Force-Velocity Profiling and Training Optimization Course – MODULE 3 - Complementary Training

Force-Velocity Profiling and Training Optimization Course – MODULE 3

Welcome to Complementary Training Community! Forums Complementary Training Blog Posts and Articles Force-Velocity Profiling and Training Optimization Course – MODULE 3

This topic contains 2 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by mm Mladen Jovanovic 3 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • mm
    21/08/2020 at 16:12 #29386

    The key aspect of the profiling process is keeping technique consistent across loads, particularly the exact same starting position and no counter-movements. I this module, I will demonstrate how to do that with hex bar jump and squat jump.

    [See the full post at: Force-Velocity Profiling and Training Optimization Course – MODULE 3]

    21/08/2020 at 23:08 #29389

    A question for anyone with thoughts or experience:

    In the two Jiménez-Reyes/Samozino papers (2017, 2019) where they looked at the effects of training on the individual F-V profile, it was unclear to me how they determined the loads for pre and post testing, and if those loads remained exactly the same from pre to post testing.

    The methods state something similar for both papers: “each subject performed vertical maximal SJ without loads and against five to eight extra loads ranging from 17 to 87 kg in a randomized order.”

    My question is – if it’s assumed they were basing loads off of % of BW, would the external load potentially change for subsequent testing given changes in bodyweight?

    My guess is that the external load was the same through the pre, intra, and post-testing for these papers, and that comes with the assumption that BW stayed relatively stable, and normal BW fluctuations that might actually change what you’d put on the bar by ~5lbs or so may not matter.

    However, in my setting when dealing with competitive weightlifters and other weight-class athletes, we sometimes have athletes who are deliberately going up or down weight classes during the training cycle.

    In these cases – am I correct in thinking that fixed loads would be suboptimal here, as they would skew training adaptations relative to bodyweight, and the outcomes should be based on relative intensities I choose to test (20, 40, 60, 80, 100% of BW for example). And that those relative %’s may yield significantly different external loads that we actually put on the bar pre and post-testing?

    Or how have any of you managed similar situations practically?

    Apologies for:
    (1) Making a simple question into a fucking novel
    (2) Missing these details in the papers themselves, if they were, in fact, in there.

    22/08/2020 at 21:08 #29396

    Thanks for posting a question Quinn. In this case, BW is taken into account (100% BW) alongside with external load. Thus for the profile (absolute, IMHO, it doesn’t really matter (particularly how ‘optimal’ the FV profile is). But I do agree – if weight went up or down, maybe, we need to take that into that and calculate predicted VJ at pre-test height?

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.