System AppendPDF Proof Hi-3

Sports Biomechanics
Fo
Comparison of different regression models to fit the force-
velocity relationship of a knee extension exercise
rP
Journal: Sports Biomechanics

ee
Manuscript ID RSPB-2017-0247.R2
Manuscript Type: Original Research

rR
Date Submitted by the Author: 26-Jan-2018
Complete List of Authors: Iglesias-Soler, Eliseo; University of A Coruna. Performance and Health
ev
Group, Department of Physical Education and Sport. Faculty of Sports

Sciences and Physical Education, Spain
Fariñas, Juan; University of A Coruna. Performance and Health Group,
Department of Physical Education and Sport. Faculty of Sports Sciences
iew
and Physical Education, Spain

Mayo, Xian; University of A Coruna. Performance and Health Group,
Department of Physical Education and Sport. Faculty of Sports Sciences
and Physical Education, Spain; Active and Healthy Lifestyle Observatory,
Centre for Sport Studies, King Juan Carlos University, Madrid, Spain
Santos, Luis; University School of Sports Medicine, University of Oviedo,
On
Oviedo, Spain
Jaric, Slobodan; University of Delaware, Kinesiology and Applied Physiology
Keywords: force-velocity model, mechanical profile, power, least-squared regression

ly
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rspb Email: d.t.fong@lboro.ac.uk

Page 1 of 41 Sports Biomechanics
Sports Biomechanics
Submission checklist
A. For new submission and resubmission. (Please only check YES when these items are met, or
else the manuscript will be returned to you or immediately rejected.)
Yes
1. Have you added continuous line numbers from abstract to appendices?
2. Have you used the following sections in the manuscript: Abstract, Introduction,
Methods, Results, Discussion and Implications, Conclusion, References? (Note that
we use ‘Discussion and Implications’ but not only ‘Discussion’ as we request authors
to highlight the practical implications in sports biomechanics.)
3. Have you provided a testable hypothesis at the end of Introduction, i.e. ‘We
hypothesise that…’ or ‘It is hypothesised that…’. (Please answer the hypothesis in
Fo
Discussion and Implications and/or Conclusion.)

4. Have you used the required referencing format? A direct link is available here:
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/authors/style/reference/tf_APA.pdf
rP
5. Have you placed your documents in the following order: submission checklist,
response to reviewer’s comments (resubmission only), title page, abstract, keywords,
main text, acknowledgements, references, appendices, table(s) with caption(s), figure
ee
captions on individual pages, and figure(s) as separated image files?

rR
B. For resubmission only
Yes
6. Have you prepared your point-by-point response to the Editor-in-Chief, Associate
ev
Editor, and each reviewer’s comments? Do not group the responses. Place this
document as the first document preceding the main text.
7. Have you provided a clean version of the revision with the changes highlighted by
iew
coloured text or highlighter? Do not use track changes function as it makes the
manuscript messy.
8. Have you used British English spelling? (e.g. analyse but not analyze, analysing but
not analyzing, normalise but not normalize, normalising but not normalizing, etc.
Search for ‘ize’, ‘yze’, ‘zing’ and make appropriate edits.)
On
9. Have you used ‘single quotation marks’ instead of “double quotation marks”?
10. Is the abstract in a single unstructured paragraph and within 200 words?
11. Have you provided 3-5 keywords which are not included in the title?
12. Have you used ‘participants’ instead of ‘subjects’ to refer to the human participants in
ly
the study?
13. Have you checked the preferred units, symbols and numbers? (e.g. SI unit preferred,
m/s but not ms-1, avoid too many significant figures beyond the accuracy of your tool,
use the same significant figures for mean and standard deviation, etc.)
14. Have you make sure your illustrations are readable with adequate font size and clear
graph line, and also when printed black-and-white? Have you provided the
illustrations in the highest quality, placed them as separated files in the image format
(i.e. JPG, TIFF)?
15. Are there no more than 8 figures?

Sports Biomechanics Page 2 of 41
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER COMMENTS
Editor's Comments to Author: I will accept this one if you can well
address the last final comment from a reviewer. In addition, please make
sure all items on both Part A and B on the submission checklist are met
before you resubmit, or the manuscript won't be accepted.
Dear Editor, thank you very much for your comments and consideration. We
Fo
believe that we were able to address all your suggestions and concerns. That
rP
also applies to the reviewer 2 comment that you also emphasized. We are
anyway ready to make new changes if the editor or reviewer consider them
ee
necessary.
rR
Please also make the following changes on format.

ev
iew
1. Cover page: Provide the affiliations in English and in the following
order: Department, School/Faculty, University, City, State/Province,
Country.
On
We have changed the affiliation order as suggested

ly
2. Line 11: If you have set the p <= 0.05 as the threshold for significance
then here please denote as p < 0.05. Why is it p <= 0.015? On Line 210 why
is it p <= 0.0015 (which is 1/10 of that in abstract)? Is 0.0015 the smallest
value your tool can detect and report?
We actually set alpha at p < 0.05. We regret the inconsistent text that has been
amended in the Statistical Analysis section. In the abstract we wrote 0.015

because this was the maximum value observed for post-hoc comparisons of
linear and exponential with polynomial model. To avoid confusion we wrote p <
0.05 in the abstract as suggested. Finally, we have amended the mistake of line
210 as follows:
“Significantly lower Adj. R2 values were detected by post hoc Wilcoxon signed
rank tests for both LM and EM compared with PM for every limb (p ≤ 0.015 in all
Fo
cases)”.
rP
3. Line 83: Use kg/m2. Also on Line 532 and Table 2. This is one of the
ee
items on the submission checklist which you should have already
followed. Check the entire manuscript.

rR
We regret this mistake. We have made these changes throughout the

ev
manuscript.
iew
4. Line 87: Give the full name of the ethics committee, e.g. The University
of XXX Ethics Committee.

On
We have provided the full name of the ethics committee:
“Participants signed a written informed consent before participating in the study

ly
which was approved by the University of A Coruna Ethics Committee”
5. Line 159: Is that gain 1,000 (one thousand) or 1.000 (one)? I saw a
period but not a comma. Please check.
It is one thousand. We have corrected it in the manuscript as follows:
“@at a sample frequency of 5,000 Hz and filtered with a bandwidth frequency
ranging from 10 Hz to 1 kHz (gain = 1,000).”

6. Reference list: give page numbers of the part you have cited for books
(Line 432).
The page numbers have been included
7. Table 3 (Line 570): If you use p <= 0.05 as the threshold then here it
should not be p < 0.05, but p <= 0.05. Please change either one.
Fo
As previously said we actually set alpha at p < 0.05. We have corrected this
rP
mistake in the Statistical Analysis section
ee
8. Figure 4 caption: Please use open and close bracket to make them (A),
rR
(B), etc.
We have addressed this suggestion

ev
iew
9. Figure 2,3: Enlarge the text to ensure it is viewable as images could be
shrunk when formatted to the article.
The text of these figures has been enlarged as suggested.

On
ly

Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
I am generally happy with the response to my comments; however, it is
clear that the comparison of MVC with Fmax is an invalid one because
they were predicted/measured from data recorded under very different
mechanical situations that would facilitate different values. Specifically,
average over range of motion vs. fixed angle, and different lever arms
Fo
from the point of rotation on the machine which would change force at the
rP
ankle for the same force at the stack. Thus, the authors should remove
information on the comparison between MVC and Fmax from the

ee
manuscript.
rR
Nevertheless, I believe the bi-variate correlation between MVC and Fmax

ev
is fine and can remain as there is a sensible hypothesis that the two
iew
would be related to each other.
We are grateful to the reviewer for the comments and suggestions. We agree
On
with the reviewer that F0 and MVC don´t evaluate the same force modality.
ly
Nevertheless we think that maintaining the comparison between F0 and MVC is
relevant since the latter is a standard test typically used to assess the maximum
force of the tested muscles. In this regard despite their methodological
differences, our approach can provide the data that depict the maximum force
of the tested muscle typically assessed in previous studies by means the
standard isometric MVC test. In other words, we believe that the discussed
comparison adds to the concurrent validity of the regression parameter F0 and,

therefore, adds to the relevance of the evaluated approach. In order to address
the reviewer´s concern we have added the next paragraph in the discussion
section:
“Finally, the divergences between F0 and MVC can also be attributed to the fact
that the two variables do not exactly evaluate the same force production
modality since the former is extrapolated from dynamic mean values whereas
the latter is a maximum isometric force exerted at a predefined angle. Thus, F0

Fo
is obtained by extrapolating average values obtained over the entire range of

rP
motion which entails variable lever arms, whereas MVC is performed at a fixed
angle and therefore at a fixed lever arm.”

ee
rR
ev
iew
On
ly

TITLE PAGE
Title:
Comparison of different regression models to fit the force-velocity relationship of a
knee extension exercise
Authors: Eliseo Iglesias-Soler1; Juan Fariñas-Rodríguez1; Xian Mayo1,2; Luis
Santos1,3; Slobodan Jaric4

Fo
1
Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sports Sciences and
rP
Physical Education, University of A Coruna, A Coruña, Spain

ee
2
Active and Healthy Lifestyle Observatory, Centre for Sport Studies, King Juan
rR
Carlos University, Madrid, Spain
3
University School of Sports Medicine, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
ev
4
Department of Kinesiology and Applied Physiology & Biomechanics and Movement
iew
Science Graduate Program, University of Delaware, Newark, USA
Corresponding author:
On
Eliseo Iglesias-Soler
ly
Affiliation: Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sports
Sciences and Physical Education, University of A Coruna, A Coruña, Spain
Address: Facultad de Ciencias del Deporte y la Educación Física.Avda. E
Che Guevara 121-Pazos-Liáns. 15179 Oleiros, A Coruña, Spain.
Phone: +34981167000 (ext. 4061)
Fax: +34981167048

e-mail: eliseo@udc.es
Acknowledgments
We thank Kathleen M. DiDomenico for text editing.
Disclosure Statement:
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare

Fo
rP
ee
rR
ev
iew
On
ly

1 Abstract
2 The aims of this study were to compare the goodness of fit and the concurrent
3 validity of three regression models of the force-velocity relationship in a unilateral
4 knee extension exercise. The force-velocity relationship and the one-repetition-
5 maximum load in the dominant and non-dominant leg were obtained in 24 male
6 sports sciences students by a progressive protocol. Additionally, the maximum

Fo
7 voluntary contraction (MVC) of the knee extensor muscles was recorded. Individual
8 force-velocity relationships were obtained by the linear, quadratic polynomial, and

rP
9 exponential regression models. Although the adjusted coefficients of determination of

ee
10 all three models were high, the polynomial model's coefficient was slightly but
11 significantly higher than the rest of the models (p < 0.05), while the standard error of
rR
12 estimate was slightly higher for the linear than for polynomial model (p = 0.001). MVC
ev
13 was underestimated by F0 calculated from the linear and polynomial models, while
14 the maximum power was accurately estimated by the linear model. In summary,
iew
15 while the polynomial model revealed somewhat better fit, the linear model more
16 accurately estimates the maximum power and provides the parameters of apparent
On
17 physiological meaning. Therefore, we recommend using the linear model in research
18 and routine testing of mechanical capacities of knee extensors.

ly
19 Word Count: 199
20 Keywords: force-velocity model; mechanical profile; power; least-squared
21 regression.
22

23 Introduction
24 The inverse relationship between muscular force and shortening velocity has been
25 consistently established both for isolated animal muscles and humans muscle groups
26 since the first half of 20-th century. Specifically, the seminal studies showed that this
27 inverse relationship can be described by nonlinear, concave upward fashion
28 functions that can be expressed by either exponential (Fenn & Marsh, 1935) or
Fo
29 hyperbolic equations (Hill, 1938; Wilkie, 1949). This type of upward concave curves
30 has been used to fit the force-velocity relationship of monoarticular isokinetic

rP
31 exercises, such as the knee extension or elbow flexion (MacIntosh, Herzog, Suter,
ee
32 Wiley, & Sokolosky, 1993; Tihanyi, Apor, & Fekete, 1982; Toji, Suei, & Kaneko, 1997;
33 Valour, Ochala, Ballay, & Pousson, 2003). When multijoint and monoarticular
rR
34 isoinertial exercises were analysed, the force-velocity relationship has been well
ev
35 fitted by linear models (Iglesias-Soler et al., 2016; Jaric, 2015; Rahmani et al., 1999;
36 Samozino, Rejc, Di Prampero, Belli, & Morin, 2012) although the comparison
iew
37 between linear and nonlinear models was not performed. On the other hand no
38 significant differences between correlation coefficients of linear and polynomial

On
39 models have been observed for both vertical jump (Cuk et al., 2014) and bench press
40 throws (Sreckovic et al., 2015) but, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study
ly
41 has compared the goodness of fit of linear and nonlinear models for monoarticular
42 isoinertial exercises. Similarly, previous studies have suggested the utility of
43 variables obtained from the linear approach to characterise muscle mechanical
44 performance (Samozino et al., 2012). However, the analysis of the validity of the
45 parameters obtained from linear vs. nonlinear models has not been previously
46 reported.

47 An important application of the study of the force-velocity relationship is that it
48 enables the balance between force and velocity capacities of muscles to be
49 evaluated and compared between contralateral limbs. In this regard, previous studies
50 (Samozino, Rejc, di Prampero, Belli, & Morin, 2014; Yamauchi, Mishima, Nakayama,
51 & Ishii, 2009) have used the linear model to explore the phenomenon of bilateral
52 deficit and asymmetries in the performance of the lower limb, but these asymmetries
53 were neither explored with nonlinear models nor the individual´s laterality was
Fo
54 considered (i.e. dominant vs. non-dominant limb). Differences between limbs are of
rP
55 particular importance in clinical assessments and monitoring post-operative
56 procedures, therefore the differences between the dominant and non-dominant need
ee
57 to be explored. Therefore, it would be interesting to analyse if the differences in

rR
58 performance of the dominant and non-dominant limb are equally detected from the
59 force-velocity relationship obtained from the linear and nonlinear models.

ev
60 Thus, the aims of this study were (a) to analyse the goodness of fit of linear and
iew
61 nonlinear regression models for the assessment of the force-velocity relationship in
62 the unilateral isoinertial knee extension exercise; (b) to contrast the force-velocity
On
63 relationship obtained for dominant and non-dominant limbs with linear and nonlinear
64 models; (c) to explore the concurrent validity of the force-velocity relationship

ly
65 parameters estimated from different models with respect to those directly measured
66 (i.e. the maximum strength and power); (d) to evaluate the relationship between
67 muscular performance and the force-velocity relationship coefficients calculated from
68 linear and nonlinear models. We hypothesised that the force-velocity relationship
69 would be similarly fitted by linear and the nonlinear quadratic polynomial and
70 exponential models, so the simplest model (i.e. linear) would be a more efficient tool
71 for obtaining the mechanical profile for the knee extension exercise.

72 Methods
73 Experimental design
74 A cross sectional study was conducted to obtain the force-velocity relationship of a
75 unilateral knee extension exercise in both dominant and non-dominant leg. Following
76 two familiarization sessions, the third session consisted of a progressive protocol
77 used for obtaining for each leg the force-velocity relationship and the one-repetition
Fo
78 maximum load (1RM). Finally, MVC of the knee extensor muscles was obtained in
the fourth session. Individual force-velocity relationships were obtained by three

rP
79
80 types of regressions models: the linear, quadratic polynomial, and exponential.

ee
81 Participants
rR
82 Twenty four male sports sciences students participated in this study (age, 22 ± 2
ev
83 years; height: 176 ± 8 cm; weight, 72.8 ± 9.0 kg; BMI, 23.31 ± 1.84 kg/m2). All of
84 them were physically active through their standard curriculum that included between
iew
85 6 and 8 hours a week of moderate physical activity and were free of musculoskeletal
86 pain or injury during the study. Participants signed a written informed consent before
On
87 participating in the study which was approved by the University of A Coruna Ethics
88 Committee.
ly
89 Force-Velocity profile and 1RM test
90 Before testing the force-velocity relationship, two familiarization sessions were
91 performed to allow the participants to acquire experience with the exercise technique
92 and to record the individual references to standardise the position for performing the
93 tested task.

94 Individual force-velocity relationships were obtained by a protocol that combines a
95 velocity decrement with increasing load. This evaluation was conducted in the third
96 visit to the laboratory at least 48 hours after finishing the second familiarisation
97 session. The participant´s dominant leg was identified as that usually used to kick a
98 ball. Then, after a general warm-up consisting of 5 min of cycling at 80 rpm on a
99 bicycle ergonometer (Monark 828E; Monark Exercise AB, Vansbro, Sweeden) with a
100 resistance of 1.25 W/kg of body mass, each leg was evaluated in a randomised order
Fo
101 using a knee extension cam-system machine (Technogym, Gambettola, Italy) with
rP
102 hip and knee angle set at 90º. The lever arm was individually adjusted by placing the
103 padded surface for the application of force at the level of the medial malleolus. Knees
ee
104 were placed at the point of the axis of rotation of the machine by adjusting the
rR
105 position of the seat and seat back. These adjustments were recorded to standardise
106 the individual exercise position throughout the experiment. Minimum movement
ev
107 range was set at 80º (i.e. from 90º to 10º of knee flexion) visually controlled using a
iew
108 graded scale placed at the axis of rotation. Participants´ hip and trunk were
109 immobilised by straps while the arms had to be maintained crossed at the chest
110 (Figure 1).

On
111
ly
112 ***Figure1 near here***
113 The protocol started with the participants performing three knee extension repetitions
114 with a load of 15 kg. After a 1-min rest, the second trial of three repetitions was
115 performed with a load increment of 10 kg. This procedure was repeated until mean
116 velocity (MV) decreased by 25% compared with the best repetition corresponding to
117 the first load. In some cases, limitations in a participant´s range of movement (e.g.

118 shortening of ischiotibial muscles) caused the leg to lose contact with the lever arm at
119 the end of the movement, which may have resulted in an underestimation of the
120 velocity and force applied by the muscular action. Thus, only the portion of the
121 concentric period during which the acceleration was greater than acceleration due to
122 gravity was considered to obtain MV and the rest of the mechanical variables (see
123 below). Thereafter, successive sets of two repetitions with a 2-min rest interval
124 between sets were performed with load increments of 5 kg until MV decreased by
Fo
125 50% with respect to the initial performance. At this point, load increments were
rP
126 limited to 1-2.5 kg, with only one repetition required in each trial, with a 3-min rest
127 interval. This procedure was repeated until the participant was not able to complete
ee
128 at least 80º of knee extension. 1RM was defined as the maximum load properly lifted.
rR
129 After a 5-min period of rest, the procedure was repeated with the contralateral limb.
ev
130 To record the MV, mean force (MF), and mean power during the concentric phase of
131 each repetition, a dynamic measuring device (T-Force System, Ergotech, Murcia,
iew
132 Spain) was connected to the knee extensor machine to record the vertical
133 displacement of the load. Validity and reliability of this device have been previously
On
134 reported (Sanchez-Medina & Gonzalez-Badillo, 2011).This system consists of a
135 linear velocity transducer interfaced to a personal computer by means of a 14-bit

ly
136 resolution analog-to-digital data acquisition board and custom software.
137 Instantaneous velocity (V(t)) was sampled at a frequency of 1,000 Hz and
138 subsequently smoothed with a 4th order low-pass Butterworth filter with a cut-off
139 frequency of 10 Hz. Instantaneous acceleration (A(t)) was calculated by
140 differentiation of V(t) with respect to time, and instantaneous force (F(t)) was
141 obtained as F(t) = m·(A(t) + g) where m is the mass of the weight stack plates and g

142 is the acceleration caused by the gravity. Instantaneous power (P(t)) was calculated
143 as P(t)= F(t) · V(t)..
144 Participants were strongly encouraged during the test to perform each repetition with
145 the maximal velocity. When a load required performing more than one repetition, the
146 fastest trial was considered for further analysis.
147 Maximum Voluntary Contraction

Fo
148 The maximum isometric voluntary contraction (MVC) was assessed in a modified
rP
149 knee extension machine (BF100, Biotech Bioiso, Brazil) with the hips and knees
150 flexed 90º. This position was selected in order to simulate the starting position in the
ee
151 dynamic evaluation at which F0 would be theoretically performed at null velocity.

rR
152 Furthermore, this position has been frequently used to evaluate MVC of the knee
153 extensors (Wilson & Murphy, 1996). Participants had to perform an MVC with each
ev
154 limb and in a randomised order “as fast and as forcefully as possible” maintaining it
iew
155 for 4 s. A 3-minute rest period was provided between the assessments of both limbs.
156 In the case that the attempt was not considered maximal, another trial was performed
157 3 min later. Data were recorded using a force cell (sensitivity: 2 mV/V and 0.0028
On
158 VN; NL63-200, Digitimer Ltd, Welwyn Garden City, UK) that was attached to the
ly
159 knee extension machine, at a sample frequency of 5,000 Hz and filtered with a
160 bandwidth frequency ranging from 10 Hz to 1 kHz (gain = 1,000). MVC in N was
161 defined as the maximum recorded value.
162 Data analysis
163 The relationship between values of velocity and force was obtained for each
164 participant using values of MV and MF recorded for every load of the 1RM test.
165 Individual linear regressions were obtained considering MV as a dependent variable

166 (i.e. ordinates) and MF as the predictor variable (i.e. abscissae). Additionally the
167 maximum mean power (MP) recorded throughout the progressive test was
168 considered for further analyses.
169 Three models were considered for obtaining each individual regression: linear (LM),
170 quadratic polynomial (PM), and exponential model (EM). A detailed explanation of
171 these models is reported in the Appendix. The parameters obtained from each model
Fo
172 were: force intercept (F0), velocity intercept (V0), slope (s), and maximum power
173 (Pmax) for LM; F0, V0, Pmax and the concavity of the curve (a) for PM; and V0, Pmax and
rP
174 the force constant at which Pmax is obtained (k) for EM.
ee
175 Statistical Analysis

rR
176 Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 20 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and
177 GraphPad Prism software package for Windows (v5.03 GraphPad Prism Software
ev
178 Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). Normal distribution of data was explored by using
iew
179 Shapiro-Wilk test. Descriptive results are presented as means ± standard deviation
180 except in the case of the goodness of fit parameters that are presented as medians
181 and ranges. When normal distribution could not be assumed, nonparametric tests
On
182 were used. Adjusted coefficients of determination (Adj. R2) of individual regressions
ly
183 were used to compare the goodness of fit between LM, PM, and EM. Friedman´s test
184 was used in this case and post hoc paired comparisons were performed with
185 Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Bonferroni adjustment. Likewise, standard errors of
186 estimate (SEE) were contrasted between LM and PM by using paired t-test and
187 Wilcoxon signed-rank test if normality could be assumed or not respectively. SEE of
188 EM was not contrasted between PL and LM because it does not have an additive
189 scale (Glantz & Slinker, 1990). Similarly, a comparison between the dominant and

190 non-dominant limb was performed by paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test. To
191 analyse the association between the parameters of the force-velocity relationship
192 with the measurements of performance (1RM, MVC, and MP), Pearson´s correlation
193 coefficient or Spearman´s Rho were used if normality could be assumed or not,
194 respectively.
195 To assess the concurrent validity of the parameters F0 and Pmax estimated from three
Fo
196 regression models with the directly measured performance (MVC and MP), Pearson
197 product-moment correlation coefficients or Spearman´s Rho, and paired t-test or

rP
198 Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used. Additionally, concurrent validity was graphically
ee
199 analysed by Bland-Altman plots, obtaining biases and 95% limits of agreement (LoA).
200 When a significant positive correlation was detected between the absolute
rR
201 differences and mean values, the natural logarithms of both measurements were
ev
202 used as previously recommended (Nevill & Atkinson, 1997). In these cases, by taking
203 antilogs of the bias, the dimensionless ratio between geometric means is calculated
iew
204 while antilogs of LoA result from bias multiplied or divided by a second ratio that
205 indicates the level of agreement. Thus, values close to 1 represent concordance
On
206 between methods (Nevill & Atkinson, 1997). Alpha was set at p < 0.05.
207 Results
ly
208 Regarding Adj. R2, Friedman test was significant for both the dominant (p = 0.002)
209 and non-dominant limb (p = 0.004). Significantly lower Adj. R2 values were detected
210 by post hoc Wilcoxon signed rank tests for both LM and EM compared with PM for
211 every limb (p ≤ 0.015 in all cases). SEE was significantly higher for LM in comparison
212 with PM in the dominant and in the non-dominant limb (p = 0.001 in both legs; Table

213 1). As previously indicated, SEE of EM was not compared with the rest of models
214 since it is expressed in a different scale.
215 ***Table 1 near here***
216 No significant differences were detected between the dominant and non-dominant
217 leg for both 1RM (70 ± 13 and 71 ±12 kg in the dominant and non-dominant limb,
218 respectively; p = 0.489) and MVC (1321 ± 295 and 1276 ± 268 N for the dominant
Fo
219 and non- dominant leg, respectively; p = 0.319). Likewise, MP of the dominant and
non-dominant leg was rather similar (262 ± 53 and 262 ± 55 W, respectively; p =

rP
220
221 0.976).
ee
222 Wilcoxon test did not detect significant differences between limbs for s (p = 0.189), a
rR
223 coefficient of PM (p = 0.732) and k coefficient of the EM (p = 0.493). Likewise,
224 paired-samples t-test did not reveal significant differences between the limbs for F0
ev
225 estimated from LM (p = 0.193), F0 obtained from PM (p = 0.745), V0 of LM, PM, and
iew
226 EM (p = 0.106, 0.309, and 0.329, respectively; Table 2).

On
228 MVC values were significantly higher than those estimated by LM and PM (p < 0.001
229 for all the cases). F0 calculated from LM correlated significantly with MVC (r = 0.872
ly
230 and 0.855 for dominant and non-dominant limbs, respectively; p < 0.001 in both
231 cases). F0 estimated from PM, was also significantly associated with MVC in
232 dominant limbs (r = 0.545; p = 0.006) but only a tendency was observed for the non-
233 dominant segment (r = 0.400; p = 0.053).
234 Pmax estimated from LM was 264 ± 52 and 263 ± 55 W for the dominant and non-
235 dominant limbs, respectively. Comparisons of these variables with MP were non-

236 significant (p = 0.174 and 0.620, respectively). Pmax calculated from PM was 255 ± 48
237 and 254 ± 49 W for dominant and non-dominant legs, respectively. These values
238 were significantly lower than MP (p = 0.001 in both cases). Mean values of Pmax
239 calculated from EM were 247 ± 50 and 247 ±51 W for dominant and non-dominant
240 limbs, respectively. Paired-sample t-test detected significant differences between
241 Pmax of EM and MP in both limbs (both p < 0.001). All the correlations between Pmax
242 and MP were statistically significant (p < 0.001): LM (r = 0.987 and 0.976 for
Fo
243 dominant and non-dominant limb, respectively), PM (r = 0.987 and 0.983 for
rP
244 dominant and non-dominant legs, respectively) and EM (r = 0.988 and 0.981 for
245 dominant and non-dominant limbs, respectively).

ee
246 In the Bland-Altman plots for comparisons between MVC and F0, significant
rR
247 correlations were detected between the absolute differences and mean values, thus
ev
248 natural logarithms of measurements were used to calculate the bias and LoA (Figure
249 1). Antilogs of bias (i.e. the ratio between geometric mean of MVC and F0) in the
iew
250 dominant limb were 1.46 (LoA = [1.06, 1.99]) and 1.37 (LoA = [0.93, 2.03]) for LM
251 and PM , respectively. In the non-dominant leg, the same values were 1.37 (LoA =
On
252 [1.01, 1.86]) and 1.36 (LoA = [0.86, 2.15]).
253
ly
254 ***Figure 2 near here***
255 Antilogs of bias for comparison between MP and Pmax for the dominant limb were
256 0.99 (LoA = [0.92, 1.06]), 1.03 (LoA = [0.96, 1.09]) and 1.06 (LoA = [1.00, 1.13]) for
257 LM, PM, and EM, respectively. The same values for the non-dominant leg were 0.99
258 (LoA = [0.91, 1.09]), 1.03 (LoA = [0.96, 1.11]) and 1.06 (LoA = [0.98, 1.15]) (Figure
259 2).
260

261 ***Figure 3 near here***
262 Correlations between the parameters of mechanical profile (F0, V0, k, and a) and
263 variables of performance (1RM, MVC, and MP) were obtained from Pearson´s
264 correlation coefficients for V0 in both limbs and F0 in the non-dominant leg, and
265 Spearman´s Rho in the remaining variables (Table 3). Coefficient a from PM was
266 negative (i.e. downward concavity) in 3 and 4 participants for the dominant and non-
Fo
267 dominant legs, respectively (Figure 4). Therefore, we decided to report both the
268 results for the whole sample and exclusively for participants with upward concavity
rP
269 (i.e. a > 0).

ee
***Figure 4 near here***

rR
271
272 Discussion and implications

ev
273 The main findings of this study were: (a) the goodness of fit of the force-velocity
iew
274 relationship in an isoinertial knee extension exercise was high for the three models
275 although it was slightly higher for PM in comparison with LM and EM; (b) in
276 concordance with the lack of differences in performance, there were no significant
On
277 differences between limbs regarding the parameters obtained from each model; (c)
ly
278 the magnitudes of F0 and MVC were markedly different despite being highly
279 correlated, while Pmax appeared to be a valid estimation of MP, especially in the case
280 of the LM; and (d) excluding the quadratic coefficient of PM, and V0 of LM and EM,
281 most of parameters calculated from each model positively correlated with the
282 muscular performance, although these associations were particularly high for F0
283 obtained from LM.

284 Our results showed that PM fits the force-velocity relationship better than LM and
285 EM. These results are partially coincident with those previously reported showing that
286 when mean values of force and velocity from a bench press exercise were used and
287 averaged through the sample, the correlation coefficients of the polynomial
288 regressions were higher than that obtained by linear regressions (Sreckovic et al.,
289 2015). On the contrary, some studies reported no differences in the coefficient of
290 correlation of linear and polynomial regressions for the force-velocity relationship
Fo
291 obtained from vertical jumps (Cuk et al., 2014; Feeney, Stanhope, Kaminski, Machi,
rP
292 & Jaric, 2016). However, in these studies Adj. R2 and SEE were not compared
293 between models. In this regard, Adj. R2 is appropriate to contrast the goodness of fit
ee
294 between models since including another independent variable, as in the case of PM
rR
295 with respect to LM, increases the coefficient of determination and therefore the
296 coefficient of correlation as a consequence of the reduction of one degree of

ev
297 freedom. Adj. R2 takes this into account allowing the comparison of models with
iew
298 different numbers of variables (Glantz & Slinker, 1990). On the other hand, SEE
299 expresses the variability of the obtained regression lines and represents a proper
300 criterion for selecting the best regression model (Glantz & Slinker, 1990). A quadratic
On
301 polynomial regression has been previously used to approach the force-velocity
ly
302 relationship, as a way to reflect the upward concavity of this relationship for several
303 exercises such as leg press (Allison, Brooke-Wavell, & Folland, 2013), a multijoint
304 lower limbs exercise (Rejc, Lazzer, Antonutto, Isola, & di Prampero, 2010), or a
305 isokinetic knee extension (Callahan & Kent-Braun, 2011). Nonetheless, this model
306 was not compared with others, which represents an apparent novelty of our study.
307 Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that although lower than in PM, LM goodness of
308 fit was exceptionally high, and confirms the findings of a recent study showing a

309 linear force-velocity relationship in unilateral isokinetic knee extension within a wide
310 range of contraction velocities when the isometric force is excluded (Grbic et al.,
311 2017). Therefore, the obtained results suggest an advantage of the linear model in
312 this type of exercise considering its simplicity and the physiological meaning of its
313 parameters.
314 Regarding the comparison between the dominant and non-dominant legs, the
Fo
315 parameters derived from the models proved to be similar between the limbs. The
316 same applies regarding the measured performance. This result contrasts the
rP
317 asymmetries observed in young football players (Daneshjoo, Rahnama, Mokhtar, &
ee
318 Yusof, 2013) and suggests a practical application in the context of injuries and
319 surgeries in general physical active population, since we can presume that non-
rR
320 injured leg can be used as a reference for the mechanical profile of the injured limb.
ev
321 Results of the present study showed a low concurrent validity of F0 to estimate the
MVC of knee extension at 90º of knee flexion. Although there was a significant
iew
322
323 correlation between F0 and MVC in both limbs and models (i.e. LM and PM),
324 significant differences between assessments, values of bias, and wide LoA revealed
On
325 that the magnitudes of two variables do not correspond. Previous studies reported
326 the validity of F0 obtained from a LM with respect to directly recorded 1RM (Garcia-
ly
327 Ramos, Jaric, Padial, & Feriche, 2016; Sreckovic et al., 2015), MVC (Cuk et al.,
328 2014), and peak torque of isokinetic tests (Feeney et al., 2016), but in all these cases
329 validity was analysed simply by Pearson´s correlation, which is not appropriate to
330 assess the agreement between two tests or evaluations (Nevill, 1996). In this regard,
331 our results expand those previously reported, adding a more comprehensive
332 evaluation of the concurrent validity of F0 obtained from different models of
333 regression with respect to MVC. It must be pointed out that F0 obtained from LM and

334 PM were significantly lower than the directly recorded MVC, which contrasts with
335 other studies in which F0 overestimated MVC (Rahmani, Viale, Dalleau, & Lacour,
336 2001). Differences in the type of exercise and isometric test used could explain these
337 discrepancies. It must be considered that for the knee extension exercise the last
338 load (i.e. 1RM) was usually moved at velocities higher than 0.20 m/s and, therefore,
339 F0 was a result of a relatively remote extrapolation of force associated with null
340 velocity. Furthermore, the applied force could be underestimated since the mass of
Fo
341 the lever, the leg inertia and the possible role of friction were not taken into account
rP
342 (Rahmani et al., 2001; Rahmani et al., 1999; Rambaud, Rahmani, Moyen, & Bourdin,
343 2008). Finally, the divergences between F0 and MVC can also be attributed to the
ee
344 fact that the two variables do not exactly evaluate the same force production modality
rR
345 since the former is extrapolated from dynamic mean values whereas the latter is a
346 maximum isometric force exerted at a predefined angle. Thus, F0 is obtained by

ev
347 extrapolating average values obtained over the entire range of motion which entails
iew
348 variable lever arms, whereas MVC is performed at a fixed angle and therefore at a
349 fixed lever arm.

On
350 Interestingly, Pmax calculated from LM showed a considerable level of concurrent
351 validity regarding the measured MP, since the correlation between them was high, no
ly
352 significant differences between them were detected, the bias was close to 1, and LoA
353 were quite narrow. This was also the case for Pmax obtained from PM and EM, except
354 that the estimated values were significantly lower than the values directly recorded.
355 This is also a novel finding of this study that suggests that LM better predicts MP
356 than the other 2 models. This result seems to be contradictory to the fact that SEE
357 was higher for LM than for PM, but it could be explained by the mathematical
358 characteristics of both models. The simplicity of LM entails that Pmax is calculated

359 only using F0 and V0 while in the case of PM the calculation of maximum power is
360 based on three estimated coefficients (see Appendix). Thus, it can be hypothesized
361 that these three coefficients could cause a higher accumulated deviation from Pmax
362 than that generated by F0 and V0 obtained from LM.
363 Except for the parameter a of the quadratic polynomial, and V0 estimated from LM
364 and EM, the parameters calculated from each model correlated positively with 1RM,
Fo
365 MVC, and MP, although the associations of V0 obtained from PM were weaker and
366 significant only in 3 out of 6 cases (Table 3). The lower correlations observed for V0
rP
367 could be caused by the characteristics of the sample comprised of young participants
ee
368 since it has been shown that the improvement in power after resistance training is
369 dependent on both the force and velocity for older individuals but only on the force for
rR
370 younger participants (Petrella, Kim, Tuggle, & Bamman, 2007). On the other hand, a
ev
371 remarkable result was that the correlations of F0 obtained from LM with 1RM, MVC,
372 and MP were consistently higher than those corresponding to PM (Table 3), which
iew
373 suggests a better physiological meaning of this variable when it is obtained from a
374 LM. Additionally, correlations of a with 1RM, MVC and MP were not significant even
On
375 when only positive values of this coefficient were considered. A negative value of a
376 means that the force-velocity profile has a downward concavity contrary to classic
ly
377 models. This kind of profile was observed for 3 and 4 participants in the dominant
378 and non-dominant leg, respectively; and corresponds to profiles previously reported
379 and attributed to inhibitory mechanisms (Perrine & Edgerton, 1978; Wickiewicz, Roy,
380 Powell, Perrine, & Edgerton, 1984). Less curvature has been observed in individuals
381 with higher percentages of fast-twitch fibres (Tihanyi et al., 1982) whereas fatigue
382 shifts the force-velocity curve downward (De Ruiter, Jones, Sargeant, & De Haan,
383 1999). However, our results suggest that curvature is not indicative of muscular

384 performance in a unilateral knee extension exercise. Further studies are warranted in
385 order to study the meaning of this coefficient in other types of exercises.
386 There are some potential limitations in this study that should be noted. Firstly, the
387 exercise was performed using a cam-system machine that entailed variable moment
388 arm. Secondly, friction, mass of lever arm, and leg inertia were not considered when
389 calculating the force. Thirdly, we used mean values of force and velocity although it
Fo
390 has been previously suggested that the maximum values could provide a better
391 reliability (Garcia-Ramos et al., 2016). However, other studies revealed a similar
rP
392 reliability for the two types of variables (Cuk et al., 2014; Sreckovic et al., 2015) while
ee
393 the mechanical output averaged over the entire movement was suggested to be
394 more representative of the muscular effort (Samozino et al., 2014). Fourthly, MVC
rR
395 was obtained only for 90º of knee flexion and, therefore, the question remains
ev
396 whether the validity differs at other knee angles. Lastly, a number of other major
397 muscle groups remain to be tested using similar methods.

iew
398 Conclusion
399 Although the goodness of fit of the force-velocity relationship for the isoinertial knee
On
400 extension exercise was somewhat better with PM, LM was more accurate when
ly
401 estimating MP. Considering comprehensively both the simplicity and utility of each
402 model, in addition to their goodness of fit and the physiological meaning of its
403 parameters, it seems that LM should be recommended for research and routine
404 testing of the isoinertial knee extension exercise. In that case, the testing procedure
405 could be simplified by using only two distinctive loads (i.e. a light and a heavy load)
406 as previously suggested (Jaric, 2016; Zivkovic, Djuric, Cuk, Suzovic, & Jaric, 2016).
407 References

408 Allison, S. J., Brooke-Wavell, K., & Folland, J. P. (2013). Multiple joint muscle
409 function with ageing: The force-velocity and power-velocity relationships in young
410 and older men. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 25, 159-166.
411 doi:10.1007/s40520-013-0024-y
412 Callahan, D. M., & Kent-Braun, J. A. (2011). Effect of old age on human skeletal
413 muscle force-velocity and fatigue properties. Journal of Applied Physiology, 111,
Fo
414 1345-1352. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00367.2011
rP
415 Cuk, I., Markovic, M., Nedeljkovic, A., Ugarkovic, D., Kukolj, M., & Jaric, S. (2014).
416 Force-velocity relationship of leg extensors obtained from loaded and unloaded
ee
417 vertical jumps. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 114, 1703-1714.

rR
418 doi:10.1007/s00421-014-2901-2
ev
419 Daneshjoo, A., Rahnama, N., Mokhtar, A. H., & Yusof, A. (2013). Bilateral and
420 unilateral asymmetries of isokinetic strength and flexibility in male young

iew
421 professional soccer players. Journal of Human Kinetics, 36, 45-53.
422 doi:10.2478/hukin-2013-0005
On
423 De Ruiter, C. J., Jones, D. A., Sargeant, A. J., & De Haan, A. (1999). The
ly
424 measurement of force/velocity relationships of fresh and fatigued human
425 adductor pollicis muscle. European Journal of Applied Physiology and
426 Occupational Physiology, 80, 386-393. doi:10.1007/s004210050608
427 Feeney, D., Stanhope, S. J., Kaminski, T. W., Machi, A., & Jaric, S. (2016). Loaded
428 vertical jumping: Force-velocity relationship, work, and power. Journal of Applied
429 Biomechanics, 32, 120-127. doi:10.1123/jab.2015-0136

430 Fenn, W. O., & Marsh, B. S. (1935). Muscular force at different speeds of shortening.
431 Journal of Physiology, 85, 277-297.
432 Garcia-Ramos, A., Jaric, S., Padial, P., & Feriche, B. (2016). Force-velocity
433 relationship of upper body muscles: Traditional versus ballistic bench press.
434 Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 32, 178-185. doi:10.1123/jab.2015-0162
435 Glantz, S. A., & Slinker, B. K. (1990). Primer of applied regression and analysis of
Fo
436 variance (pp. 245-255). New York: McGraw-Hill, Health Professions Division.
rP
437 Grbic, V., Djuric, S., Knezevic, O. M., Mirkov, D. M., Nedeljkovic, A., & Jaric, S.
ee
438 (2017). A novel two-velocity method for elaborate isokinetic testing of knee
439 extensors. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 38, 741-746 doi:10.1055/s-

rR
440 0043-113043
ev
441 Hill, A. V. (1938). The heat of shortening and the dynamic constants of muscle.
iew
442 Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 126,
443 136-195.
On
444 Iglesias-Soler, E., Fernandez-Del-Olmo, M., Mayo, X., Farinas, J., Rio-Rodriguez, D.,
445 Carballeira, E., . . . Tuimil, J. L. (2016). Changes in the force-velocity mechanical

ly
446 profile after short resistance training programmes differing in set configurations.
447 Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 33, 144-152. doi:10.1123/jab.2016-0181
448 Jaric, S. (2015). Force-velocity relationship of muscles performing multi-joint
449 maximum performance tasks. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 36, 699-
450 704. doi:10.1055/s-0035-1547283

451 Jaric, S. (2016). Two-load method for distinguishing between muscle force, velocity,
452 and power-producing capacities. Sports Medicine, 46, 1585-1589.
453 doi:10.1007/s40279-016-0531-z
454 MacIntosh, B. R., Herzog, W., Suter, E., Wiley, J. P., & Sokolosky, J. (1993). Human
455 skeletal muscle fibre types and force: Velocity properties. European Journal of
456 Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 67, 499-506.

Fo
457 Nevill, A. (1996). Validity and measurement agreement in sports performance.

rP
458 Journal of Sports Sciences, 14, 199. doi:10.1080/02640419608727704
ee
459 Nevill, A. M., & Atkinson, G. (1997). Assessing agreement between measurements
460 recorded on a ratio scale in sports medicine and sports science. British Journal of
rR
461 Sports Medicine, 31, 314-318.

ev
462 Perrine, J. J., & Edgerton, V. R. (1978). Muscle force-velocity and power-velocity
iew
463 relationships under isokinetic loading. Medicine and Science in Sports, 10, 159-
464 166.
On
465 Petrella, J. K., Kim, J. S., Tuggle, S. C., & Bamman, M. M. (2007). Contributions of
466 force and velocity to improved power with progressive resistance training in
ly
467 young and older adults. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 99, 343-351.
468 doi:10.1007/s00421-006-0353-z
469 Rahmani, A., Viale, F., Dalleau, G., & Lacour, J. R. (2001). Force/velocity and
470 power/velocity relationships in squat exercise. European Journal of Applied
471 Physiology, 84, 227-232. doi:10.1007/PL00007956

472 Rahmani, A., Belli, A., Kostka, T., Dalleau, G., Bonnefoy, M., & Lacour, J. (1999).
473 Evaluation of knee extensor muscles under non-isokinetic conditions in elderly
474 subjects. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 15, 337-344.
475 doi:10.1123/jab.15.3.337
476 Rambaud, O., Rahmani, A., Moyen, B., & Bourdin, M. (2008). Importance of upper-
477 limb inertia in calculating concentric bench press force. Journal of Strength and
Fo
478 Conditioning Research, 22, 383-389. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31816193e7
rP
479 Rejc, E., Lazzer, S., Antonutto, G., Isola, M., & di Prampero, P. E. (2010). Bilateral
480 deficit and EMG activity during explosive lower limb contractions against different
ee
481 overloads. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 108, 157-165.

rR
482 doi:10.1007/s00421-009-1199-y
ev
483 Samozino, P., Edouard, P., Sangnier, S., Brughelli, M., Gimenez, P., & Morin, J. B.
484 (2014). Force-velocity profile: Imbalance determination and effect on lower limb
iew
485 ballistic performance. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 35, 505-510.
486 doi:10.1055/s-0033-1354382
On
487 Samozino, P., Rejc, E., Di Prampero, P. E., Belli, A., & Morin, J. B. (2012). Optimal
ly
488 force-velocity profile in ballistic movements--altius: Citius or fortius? Medicine and
489 Science in Sports and Exercise, 44, 313-322.
490 doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31822d757a
491 Samozino, P., Rejc, E., di Prampero, P. E., Belli, A., & Morin, J. B. (2014). Force-
492 velocity properties' contribution to bilateral deficit during ballistic push-off.
493 Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 46, 107-114.
494 doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182a124fb

495 Sanchez-Medina, L., & Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J. (2011). Velocity loss as an indicator of
496 neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Medicine and Science in Sports
497 and Exercise, 43, 1725-1734. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e318213f880
498 Sreckovic, S., Cuk, I., Djuric, S., Nedeljkovic, A., Mirkov, D., & Jaric, S. (2015).
499 Evaluation of force-velocity and power-velocity relationship of arm muscles.
500 European Journal of Applied Physiology, 115, 1779-1787. doi:10.1007/s00421-

Fo
501 015-3165-1
rP
502 Tihanyi, J., Apor, P., & Fekete, G. (1982). Force-velocity-power characteristics and
503 fiber composition in human knee extensor muscles. European Journal of Applied
ee
504 Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 48, 331-343.

rR
505 Toji, H., Suei, K., & Kaneko, M. (1997). Effects of combined training loads on
ev
506 relations among force, velocity, and power development. Canadian Journal of
507 Applied Physiology, 22, 328-336.

iew
508 Valour, D., Ochala, J., Ballay, Y., & Pousson, M. (2003). The influence of ageing on
509 the force-velocity-power characteristics of human elbow flexor muscles.

On
510 Experimental Gerontology, 38, 387-395. doi:S0531556502002656

ly
511 Wickiewicz, T. L., Roy, R. R., Powell, P. L., Perrine, J. J., & Edgerton, V. R. (1984).
512 Muscle architecture and force-velocity relationships in humans. Journal of
513 Applied Physiology: Respiratory, Environmental and Exercise Physiology, 57,
514 435-443.
515 Wilson, G. J., & Murphy, A. J. (1996). The use of isometric tests of muscular function
516 in athletic assessment. Sports Medicine, 22, 19-37.

517 Wilkie, D. R. (1949). The relation between force and velocity in human muscle. The
518 Journal of Physiology, 110, 249-280.
519 Yamauchi, J., Mishima, C., Nakayama, S., & Ishii, N. (2009). Force-velocity, force-
520 power relationships of bilateral and unilateral leg multi-joint movements in young
521 and elderly women. Journal of Biomechanics, 42, 2151-2157.
522 doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.05.032
Fo
523 Zivkovic, M. Z., Djuric, S., Cuk, I., Suzovic, D., & Jaric, S. (2016). A simple method
rP
524 for assessment of muscle force, velocity, and power producing capacities from
525 functional movement tasks. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35, 1287-1293.

ee
526 doi:10.1080/02640414.2016.1221521
rR
527
ev
528
iew
On
ly

529 Appendix
530 Force-velocity relationship models
531 Force-Velocity linear model: Considering velocity (V) as the dependent variable, the
532 linear force-velocity model is expressed by:
533 V (F) = V0 + s·F (eq.1)

Fo
534 where V0 corresponds to the axis intercept (i.e. theoretical maximum velocity at null
535 force) and s is the slope of the linear regression. Additionally, from this equation is
rP
536 obtained the theoretical maximum value of force (F0) when V equals zero (i.e. force
ee
537 axis intercept). Thus s can be also obtained by the following equation:
rR
538 s = -V0 /F0 (eq. 2).
539 Equation 1 can be also used to obtain an estimation of a theoretical value of

ev
540 maximum power (Pmax) as the product of F0/2 multiplied by V0/2:

iew
541 Pmax = (F0·V0)/4 (eq.3)
542 Force-Velocity quadratic polynomial model: The quadratic polynomial model of the
On
543 force-velocity relationship is expressed as:

ly
544 V(F) = a·F2+ b·F + V0 (eq.4)
545 where V0 has the same meaning as for the linear approach and a is the value of the
546 second derivative and therefore it is a measurement of the concavity of the curve.
547 The value of F0 can be obtained by calculating the root of the polynomial at which the
548 first derivative is negative (i.e. the function is decreasing at that point). In those cases
549 in which the polynomial does not have a real root, F0 can be approximated by

550 calculating the minimum of the function (i.e. the point at which the first derivative
551 equals 0). Finally, the expression for power of this model is:
552 P(F) = a·F3 + b·F2 + V0·F (eq.5)
553 Therefore, the value of force at which Pmax is performed (FP) can be estimated
554 by equating to 0 the first derivative of eq.5 and calculating the root of the
555 corresponding quadratic polynomial at which the second derivative of eq.5 is

Fo
556 negative (i.e. the slope is decreasing and therefore there is a local maximum). Thus:
rP
557 FP = [-2·b - (4·b2 - 12·a·V0)1/2]/(6·a) (eq.6)
ee
558 This value is substituted in eq.5 for calculating Pmax.

rR
559 Force-Velocity exponential model: Exponential model of the force-velocity
560 relationship is represented by the equation:

ev
561 V(F) = V0/e F/k (eq.7).

iew
562 where V0 has the same meaning as previously and k is the exponential force
563 constant in N that corresponds to the force value at which the velocity is reduced to
On
564 0.37 times V0. However, with this model, F0 cannot be calculated since 0 is only
565 asymptotically reached. Regarding the power, its expression is:

ly
566 P(F) = F·V0/eF/k (eq.8).
567 Obtaining the first derivative of eq.8 and equating to 0, it can be deduced that
568 the estimated force at which Pmax is achieved corresponds to k. Therefore:
569 Pmax = k·V0/e (eq.9)
570

Table 1. Goodness of fit of each regression model of the force velocity relationship.
Data are presented as medians and ranges in brackets
LM PM EM
Adj. R2 Dominant 0.964* 0.984 0.971*
(0.885-0.992) (0.906-0.995) (0.778-0.990)
Non- 0.965* 0.982 0.972*
dominant (0.901-0.991) (0.910-0.994) (0.887-0.989)
SEE (m/s) Dominant 0.037* 0.031
(0.022-0.078) (0.016-0.082)
Non- 0.039* 0.033
dominant (0.020-0.072) (0.017-0.045)
Adj. R2: adjusted coefficient of determination; SEE: standard error of estimate; LM:
Fo
Linear model; PM: quadratic polynomial model; EM: exponential model. *Significant
differences in comparison with PM.
rP
ee
rR
ev
iew
On
ly

Table 2. Mechanical profiles of the dominant and non-dominant leg (data averaged across the participants)
Fo
LM PM EM
F0 V0 s F0 V0 a V0 k
(N)
rP
(m/s) (1/103 m/s/N) (N) (m/s) (1/106 m/s/N2) (m/s) (N)
ee
Dominant 898 ± 163 1.18 ± 0.09 -1.36 ± 0.30 950 ± 170 1.32 ± 0.17 0.75 ± 0.90 1.57 ± 0.23 433 ± 97
rR
Non-dominant 924 ± 167 1.14 ± 0.10 -1.27 ± 0.25 939 ± 207 1.29 ± 0.19 0.86 ± 0.86 1.52 ± 0.24 451 ± 111
LM: linear model; PM: quadratic polynomial model; EM: exponential model; F0: force intercept; V0: velocity intercept; s: slope; a:
ev
quadratic parameter of the quadratic polynomial; k: exponential parameter.
iew
On
ly

571 Table 3. Correlations between parameters calculated from each model and performance assessments.
Fo
1RM MVC MP
rP
Dominant. Non-dominant Dominant Non-dominant Dominant Non-dominant
ee
s 0.786** 0.655** 0.501* 0.577* 0.690** 0.686**
rR
F0 LM 0.953** 0.907** 0.754** 0.685** 0.915** 0.936**
PM 0.709** 0.875** 0.545* 0.428* 0.671** 0.811**
V0 LM 0.102 0.379 0.234

ev 0.145 0.357 0.379
PM
EM
0.350
-0.115
0.439*
0.004
0.526**
-0.153* iew
0.192
-0.182
0.424*
0.054
0.451*
-0.027
a All -0.054 0.068 0.119 0.076

On -0.013 0.110
ly
a>0 -0.136 -0.121 0.227 0.095 -0.077 -0.042
k 0.793** 0.727** 0.736** 0.652** 0.818** 0.798**
572 LM: linear model; PM: quadratic polynomial model; EM: exponential model; F0: force intercept; V0: velocity intercept; s: slope; a:
573 quadratic coefficient of the polynomial model; k: exponential force constant; 1RM: 1-repetition maximum; MVC: maximum voluntary
574 contraction. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001.

575 Figure captions.
576 Figure 1. Example of the initial position in the knee extension machine.
577
578 Figure 2. Bland-Altman plots showing the agreement between the actual
579 measurement of maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) and the estimated maximum
580 force (F0). Ln: natural logarithm; LM: linear model; PM: quadratic polynomial model;
Fo
581 EM: exponential model; LoA: limits of agreement.
582
rP
583 Figure 3. Bland-Altman plots showing the agreement between the maximum mean
ee
584 power (MP) and the maximum estimated power (Pmax). Ln: natural logarithm; LM:
585 linear model; PM: quadratic polynomial model; EM: exponential model; LoA: limits of
rR
586 agreement.
ev
587
588 Figure 4. Force-Velocity profiles of two representative participants: (A) with positive
iew
589 a coefficient from the PM (i.e. upward concavity); (B) with negative a coefficient from
590 PM (i.e. downward concavity). The solid lines represent linear regression, the dotted
On
591 lines represent polynomial regression, and the dashed lines represent the
592 exponential regression.

ly

Fo
rP
ee
rR
ev
iew
On
ly
Figure 1. Example of the initial position in the knee extension machine.
207x276mm (300 x 300 DPI)

Fo
rP
ee
rR
ev
Figure 2. Bland-Altman plots showing the agreement between the actual measurement of maximum
iew
voluntary contraction (MVC) and the estimated maximum force (F0). Ln: natural logarithm; LM: linear
model; PM: quadratic polynomial model; EM: exponential model; LoA: limits of agreement.
142x110mm (300 x 300 DPI)

On
ly

Fo
rP
ee
rR
Figure 3. Bland-Altman plots showing the agreement between the maximum mean power (MP) and the
maximum estimated power (Pmax). Ln: natural logarithm; LM: linear model; PM: quadratic polynomial
model; EM: exponential model; LoA: limits of agreement.
ev
110x67mm (300 x 300 DPI)

iew
On
ly

Fo
rP
ee
rR
ev
iew
On
ly
Figure 4. Force-Velocity profiles of two representative participants: A) with positive a coefficient from the PM
(i.e. upward concavity); B) with negative a coefficient from PM (i.e. downward concavity). The solid lines
represent linear regression, the dotted lines represent polynomial regression and the dashed lines represent
the exponential regression.
263x402mm (300 x 300 DPI)

System AppendPDF Proof Hi-3

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

System AppendPDF Proof Hi-3

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Sports Biomechanics

Journal: Sports Biomechanics

Manuscript Type: Original Research

Date Submitted by the Author: 26-Jan-2018

Group, Department of Physical Education and Sport. Faculty of Sports

and Physical Education, Spain

Keywords: force-velocity model, mechanical profile, power, least-squared regression

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rspb Email: d.t.fong@lboro.ac.uk

Discussion and Implications and/or Conclusion.)

captions on individual pages, and figure(s) as separated image files?

B. For resubmission only

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rspb Email: d.t.fong@lboro.ac.uk

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER COMMENTS

before you resubmit, or the manuscript won't be accepted.

Please also make the following changes on format.

1. Cover page: Provide the affiliations in English and in the following

order: Department, School/Faculty, University, City, State/Province,

We have changed the affiliation order as suggested

is it p <= 0.0015 (which is 1/10 of that in abstract)? Is 0.0015 the smallest

value your tool can detect and report?

amended in the Statistical Analysis section. In the abstract we wrote 0.015

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rspb Email: d.t.fong@lboro.ac.uk

items on the submission checklist which you should have already

followed. Check the entire manuscript.

We regret this mistake. We have made these changes throughout the

of XXX Ethics Committee.

We have provided the full name of the ethics committee:

“Participants signed a written informed consent before participating in the study

which was approved by the University of A Coruna Ethics Committee”

period but not a comma. Please check.

It is one thousand. We have corrected it in the manuscript as follows:

“@at a sample frequency of 5,000 Hz and filtered with a bandwidth frequency

ranging from 10 Hz to 1 kHz (gain = 1,000).”

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rspb Email: d.t.fong@lboro.ac.uk

The page numbers have been included

We have addressed this suggestion

9. Figure 2,3: Enlarge the text to ensure it is viewable as images could be

shrunk when formatted to the article.

The text of these figures has been enlarged as suggested.

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rspb Email: d.t.fong@lboro.ac.uk

Comments to the Author

I am generally happy with the response to my comments; however, it is

they were predicted/measured from data recorded under very different

mechanical situations that would facilitate different values. Specifically,

information on the comparison between MVC and Fmax from the

Nevertheless, I believe the bi-variate correlation between MVC and Fmax

would be related to each other.

Nevertheless we think that maintaining the comparison between F0 and MVC is

force of the tested muscles. In this regard despite their methodological

of the tested muscle typically assessed in previous studies by means the

comparison adds to the concurrent validity of the regression parameter F0 and,

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rspb Email: d.t.fong@lboro.ac.uk

therefore, adds to the relevance of the evaluated approach. In order to address

the latter is a maximum isometric force exerted at a predefined angle. Thus, F0

is obtained by extrapolating average values obtained over the entire range of

angle and therefore at a fixed lever arm.”

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rspb Email: d.t.fong@lboro.ac.uk

Comparison of different regression models to fit the force-velocity relationship of a

knee extension exercise

Authors: Eliseo Iglesias-Soler1; Juan Fariñas-Rodríguez1; Xian Mayo1,2; Luis

Santos1,3; Slobodan Jaric4

Physical Education, University of A Coruna, A Coruña, Spain

Carlos University, Madrid, Spain

Science Graduate Program, University of Delaware, Newark, USA

112 Figure1 near here

215 Table 1 near here