and the multiple-point method, and their correlations were analyzed. The results showed that the F–V relationship obtained from the four two-point methods with wider load differences (100% and 240%, 100% and 260%, 100% and 280%, and 100% and 300% BW) was nearly perfectly correlated with that by the multiple-point method (r = 0.906 to 0.993). The concurrent validity of the F–V relationship parameters obtained from the two-point methods tended to decrease when using loads that were closer together (e.g., 100% and 120% BW) than loads with a larger difference (e.g., 100% and 240% BW). These findings indicate that, on a horizontal leg press with pneumatic artificial muscles, a two-point method based on sufficiently distinct loads can provide an accurate estimate of the F–V relationship and may be a practical alternative to comprehensive multi-load testing.

Citation: Nishioka T, Yamaguchi S, Yoshikawa A, Ikeda N, Hajima D, Yabuno N, et al. (2026) Optimal two-point loading strategy for accurate leg press force–velocity assessment. PLoS One 21(8): e0356566. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356566

Editor: Zixiang Gao, UC: University of Calgary, CANADA

Received: November 26, 2025; Accepted: August 4, 2026; Published: August 25, 2026

Copyright: © 2026 Nishioka et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: N.I.S. New Investment Solutions (Liechtenstein) AG funded and Dynamic Devices Co., Ltd. collaborated with this study; however, the company did not influence the design of the study, the collection, analysis, and scientific interpretation of the collected data, or the writing of the manuscript, nor the publication of this article.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Leg extensions are performed during various athletic activities, such as vertical jumps and sprint running [1,2], and horizontal dynamic leg press exercises are widely used to train and evaluate leg extension performance [1,3–8]. Our research team recently reported high reliability in measuring force, velocity, and power during the horizontal dynamic leg press exercise using a device equipped with pneumatic artificial muscles (ddrobotec^® System ELITE mk4, Dynamic Devices, Zurich, Switzerland), with some variables showing higher reliability than those measured in vertical jumps [1]. Furthermore, unlike the vertical jump, the horizontal dynamic leg press avoids the landing impact, making it a potentially useful option for researchers and practitioners seeking to measure performance with a lower injury risk [1,4]. Taken together, the high measurement reliability and the absence of landing impact can make the horizontal dynamic leg press a particularly suitable model for evaluating F–V profiling methodology, in which a wide range of loads must be repeatedly tested.

Explosive athletic performance—jumping and sprinting—relies heavily on maximum power production during leg extension movements [9–11]. Since power is the product of force and velocity, it is lower when force and/or velocity are reduced [8,12]. Although force-velocity-power measurements are often conducted using a single load (e.g., body weight [BW]), this approach does not allow evaluation of an individual’s maximum force, velocity, and power production capability [13]. Therefore, investigators have used methods to determine the force–velocity (F–V) relationship for a given task through measurements under multiple load conditions [14]. Parameters such as the theoretical maximum force (F0), velocity (V0), power (Pmax), and slope of the linear F–V relationship (SFv) obtained through F–V profiling have been used to identify individual weaknesses and develop more effective training programs [8,14].

The F–V profile for leg press exercises is typically based on 6–11 data points with different loads [15,16]. However, including more data points increases the time required for the assessments, which burdens both investigators and athletes. Considering the high linearity of the F–V relationship reported for leg press exercises [15–17], the number of required data points could be reduced to two [18,19]. This two-point method can simplify the F–V profiling, providing quick and less fatigable measurements [20]. Nevertheless, the usefulness of the two-point method for F–V profiling in leg press exercises has not yet been validated. Thus, it is necessary to investigate the validity of various two-point methods in leg press exercises.

The purpose of this study was to compare the concurrent validity of the F–V relationship parameters in leg press exercises obtained from two-point methods using two different loads relative to BW against the multiple-point method, in which many loads were used. Based on previous studies [20,21], we hypothesized that the concurrent validity of the F–V relationship parameters obtained from the two-point method with different loads relative to the multiple-point method would be high, whereas the validity would progressively decrease when using closer loads.

Materials and methods

Experimental design

A repeated-measures design was used to examine the concurrent validity of F–V relationship parameters obtained from various two-point methods with loads differing in intensity relative to body weight in comparison to the multiple-point method, in which many loads were used to determine the F–V relationship during a leg press exercise. A familiarization session was conducted on the first day, and the main performance measurement was obtained on the second day, which was set 48–144 hours later depending on the availability and convenience of the participants and investigators, in accordance with previous studies [6,22].

Participants

This study was conducted in Japan from December 16, 2022, to March 31, 2024. The sample size was calculated using the G*Power software (version 3.1.9.6, Düsseldorf, Germany) to determine the number of participants required to detect a significant correlation between the F–V relationship parameters obtained from the two-point and multiple-point methods, which was the primary statistical analysis addressing the main aim of this study. Based on an expected correlation coefficient of 0.7 [20], a significance level of 0.05, and a statistical power of 0.95, the required sample size was calculated to be 16 participants. Accordingly, 16 men were recruited, with the following mean ± SD (range): age 20.0 ± 1.4 (18–23) years, height 172.4 ± 6.3 (163–186) cm, and body mass 69.2 ± 7.6 (54.3–86.0) kg, and resistance-training experience, including lower-body exercises, 2.5 ± 1.6 (0.5–5.0) years. Only men were recruited for the present study because the participants were required to perform the leg press exercise with heavier loads, and men generally have greater lower-limb strength than women. All participants self-reported their sex as male. They were free from musculoskeletal pain or injury that could affect testing and were instructed to refrain from strenuous exercise during the 24 hours preceding each experimental session. After the study purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits were explained, written informed consent was obtained before participation. This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the ethics committee of our university (approval number: 22-012; approved on December 16, 2022).

Testing procedures

Measurements during the leg press were taken using a horizontal dynamic leg press machine (ddrobotec^® System ELITE mk4, Dynamic Devices, Zurich, Switzerland) [1]. The seat position was individually adjusted to achieve a knee flexion angle of approximately 90° with both feet placed symmetrically on the footplates. Participants began with two familiarization trials at the lightest load, corresponding to 100% of their BW. Thereafter, the load was gradually increased in fixed steps of 20% BW from 100% to 300% BW, based on a previous study [1]. Participants performed two trials for each load, with a rest period between them. The rest periods progressively increased with increasing load; for the first three load levels, the rest intervals ranged from 10 to 20 seconds, and for the remaining loads, from 20 to 40 seconds [1,5,6]. Participants were instructed to extend both legs forcefully and rapidly during each trial; however, no verbal encouragement or feedback was provided. Pneumatic semi-isotonic resistance prevented maximal effort from producing ballistic action, and the entire push-off was performed with maximal intentional velocity [1,5,6]. The leg press was performed as a concentric-only action without preceding countermovement, as the pedals rested in their consistent starting position before each repetition. A horizontal dynamic leg-press device passively guided the eccentric phase, which was not recorded.

Data analyses

The ddrobotec^® System ELITE recorded the force and footplate displacement data (i.e., arc length) at a sampling frequency of 200 Hz using the integrated pressure sensors and position transducers of the horizontal dynamic leg press device [1]. Given the upper limit of this device’s sampling frequency (200 Hz), no digital filters were applied to these data to avoid over-smoothing. The displacement of the footplates, derived from system-specific pre-calibration data, was used to estimate knee joint angles for each participant. Before the first measurement session, each participant was calibrated once using the manufacturer’s two-point procedure: with the lower back firmly against the backrest, the pedal positions corresponding to 5° and 90° of knee flexion were recorded. The device’s internal algorithm subsequently mapped pedal angle to anatomical knee angle from these two reference points across the full range of motion. The instant when the estimated knee joint angles began to move in the direction of extension for both legs was defined as the initial range of motion, and the instant when the estimated knee joint angle decreased to <10° was defined as the end of motion. Force values were computed as the sum of the forces measured from both pedals and normalized to each participant’s body mass. The velocity values were calculated by dividing the arc length of the footplate over the range of motion by the completion time. Velocity values were computed as the average of the velocities measured from both pedals. For force and velocity values, the average of the two trials for each load was used for the F–V profiling described below.

Mean force and velocity data obtained under 11 different loads (100%–300% BW) were modeled using a least-squares linear regression to determine the F–V relationship parameters through the multiple-point method: F(V) = F0aV, where F0 denotes the theoretical maximum force (force-intercept), and V0 denotes the theoretical maximum velocity (velocity-intercept); the slope of the linear F–V relationship was calculated as SFv = F0/V0 [8,14,20]. As a consequence of the F–V relationship being highly linear, the maximum power (Pmax) was computed as Pmax = F0V0/4. The same F–V relationship parameters were calculated using 10 two-point methods that paired a 100% BW load with each of the additional loads (120%–300% BW) (Fig 1). These load selections were based on a previous study [20] that used the two-point method for vertical jumps and consistently included a 100% BW load.

Download:

Fig 1. Typical leg press force–velocity (F–V) relationships of three individuals (A, B, C) showing different F–V profiles.

The black solid line in each panel represents the regression line from the multiple-point method using all loads, with its formula inserted. The dotted lines represent 10 two-point methods, each combining 100% of body weight (BW) with a heavier load ranging from 120% to 300% of BW in 20% increments. Two-point method load pairs with 100% BW: 300% (black), 280% (gray), 260% (dark red), 240% (red), 220% (blue), 200% (light blue), 180% (green), 160% (light green), 140% (orange), 120% (purple).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356566.g001

Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS software, version 29; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and Microsoft Excel [23]. The significance level was set at P < 0.05. Normality was confirmed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC; two-way mixed effects, absolute agreement, single measurement) [24] was calculated to analyze relative reliability, and the coefficient of variation (CV) and standard error of measurement (SEM) [25] were calculated to analyze absolute reliability. ICC interpretation thresholds followed existing reporting guidelines: < 0.50 = poor, 0.50–0.75 = moderate, 0.75–0.90 = good, and >0.90 = excellent [24]. The CV was interpreted using the following scale: > 15% = poor; 10%–15% = moderate; 5%–10% = good; < 5% = excellent. Paired-sample t-tests and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were used to compare the magnitudes of the F–V relationship parameters between the two- and multiple-point methods. The magnitude of Cohen’s d was interpreted as follows: trivial (<0.20), small (0.20–0.60), moderate (0.60–1.20), large (1.20–2.00), very large (2.00–4.00), and extremely large (>4.00) [26]. The mean percent bias was interpreted a priori as poor (>10%), moderate (5–10%), or good (<5%), based on percent bias thresholds reported in previous research [27]. Pearson’s r was used to assess the relationship between the two- and multiple-point methods. The strength of the correlations was interpreted as follows: negligible (<0.10), weak (0.10–0.30), moderate (0.30–0.50), strong (0.50–0.70), very strong (0.70–0.90), or nearly perfect (>0.90) [26]. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ICC, CV, bias, and Pearson’s r were calculated. Bland–Altman plots were generated, providing a comprehensive representation of the agreement between the two- and multiple-point methods.

Results

Test-retest reliability of force and velocity

As shown in Table 1, the ICCs and CVs for the mean force were very high (excellent) under all load conditions. Regarding the mean velocity, the ICCs were very high (excellent) for the 100%–140%, 180%, 200%, 260%, and 280% BW load conditions, and high (good) for the 160%, 220%, 240%, and 300% BW load conditions. The CVs were excellent for the 100%–280% BW load conditions and good for the 300% BW load condition. The SEMs were 0.1–0.2 N/kg for the mean force and 0.0–0.1 m/s for the mean velocity.

Download:

Table 1. Mean force and mean velocity in 11 different loads (mean ± SD, n = 16) relative to body weight (100%–300% BW) and their reliability based on intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation (CV), and standard error of measurement (SEM).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356566.t001

Comparison between the two-point methods and the multiple-point method

Table 2 compares the multiple-point method and the ten two-point methods for the F–V parameters. Two-point methods based on closer loads (e.g., 100% and 120%, 100% and 140%, 100% and 160% BW) tended to overestimate F0 and Pmax, particularly when compared with methods using more separated loads (e.g., 100% and 180%, 100% and 300%), which produced values similar to those obtained with the multiple-point method. In fact, the bias when two-point methods based on distant loads (e.g., 100% and 180%, 100% and 300% BW) were compared to the multiple-point method was good (mean percent bias < 5%) for all F–V parameters.

Download:

Table 2. Force–velocity (F–V) parameters (mean ± SD, n = 16) such as theoretical maximum force (F0), velocity (V0), power (Pmax), and slope of the linear F–V relationship (SFv) obtained from the multiple-point method and 10 two-point methods using a combination of two different loads (100% and 120%, 100% and 140%, 100% and 160%, 100% and 180%, 100% and 200%, 100% and 220%, 100% and 240%, 100% and 260%, 100% and 280%, and 100% and 300% of body weight [BW]) in leg press exercise.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356566.t002

The F–V relationship based on the multiple-point method was highly linear when obtained from the individual force and velocity data (r = 0.974 to 0.998). Fig 1 shows the F–V relationships of the three participants with different F–V profiles. The F–V relationships obtained by the two-point method with two closer loads (i.e., 100% and 120%, 100% and 140%, and 100% and 160% BW) were different from those obtained by the multiple-point method. The four two-point methods with more separated loads (i.e., 100% and 240%, 100% and 260%, 100% and 280%, and 100% and 300% BW) provided nearly perfect correlations (r = 0.906 to 0.993) and trivial to small differences in magnitudes (Cohen’s d = −0.193 to 0.229) compared with the multiple-point method for all F–V parameters (Table 3). Bland–Altman plots (Figs 2–5) demonstrated that the two-point method using more distant loads showed better agreement with the multiple-point method, whereas the two-point method using closer loads showed poorer agreement.

Download:

Table 3. Difference in the force–velocity (F–V) relationship parameters such as theoretical maximum force (F0), velocity (V0), power (Pmax), and slope of the linear F–V relationship (SFv) obtained from the 10 two-point methods using two loads (100% and 120%, 100% and 140%, 100% and 160%, 100% and 180%, 100% and 200%, 100% and 220%, 100% and 240%, 100% and 260%, 100% and 280%, and 100% and 300% of body weight [BW]) in comparison to the multiple-point method during leg press exercise. Comparison to the multiple-point method is shown by P-value, Cohen’s d, Pearson’s r (95% confidence interval [CI]), and Bias (95% CI).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356566.t003

Download:

Fig 2. Bland–Altman plots showing the agreement of the theoretical maximum force (F0) obtained from the 10 two-point methods using two loads:

(100% and 300% [A], 100% and 280% [B], 100% and 260% [C], 100% and 240% [D], 100% and 220% [E], 100% and 200% [F], 100% and 180% [G], 100% and 160% [H], 100% and 140% [I], and 100% and 120% [J] of body weight [BW]) with that obtained from the multiple-point method during leg press exercise.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356566.g002

Download:

Fig 3. Bland–Altman plots showing the agreement of the theoretical maximum velocity (V0) obtained from the 10 two-point methods using two loads:

(100% and 300% [A], 100% and 280% [B], 100% and 260% [C], 100% and 240% [D], 100% and 220% [E], 100% and 200% [F], 100% and 180% [G], 100% and 160% [H], 100% and 140% [I], and 100% and 120% [J] of body weight [BW]) with that obtained from the multiple-point method during leg press exercise.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356566.g003

Download:

Fig 4. Bland–Altman plots showing the agreement of the theoretical maximum power (Pmax) obtained from the 10 two-point methods using two loads:

(100% and 300% [A], 100% and 280% [B], 100% and 260% [C], 100% and 240% [D], 100% and 220% [E], 100% and 200% [F], 100% and 180% [G], 100% and 160% [H], 100% and 140% [I], and 100% and 120% [J] of body weight [BW]) with that obtained from the multiple-point method during leg press exercise.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356566.g004

Download:

Fig 5. Bland–Altman plots showing the agreement of the slope of the linear F–V relationship (SFv) obtained from the 10 two-point methods using two loads:

(100% and 300% [A], 100% and 280% [B], 100% and 260% [C], 100% and 240% [D], 100% and 220% [E], 100% and 200% [F], 100% and 180% [G], 100% and 160% [H], 100% and 140% [I], and 100% and 120% [J] of body weight [BW]) with that obtained from the multiple-point method during leg press exercise.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356566.g005

Discussion

This study tested the hypothesis that the concurrent validity of the F–V relationship parameters obtained from the two-point method relative to the multiple-point method is high when different loads are used, whereas this validity progressively decreases when closer loads are used. The results indicate that only four two-point methods using different loads (100% and 240%, 100% and 260%, 100% and 280%, and 100% and 300% BW) provided nearly perfect correlations with the F–V relationship obtained from the multiple-point method and showed trivial to small differences and acceptable bias (<5%) for field use in all F–V parameters compared with those from the multiple-point method. In contrast, the concurrent validity of the F–V relationship parameters obtained from the two-point methods relative to the multiple-point method tended to decrease with the use of loads close to each other (e.g., 100% and 120% BW). These results support our hypotheses and indicate that the two-point method using distant loads yields leg press F–V relationship parameters that are well matched to those from the multiple-point method.

Reliable F–V profiling under multiple load conditions requires that the force and velocity of each input data point be highly reliable (ICC > 0.75, CV < 10%) [20,26,28]. The ICCs and CVs for mean force were excellent under all load conditions (Table 1). Regarding mean velocity, excellent reliability was demonstrated for the ICC and/or CV under the 280% BW load condition and below. However, reliability decreased under heavier load conditions (i.e., 300% BW). Previous studies [29–31] demonstrated that increased external load reduces the reliability of velocity-related indicators. García-Ramos et al. [31] reported that the reliability of cadence and power values tended to decrease as the resistive forces increased during cycle ergometer testing. Pérez-Castilla et al. [29,30] showed that the CVs of the squat jump and countermovement jump height increased to an unacceptable level (>10%) under load conditions when the jump height fell below 10 cm. In this study, the mean velocity was 0.52 m/s under the 300% BW load condition, where a decline in reliability was observed (Table 1). A plausible mechanism for the velocity-specific reduction in reliability at the heaviest external load condition is the increased sensitivity of velocity calculation to between-trial movement variability when participants approach their maximal force capacity. A recent systematic review of 22 biomechanical studies in experienced lifters reported that joint coordination and segmental variability consistently increased with intensity, and that individual differences in movement strategy became more pronounced at higher loads [32]. Although these findings were derived from free-weight exercises with greater kinematic degrees of freedom than the present horizontal leg press device, between-trial variability, such as the timing of force initiation, left–right leg synchronization, and the consistency of completion time used in the velocity calculation, is likely to persist even with a fixed seat and standardized starting knee angle. At 300% BW, where mean velocity fell to approximately 0.5 m/s, and participants were operating close to their force ceiling, even modest absolute variability in completion time would translate into proportionally large variability in calculated mean velocity. By contrast, force at the same condition was integrated across the entire range of motion and was less affected by such timing-related variability, which is consistent with the preserved reliability of force across all external load conditions in the present study. These findings suggest that data points obtained under very high load conditions, where the mean velocity falls below approximately 0.5 m/s, should be excluded to enhance the reliability of leg press F–V profiling.

The F–V relationship parameters obtained using the two-point method with more distinct loads showed better agreement with those obtained using the multiple-point method (Tables 2 and 3). These results were consistent with the findings of a previous study [20] on vertical jumps, which showed that the two-point method using different loads exhibited high concurrent validity in comparison to the multiple-point method. This study provides further support for the validity of the two-point method using distant loads in lower-limb multi-joint tasks. Furthermore, the F–V relationship in the leg press task in the present study was highly linear (r = 0.974–0.998), as shown in Fig 1. The high linearity of the F–V relationship allowed several two-point methods with significantly different data points (i.e., 100% and 240%, 100% and 260%, 100% and 280%, and 100% and 300% BW) to demonstrate comparably high concurrent validity with the multiple-point method. García-Ramos et al. [20] also reported for vertical jumps that two two-point methods based on relatively distant loads (i.e., 0 and 60 kg and 0 and 75 kg) exhibited equivalent concurrent validity with the multiple-point method. Considering these findings, it is important to use two-point methods based on data points separated by a sufficient distance for accurate measurement; however, it may not be necessary to use the two most distant points.

The concurrent validity of the F–V relationship parameters obtained using the two-point method relative to the multiple-point method tended to decrease with the use of more closer loads (Fig 1, Table 3). As this trend was more pronounced in F0 than in V0, the reduced concurrent validity of Pmax and SFv with the multiple-point method was thought to be caused primarily by F0 rather than V0. This effect may result from estimating the F–V relationship parameters using data extrapolation. In this study, the applied lightest load (i.e., 100% BW) was fixed for all two-point methods, consistent with prior research [20], whereas the applied heaviest load varied among the methods, ranging from 120% to 300% BW. Consequently, the two-point method using two closely spaced loads (i.e., 100% and 120% BW) relies on relatively velocity-biased data points (Fig 1, Table 1). This method likely increased the extrapolation errors [6,18,33] of F0 and decreased the concurrent validity with the multiple-point method. Thus, minimizing the extrapolation errors in the two-point method requires using two more widely separated loads.

This study, together with previous studies [18,20], demonstrated the usefulness of the two-point method for estimating the F–V profile. However, some limitations exist. This study involved relatively strong young men who were capable of completing tests under external load conditions of 100–300% BW imposed by a horizontal dynamic leg press device. Therefore, it remains unclear whether the findings of the present study apply to other populations, including women and older adults, who may be unable to complete leg press tasks under high-load conditions. A further limitation pertains to the loading design of the two-point methods. In the present study, all two-point methods were anchored at 100% BW as the lowest load, while only the heaviest load was varied from 120% to 300% BW. As a consequence of this design, the present findings identify the best-performing two-point loading combinations among those anchored at 100% BW, rather than the globally optimal two-point loading strategy across all possible anchor-load combinations. It remains unknown whether two-point methods using a lower anchor load (e.g., 60% or 80% BW), a higher anchor load, or load pairs not anchored at body weight would yield comparable, superior, or inferior agreement with the multiple-point reference method. Future studies should systematically examine how varying both the lower and upper anchor loads affects the agreement of two-point F–V profiling in horizontal dynamic leg press exercises. Additionally, the current study used a horizontal dynamic leg press device equipped with pneumatic artificial muscles, which differs somewhat from other leg press machines. This device was selected in the present study because the validity of two-point F–V profiling could only be meaningfully evaluated on a measurement system providing force and velocity outputs with high test–retest reliability, since measurement variability propagates more strongly into estimates derived from only two experimental points than into those derived from a larger number of points [18]. This difference in loading type may limit the generalizability of the present study’s findings when other leg press devices are used because the measured F–V relationship changes depending on the loading type (e.g., pneumatic vs. isoinertial) [34]. However, based on previous studies [6,15,35,36] indicating that the F–V relationship for leg press tasks is quasi-linear across various load types, the principle that two-point methods using more distant loads provide more accurate F–V parameter estimates than methods using closer loads is expected to apply when leg press tasks are performed on other devices. This is grounded in the mathematics of linear regression rather than in device-specific properties [18]. However, the specific load combinations identified here may differ across devices and should be empirically confirmed on other systems. Finally, we investigated the concurrent validity of the two-point method using data obtained from a single session of the multiple-point method. However, using the two-point method under actual field conditions may produce higher values for some F–V relationship parameters because of reduced fatigue [37,38]. Future research should directly investigate whether fixed bias occurs when the two-point method is used for F–V profiling of the leg press task in an independent measurement session.

Conclusions

The current study demonstrated that certain two-point methods are valid for testing maximal force, velocity, and power production capabilities during leg press movements. Specifically, using relatively distant loads (100% and 240%, 100% and 260%, 100% and 280%, and 100% and 300% BW) in the two-point method enables the acquisition of more valid F–V parameters and provides a time-efficient, fatigue-reducing alternative (e.g., 4 vs. 22 trials in the present study). Therefore, the two-point method using widely separated loads can serve as a practical alternative to the multiple-point method for assessing leg extension capability, at least in young, relatively strong men tested on a horizontal dynamic leg press equipped with pneumatic artificial muscles. Generalization to other populations and leg press devices warrants further investigation.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset. Original data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356566.s001

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We want to thank all the participants for their time and effort in this study, and the staff of the Institute of Physical Education at Keio University for providing technical support.

References

1. Nishioka T, Yamaguchi S, Hajima D, Kunita Y, Inami T. Comparison of intra-session reliability of force-velocity-power variables between a horizontal dynamic leg press device and vertical jump tests. PLoS One. 2025;20(9):e0331671. pmid:40892836
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Stone MH. The importance of muscular strength in athletic performance. Sports Med. 2016;46(10):1419–49. pmid:26838985
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Larsen F, Loturco I, Sigvaldsen E, Strand MF, Kalhovde JM, Haugen T. Reliability and validity of different lower-limb strength tests to determine 1RM in the Keiser A300 leg press. J Strength Cond Res. 2023;37(10):1963–8. pmid:37729511
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Infante MA, Harrell GM, Strand KL, Parrino RL, Signorile JF. One repetition maximum test-retest reliability and safety using Keiser pneumatic resistance training machines with older women. J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35(12):3513–7. pmid:35133999
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Lindberg K, Eythorsdottir I, Solberg P, Gløersen Ø, Seynnes O, Bjørnsen T, et al. Validity of force-velocity profiling assessed with a pneumatic leg press device. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2021;16(12):1777–85. pmid:34044368
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Lindberg K, Solberg P, Bjørnsen T, Helland C, Rønnestad B, Thorsen Frank M, et al. Force-velocity profiling in athletes: reliability and agreement across methods. PLoS One. 2021;16(2):e0245791. pmid:33524058
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Lindberg K, Lohne-Seiler H, Fosstveit SH, Sibayan EE, Fjeller JS, Løvold S, et al. Effectiveness of individualized training based on force-velocity profiling on physical function in older men. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2022;32(6):1013–25. pmid:35305276
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Alcazar J, Rodriguez-Lopez C, Ara I, Alfaro-Acha A, Rodríguez-Gómez I, Navarro-Cruz R, et al. Force-velocity profiling in older adults: an adequate tool for the management of functional trajectories with aging. Exp Gerontol. 2018;108:1–6. pmid:29567100
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Baena-Raya A, García-Mateo P, García-Ramos A, Rodríguez-Pérez MA, Soriano-Maldonado A. Delineating the potential of the vertical and horizontal force-velocity profile for optimizing sport performance: a systematic review. J Sports Sci. 2022;40(3):331–44. pmid:34727836
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Cronin JB, Hansen KT. Strength and power predictors of sports speed. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(2):349–57. pmid:15903374
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Samozino P, Edouard P, Sangnier S, Brughelli M, Gimenez P, Morin J-B. Force-velocity profile: imbalance determination and effect on lower limb ballistic performance. Int J Sports Med. 2014;35(6):505–10. pmid:24227123
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Samozino P, Rejc E, Di Prampero PE, Belli A, Morin J-B. Optimal force–velocity profile in ballistic movements—altius: citius or fortius? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(2):313–22. pmid:22157584
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Morin J-B, Jiménez-Reyes P, Brughelli M, Samozino P. When jump height is not a good indicator of lower limb maximal power output: theoretical demonstration, experimental evidence and practical solutions. Sports Med. 2019;49(7):999–1006. pmid:30805913
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Morin J-B, Samozino P. Interpreting power-force-velocity profiles for individualized and specific training. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2016;11(2):267–72. pmid:26694658
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Rivière JR, Morin J-B, Bowen M, Cross MR, Messonnier LA, Samozino P. Exploring the low force-high velocity domain of the force-velocity relationship in acyclic lower-limb extensions. Sports Med Open. 2023;9(1):55. pmid:37439876
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Padulo J, Migliaccio GM, Ardigò LP, Leban B, Cosso M, Samozino P. Lower limb force, velocity, power capabilities during leg press and squat movements. Int J Sports Med. 2017;38(14):1083–9. pmid:29050041
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Bobbert MF. Why is the force-velocity relationship in leg press tasks quasi-linear rather than hyperbolic?. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2012;112(12):1975–83. pmid:22442026
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. García-Ramos A. The 2-Point method: theoretical basis, methodological considerations, experimental support, and its application under field conditions. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2023;18(10):1092–100. pmid:37541677
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Fessl I, Wiesinger H-P, Kröll J. Power-force-velocity profiling as a function of used loads and task experience. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2022;17(5):694–700. pmid:35158325
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. García-Ramos A, Pérez-Castilla A, Jaric S. Optimisation of applied loads when using the two-point method for assessing the force-velocity relationship during vertical jumps. Sports Biomech. 2021;20(3):274–89. pmid:30540216
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Chen Z, Gong Z, Pan L, Zhang X. Is two-point method a valid and reliable method to predict 1RM? A systematic review. PLoS One. 2023;18(11):e0294509. pmid:37983216
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Souza AA, Bottaro M, Rocha VA, Lage V, Tufano JJ, Vieira A. Reliability and test-retest agreement of mechanical variables obtained during countermovement jump. Int J Exerc Sci. 2020;13(4):6–17. pmid:32148630
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Hopkins W, Batterham A. Spreadsheets for analysis of validity and reliability. Sport Sci. 2015;19:36–42. Available from: https://sportsci.org/2015/ValidRely.htm
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63. pmid:27330520
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(1):231–40. pmid:15705040
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(1):3–13. pmid:19092709
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Beato M, Devereux G, Stiff A. Validity and reliability of global positioning system units (STATSports Viper) for measuring distance and peak speed in sports. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(10):2831–7. pmid:30052603
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Samozino P, Rivière JR, Jimenez-Reyes P, Cross MR, Morin J-B. Is the concept, method, or measurement to blame for testing error? An illustration using the force-velocity-power profile. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2022;17(12):1760–8. pmid:36368326
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Pérez-Castilla A, McMahon JJ, Comfort P, García-Ramos A. Assessment of loaded squat jump height with a free-weight barbell and Smith machine: comparison of the takeoff velocity and flight time procedures. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(3):671–7. pmid:28777251
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Pérez-Castilla A, García-Ramos A. Evaluation of the most reliable procedure of determining jump height during the loaded countermovement jump exercise: take-off velocity vs. flight time. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(7):2025–30. pmid:29570575
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. García-Ramos A, Torrejón A, Morales-Artacho AJ, Pérez-Castilla A, Jaric S. Optimal resistive forces for maximizing the reliability of leg muscles’ capacities tested on a cycle ergometer. J Appl Biomech. 2018;34(1):47–52. pmid:28952867
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Bakhshinejad JA, Ramer JD, Dunsmore KA, Pelton LM, Berglund L. Effects of intensity and fatigue on the kinetics and kinematics of the barbell squat, bench press, and deadlift in experienced lifters: a systematic review. Sports Med Open. 2025;11(1):115. pmid:41085612
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Pérez-Castilla A, Jaric S, Feriche B, Padial P, García-Ramos A. Evaluation of muscle mechanical capacities through the two-load method: optimization of the load selection. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(5):1245–53. pmid:28475551
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Avrillon S, Jidovtseff B, Hug F, Guilhem G. Influence of isoinertial-pneumatic mixed resistances on force-velocity relationship. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(3):385–92. pmid:27347664
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Fessl I, Dirnberger J, Kröll J, Wiesinger H-P. Isokinetic leg-press power-force-velocity profiles are reliable in male and female elite athletes but not interchangeable with vertical jump profiles. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2022;17(11):1614–20. pmid:36028222
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Jaric S. Force-velocity relationship of muscles performing multi-joint maximum performance tasks. Int J Sports Med. 2015;36(9):699–704. pmid:25806588
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. García-Ramos A, Zivkovic M, Djuric S, Majstorovic N, Manovski K, Jaric S. Assessment of the two-point method applied in field conditions for routine testing of muscle mechanical capacities in a leg cycle ergometer. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2018;118(9):1877–84. pmid:29946968
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Miras-Moreno S, García-Ramos A, Jukic I, Pérez-Castilla A. Two-point method applied in field conditions: a feasible approach to assess the load-velocity relationship variables during the bench pull exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2023;37(7):1367–74. pmid:36728020
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Nishioka T, Yamaguchi S, Hajima D, Kunita Y, Inami T. Comparison of intra-session reliability of force-velocity-power variables between a horizontal dynamic leg press device and vertical jump tests. PLoS One. 2025;20(9):e0331671. pmid:40892836
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Stone MH. The importance of muscular strength in athletic performance. Sports Med. 2016;46(10):1419–49. pmid:26838985
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Larsen F, Loturco I, Sigvaldsen E, Strand MF, Kalhovde JM, Haugen T. Reliability and validity of different lower-limb strength tests to determine 1RM in the Keiser A300 leg press. J Strength Cond Res. 2023;37(10):1963–8. pmid:37729511
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Infante MA, Harrell GM, Strand KL, Parrino RL, Signorile JF. One repetition maximum test-retest reliability and safety using Keiser pneumatic resistance training machines with older women. J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35(12):3513–7. pmid:35133999
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] PubMed/NCBI

[16] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Lindberg K, Eythorsdottir I, Solberg P, Gløersen Ø, Seynnes O, Bjørnsen T, et al. Validity of force-velocity profiling assessed with a pneumatic leg press device. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2021;16(12):1777–85. pmid:34044368
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] PubMed/NCBI

[20] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Lindberg K, Solberg P, Bjørnsen T, Helland C, Rønnestad B, Thorsen Frank M, et al. Force-velocity profiling in athletes: reliability and agreement across methods. PLoS One. 2021;16(2):e0245791. pmid:33524058
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] PubMed/NCBI

[24] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Lindberg K, Lohne-Seiler H, Fosstveit SH, Sibayan EE, Fjeller JS, Løvold S, et al. Effectiveness of individualized training based on force-velocity profiling on physical function in older men. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2022;32(6):1013–25. pmid:35305276
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] PubMed/NCBI

[28] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Alcazar J, Rodriguez-Lopez C, Ara I, Alfaro-Acha A, Rodríguez-Gómez I, Navarro-Cruz R, et al. Force-velocity profiling in older adults: an adequate tool for the management of functional trajectories with aging. Exp Gerontol. 2018;108:1–6. pmid:29567100
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] PubMed/NCBI

[32] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Baena-Raya A, García-Mateo P, García-Ramos A, Rodríguez-Pérez MA, Soriano-Maldonado A. Delineating the potential of the vertical and horizontal force-velocity profile for optimizing sport performance: a systematic review. J Sports Sci. 2022;40(3):331–44. pmid:34727836
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] PubMed/NCBI

[36] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Cronin JB, Hansen KT. Strength and power predictors of sports speed. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(2):349–57. pmid:15903374
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] PubMed/NCBI

[40] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Samozino P, Edouard P, Sangnier S, Brughelli M, Gimenez P, Morin J-B. Force-velocity profile: imbalance determination and effect on lower limb ballistic performance. Int J Sports Med. 2014;35(6):505–10. pmid:24227123
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] PubMed/NCBI

[44] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Samozino P, Rejc E, Di Prampero PE, Belli A, Morin J-B. Optimal force–velocity profile in ballistic movements—altius: citius or fortius? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(2):313–22. pmid:22157584
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] PubMed/NCBI

[48] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Morin J-B, Jiménez-Reyes P, Brughelli M, Samozino P. When jump height is not a good indicator of lower limb maximal power output: theoretical demonstration, experimental evidence and practical solutions. Sports Med. 2019;49(7):999–1006. pmid:30805913
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] PubMed/NCBI

[52] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Morin J-B, Samozino P. Interpreting power-force-velocity profiles for individualized and specific training. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2016;11(2):267–72. pmid:26694658
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[54] View Article

[55] PubMed/NCBI

[56] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Rivière JR, Morin J-B, Bowen M, Cross MR, Messonnier LA, Samozino P. Exploring the low force-high velocity domain of the force-velocity relationship in acyclic lower-limb extensions. Sports Med Open. 2023;9(1):55. pmid:37439876
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[58] View Article

[59] PubMed/NCBI

[60] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Padulo J, Migliaccio GM, Ardigò LP, Leban B, Cosso M, Samozino P. Lower limb force, velocity, power capabilities during leg press and squat movements. Int J Sports Med. 2017;38(14):1083–9. pmid:29050041
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] PubMed/NCBI

[64] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Bobbert MF. Why is the force-velocity relationship in leg press tasks quasi-linear rather than hyperbolic?. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2012;112(12):1975–83. pmid:22442026
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] PubMed/NCBI

[68] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. García-Ramos A. The 2-Point method: theoretical basis, methodological considerations, experimental support, and its application under field conditions. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2023;18(10):1092–100. pmid:37541677
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] PubMed/NCBI

[72] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Fessl I, Wiesinger H-P, Kröll J. Power-force-velocity profiling as a function of used loads and task experience. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2022;17(5):694–700. pmid:35158325
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[74] View Article

[75] PubMed/NCBI

[76] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. García-Ramos A, Pérez-Castilla A, Jaric S. Optimisation of applied loads when using the two-point method for assessing the force-velocity relationship during vertical jumps. Sports Biomech. 2021;20(3):274–89. pmid:30540216
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[78] View Article

[79] PubMed/NCBI

[80] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Chen Z, Gong Z, Pan L, Zhang X. Is two-point method a valid and reliable method to predict 1RM? A systematic review. PLoS One. 2023;18(11):e0294509. pmid:37983216
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[82] View Article

[83] PubMed/NCBI

[84] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Souza AA, Bottaro M, Rocha VA, Lage V, Tufano JJ, Vieira A. Reliability and test-retest agreement of mechanical variables obtained during countermovement jump. Int J Exerc Sci. 2020;13(4):6–17. pmid:32148630
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[86] View Article

[87] PubMed/NCBI

[88] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Hopkins W, Batterham A. Spreadsheets for analysis of validity and reliability. Sport Sci. 2015;19:36–42. Available from: https://sportsci.org/2015/ValidRely.htm
View Article
Google Scholar

[90] View Article

[91] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63. pmid:27330520
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] PubMed/NCBI

[95] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(1):231–40. pmid:15705040
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] PubMed/NCBI

[99] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(1):3–13. pmid:19092709
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] PubMed/NCBI

[103] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Beato M, Devereux G, Stiff A. Validity and reliability of global positioning system units (STATSports Viper) for measuring distance and peak speed in sports. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(10):2831–7. pmid:30052603
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[105] View Article

[106] PubMed/NCBI

[107] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Samozino P, Rivière JR, Jimenez-Reyes P, Cross MR, Morin J-B. Is the concept, method, or measurement to blame for testing error? An illustration using the force-velocity-power profile. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2022;17(12):1760–8. pmid:36368326
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[109] View Article

[110] PubMed/NCBI

[111] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Pérez-Castilla A, McMahon JJ, Comfort P, García-Ramos A. Assessment of loaded squat jump height with a free-weight barbell and Smith machine: comparison of the takeoff velocity and flight time procedures. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(3):671–7. pmid:28777251
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[113] View Article

[114] PubMed/NCBI

[115] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Pérez-Castilla A, García-Ramos A. Evaluation of the most reliable procedure of determining jump height during the loaded countermovement jump exercise: take-off velocity vs. flight time. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(7):2025–30. pmid:29570575
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[117] View Article

[118] PubMed/NCBI

[119] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. García-Ramos A, Torrejón A, Morales-Artacho AJ, Pérez-Castilla A, Jaric S. Optimal resistive forces for maximizing the reliability of leg muscles’ capacities tested on a cycle ergometer. J Appl Biomech. 2018;34(1):47–52. pmid:28952867
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[121] View Article

[122] PubMed/NCBI

[123] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Bakhshinejad JA, Ramer JD, Dunsmore KA, Pelton LM, Berglund L. Effects of intensity and fatigue on the kinetics and kinematics of the barbell squat, bench press, and deadlift in experienced lifters: a systematic review. Sports Med Open. 2025;11(1):115. pmid:41085612
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[125] View Article

[126] PubMed/NCBI

[127] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Pérez-Castilla A, Jaric S, Feriche B, Padial P, García-Ramos A. Evaluation of muscle mechanical capacities through the two-load method: optimization of the load selection. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(5):1245–53. pmid:28475551
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[129] View Article

[130] PubMed/NCBI

[131] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Avrillon S, Jidovtseff B, Hug F, Guilhem G. Influence of isoinertial-pneumatic mixed resistances on force-velocity relationship. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(3):385–92. pmid:27347664
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[133] View Article

[134] PubMed/NCBI

[135] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Fessl I, Dirnberger J, Kröll J, Wiesinger H-P. Isokinetic leg-press power-force-velocity profiles are reliable in male and female elite athletes but not interchangeable with vertical jump profiles. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2022;17(11):1614–20. pmid:36028222
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[137] View Article

[138] PubMed/NCBI

[139] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Jaric S. Force-velocity relationship of muscles performing multi-joint maximum performance tasks. Int J Sports Med. 2015;36(9):699–704. pmid:25806588
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[141] View Article

[142] PubMed/NCBI

[143] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. García-Ramos A, Zivkovic M, Djuric S, Majstorovic N, Manovski K, Jaric S. Assessment of the two-point method applied in field conditions for routine testing of muscle mechanical capacities in a leg cycle ergometer. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2018;118(9):1877–84. pmid:29946968
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[145] View Article

[146] PubMed/NCBI

[147] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Miras-Moreno S, García-Ramos A, Jukic I, Pérez-Castilla A. Two-point method applied in field conditions: a feasible approach to assess the load-velocity relationship variables during the bench pull exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2023;37(7):1367–74. pmid:36728020
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[149] View Article

[150] PubMed/NCBI

[151] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Experimental design

Participants

Testing procedures

Data analyses

Statistical analyses

Results

Test-retest reliability of force and velocity

Comparison between the two-point methods and the multiple-point method

Discussion

Conclusions

Supporting information

S1 Dataset. Original data.

Acknowledgments

References