Force-velocity-power variables derived

from isometric and dynamic testing:

metrics reliability and the relationship with
jump performance
Amilton Vieira1, Rafael Cunha1, Carlos Gonçalves1, Juliano Dal Pupo2
and James Tufano3
1
University of Brasília, Faculty of Physical Education, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil
2
Biomechanics Laboratory, Center of Sports, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis,
SC, Brazil
3
Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

ABSTRACT
We investigated the convergent validity and intrasession reliability of force, velocity,
and power (FVP) variables and the dynamic strength index (DSI) obtained from
isometric midthigh pull (IMTP) and squat jump (SJ) testing. Fifteen male combat
sports athletes (27 ± 5 years, 77 ± 9 kg, 1.76 ± 0.1 m, 14 ± 6% body fat) participated in
a 2-days study. The first day involved testing familiarization, while the second was
dedicated to IMTP and SJ testing. Maximal isometric force (Fiso) was obtained from
IMTP, while mean force, mean velocity, jump height, and jump impulse (J) were
gathered from SJ. To analyze the FVP, we calculated the linear relationship between
force and velocity, which allowed us to obtain the slope of the relationship (SFV), the
theoretical velocity at zero force (V0), and the theoretical maximal power (Pmax). DSI
was obtained as a ratio from SJ peak force and Fiso. The convergent validity was
investigated using Spearman’s ρ coefficients to assess the relationships between jump
height and J with Fiso, V0, SFV, Pmax, and DSI. The intrasession reliability was assessed
using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and coefficient of variations (CV). All
Submitted 24 April 2024
variables demonstrated acceptable reliability scores. ICC ranged from moderate to
Accepted 30 September 2024 excellent, and the mean CV was <10%. We found a “very large” correlation between
Published 8 November 2024 jump J and Pmax, while jump height was not correlated with any variable. In
Corresponding author conclusion, the IMTP and SJ combination is a practical way to determine FVP
Amilton Vieira, producing capacities that can be reliably measured (intrasession). The Pmax, derived
[email protected]
from FVP, was correlated with jump performance, which might evidence the
Academic editor convergent validity of the method.
Manuel Jimenez
Additional Information and
Declarations can be found on Subjects Kinesiology, Biomechanics, Sports Medicine
page 9 Keywords Assessment, Performance, Dynamic strength index, Two-point method, Linear
DOI 10.7717/peerj.18371 regression, Isometric midthigh pull, Squat jump
Copyright
2024 Vieira et al. INTRODUCTION
Distributed under Increasing muscle strength can improve health and athletic performance (Suchomel et al.,
Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 2018) while also reducing injury risk (Lauersen, Andersen & Andersen, 2018; Suchomel,
Nimphius & Stone, 2016). In an effort to increase strength, many athletes perform strength

How to cite this article Vieira A, Cunha R, Gonçalves C, Dal Pupo J, Tufano J. 2024. Force-velocity-power variables derived from isometric
and dynamic testing: metrics reliability and the relationship with jump performance. PeerJ 12:e18371 DOI 10.7717/peerj.18371
 training, but they also likely perform conditioning activities and sport-specific training.
With so many factors at play, it is possible that training interference may occur, which could
result in suboptimal adaptations. Throughout the years, many methods of athlete
monitoring have taken shape to determine how an athlete is responding to training and
whether or not certain adaptations are occurring. Among the many athlete monitoring
methods, the dynamic strength index (DSI) is commonly used since it only requires two
tests (one force-biased and the other velocity-biased) and theoretically describes the general
strength profile of an athlete (Thomas, Jones & Comfort, 2015; Suchomel et al., 2020).
In theory, the DSI (also known as the dynamic strength deficit) is a diagnostic that
indicates whether an athlete lacks maximum force production, lacks explosive force
production, or is well-balanced between the two. As different athletes require different
force attributes, there is no ideal DSI that all athletes should aim for, but it is instead used
to help coaches or athletes identify primary targets (Comfort et al., 2018). To apply the DSI
concept, the athlete must perform an isometric test (such as the isometric mid-thigh pull,
IMTP) and an explosive dynamic test (such as the squat jump), with the ratio of peak force
between the two formulating the DSI. A ratio <0.6 indicates that the athlete’s profile is
more maximum-force dominant (and may want to focus on ballistic training), while a ratio
>0.8 indicates a more ballistic athlete who may want to incorporate more heavy loads in
training if they desire a balanced profile. Despite the general concern about the reliability of
ratios or indexes data such as DSI (Bishop, Shrier & Jordan, 2023), previous studies suggest
that DSI are highly reliable (Thomas, Jones & Comfort, 2015; García-Sánchez et al., 2024).
As half of the DSI equation includes force output during an explosive test like a vertical
jump, it would be assumed that DSI is closely related to vertical jump height, which is
commonly used to determine the power output of an athlete. However, controversy exists
concerning the relationship between DSI and jump performance, with some studies
showing no relationship between DSI and jump height (JH) (Secomb et al., 2015; Suchomel
et al., 2020) and others demonstrating moderate to large correlations (Pleša et al., 2024).
This controversy might be related to methodological issues. While Secomb et al. (2015) and
Suchomel et al. (2020) investigated DSI obtained from IMTP performed around 135
knee
angles, Pleša et al. (2024) revealed correlations when the participants were tested with
knees flexed at 90
angle. Regardless of whether a relationship between DSI and JH exists,
it is important to note that combining information from isometric and dynamic testing
may be far more informative than only providing the DSI.
For example, in the strength and conditioning literature, force, velocity, and power
(FVP) producing capacities seem to be useful to show a spectrum of performance abilities
ranging from theoretical maximal force (F0 ), velocity (V0 ), power (Pmax ), and the slope of
the force and velocity relationship (SFV ), which can bring information on muscles’
mechanical capacity and can guide training prescription (Jaric, 2016; Morin & Samozino,
2016). Though many methods of determining FVP exist, a two-point method, using the
two most distinct loads, has been pointed out as a time-savvy way (Pérez-Castilla et al.,
2018). However, it is important to note that all mechanical variables (F0 , V0 , P0 , and SFV )
are extrapolated and consequently more sensitive to estimation error. One conceivable
solution to this issue would be to avoid extrapolations by directly measuring force at null

Vieira et al. (2024), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.18371 2/12

 velocity and velocity at null force. While measuring force at null velocity is feasible by
measuring the maximal isometric force (Fiso ), measuring velocity at null force is still
challenging (Rivière et al., 2023). Although some concerns about comparing Fiso and F0
extrapolated from dynamic actions may exist (Rahmani et al., 2001), measuring the Fiso
would be a partial solution, avoiding at least the F0 extrapolation.
Although testing Fiso and jump performance (i.e., two-point method) is likely a simple
and practical way of determining the FVP producing capacities, there is still a need to
validate the obtained variables against a performance measurement related to the
neuromuscular function or sports performance. In this context, the JH would be an
intuitive choice since it has been commonly used within athlete testing batteries,
distinguishing athletes with higher from lower competitive levels and diverse training
backgrounds (Cormie, McGuigan & Newton, 2010; James et al., 2020; McMahon, Lake &
Comfort, 2022). Therefore, it would be expected that athletes who demonstrate “better”
FVP capacities, notably Pmax , would jump higher than those who exhibit inferior FVP
producing capacities (Cronin & Sleivert, 2005). However, it should be noted that JH is
affected by body mass (it is harder for heavy individuals to jump high), so the jump
take-off momentum or jump net impulse (J) might be more related to neuromuscular
function. However, to our knowledge, no study investigates the relationship between jump
J and FVP producing capacities or DSI. Data from athletes of other modalities may suggest
that Jump J may be a promising metric for collision and combat sports since it reveals the
mechanical aspect of the movement (driven and strategy determinants of the performance
output), which might aid sports scientists in ranking or monitoring athletes’ performance
(McMahon et al., 2020, McMahon, Lake & Comfort, 2022). Therefore, we aimed to
investigate the convergent validity and the reliability of force, velocity, and power profiling
variables obtained via a two-point method using the isometric midthigh pull and squat
jump testing. We hypothesized that FVP variables would demonstrate acceptable
reliability scores and that significant correlations would be found between FVP variables
and DSI with jump J, but those metrics would not correlate with jump height.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants
A total of 15 male combat athletes (27  5 years; 1.75  0.1 m; 76  9 kg; 14  7 fat %)
from different disciplines (e.g., judo, jiu-jitsu, karate, taekwondo, MMA) participated in
the study. The sample size was established using GPowerÒ software considering the
potential “very large” correlation (H1 = 0.7; H0 = 0) between jump performance and
force-velocity profiling metrics; two-tailed test with a of 0.05 and of power ð1  bÞ 0.8.
These assumptions indicated that a sample size of at least 13 athletes would reach sufficient
power to avoid type II errors. The inclusion criteria required that participants were
engaged in any modality of combat sport at least 3 days per week for at least 2 years. They
had 14  7 years of experience in their modality and were frequently exposed to strength
and conditioning practices. As exclusion criteria, athletes currently performing rapid
weight loss, suffering from any injuries that could compromise maximal testing
performance, or not following our recommendation to avoid vigorous exercise 48 h before

Vieira et al. (2024), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.18371 3/12

 testing days were not allowed to participate. The participants were informed about the
risks and benefits of the research. The study followed the Helsinki Declaration’s ethical
standards, and the participants signed an informed consent form. The research was
approved by the local Ethical Committee (number 3.796.898).

Study design
The participants were invited to perform a 2-days testing protocol, including
familiarization and isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) and squat jump (SJ) testing (Fig. 1).
The first day served as a familiarization where participants performed as many practice
trials as needed, filled out the forms (e.g., training practices and routines), and underwent
height and DEXA scans. The following day (2 to 7 days apart), they completed 5 min of a
standardized warm-up protocol composed of dynamic stretching and body weight
exercises, followed by 50%, 75%, and 90% of the perceived maximum IMTP trials, each for
5 s. After 3-min, participants performed three maximal IMTP for 5 s and SJ under the
supervision of a single rater. All tests were performed on a 101  76 cm force plate
(Accupower Portable Force Plate; AMTI, Watertown, MA, EUA). Each maximal effort was
separated by 1-min of rest.

Squat jump test

Using athletic shoes, participants were required to step over the force plate and then
achieve a squat position with 90
of knee and hip flexion determined using a universal
handheld goniometer. To maintain the vertical trunk position and to control the squat
depth, the participants held a 0.5 kg PVC pipe in their upper back (near C7). They
maintained the squat position for 2–3 s and then were verbally encouraged to jump as high
as possible immediately following an auditory jump command (“three, two, one, jump”).
The participants were motivated to jump higher by seeing the jump height displayed on a
monitor. The force-time curve was inspected after each SJ, and if a counter movement
occurred (force >5% of the body weight), the trial was repeated. Force-time data was
processed as previously published (Ferreira et al., 2023). Briefly, body weight and mass
were measured during the one second period of the weighing phase with a lower standard
deviation (SD). The start of the SJ was identified as the instant when the force signal
exceeded the threshold of 5  SD. Velocity was calculated by numerically integrating
acceleration-time using the trapezoidal rule. Jump take-off was identified when the force
signal reached the threshold of 5  SD of the flight force (platform unloaded). Jump net
impulse (J) was calculated by multiplying take-off velocity and body mass following the
impulse-momentum theorem.

Isometric midthigh pull test

The IMTP test was performed in a custom-made rack (Select Fit, Brasília, Brazil), with the
participants standing on the force platform (Couto et al., 2023). The rack allowed for
adjustments in the bar height with a precision of 1 mm. Participants were positioned with
their feet approximately hip-width apart and hands approximately shoulder-width apart.
The bar height was adjusted to correspond to the second pull position of the clean exercise.

Vieira et al. (2024), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.18371 4/12

 Figure 1 Study design. Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18371/fig-1

This procedure resulted in knee and hip angles of 140  5
and 145  10
, respectively
(180
= full extension). Joint angles were measured using a universal handheld goniometer,
while feet and hand distances were determined with an anthropometric measuring tape.
These measurements were performed on the first day and repeated on the second. A single
rater verbally encouraged the participants to produce a maximal effort in each attempt.
The IMTP initiation was set as the time when the force rose to 5  SD body weight.
Pre-tension was controlled not to exceed 50 N, and data without a stable period of at least
1 s or presenting a counter movement immediately before the force rise or the maximal
force only in the last second (4 s of the trial) were excluded.

Dynamic strength index and force-velocity-power profiling

The metrics were extracted from vertical ground reaction forces using a custom-made
Python script based on previous recommendations (McMahon et al., 2018; Comfort et al.,
2019). The signal was filtered using a fourth-order low-pass Butterworth filter with a cutoff
frequency of 30 Hz. This low-pass threshold was determined based on previous studies
successfully applying this cutoff frequency (Samozino et al., 2008; Vieira et al., 2023). DSI
was calculated as the ratio of SJ peak force to IMTP peak force. For FVP profiling, IMTP
peak force was considered Fiso , and velocity was assumed to be zero. We calculated the
linear relationship between Fiso and jump mean force and velocity, which allowed us to
obtain the slope of the relationship ðSFV ¼ Fiso =V0 Þ, the theoretical velocity at zero force
ðV0 ¼ Fiso =SFV Þ, and Pmax as a function of Fiso  V0 =4 (Jaric, 2016).

Statistical analyses
From three IMTP and three SJ tests, we selected the two greater values (Fiso from IMTP
and mean force and mean velocity from SJ) for reliability purposes, and the mean of both
was used in the correlations analysis. The normality of the data was examined using the
Shapiro-Wilk test. Fiso (p = 0.01) and SFV (p = 0.04) were not normally distributed.
Intrasession test-retest was assessed using two-way mixed effects intraclass correlation
coefficients (ICC) for absolute agreement (Koo & Li, 2016) and coefficient of variation (SD
divided by the mean times 100). Spearman’s q coefficients were used to assess the
relationships between JH and jump J with Fiso , V0 , SFV , Pmax , and DSI. The magnitude of
each relationship was interpreted as trivial (0.00–0.09), small (0.10–0.29), moderate

Vieira et al. (2024), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.18371 5/12

 (0.30–0.49), large (0.50–0.69), very large (0.70–0.89), and nearly perfect (0.90–1.00)
(Hopkins et al., 2009). All statistical tests were performed using IBM SPSS (version 26,
Armonk, NY, USA) with statistical significance set at 0.05.

RESULTS
All variables demonstrated acceptable intrasession reliability scores (Fig. 2). ICC ranges
from moderate to excellent, and the mean CV was <10%. We found no correlation between
any variable with JH, but Pmax demonstrated a “very large” correlation with jump J (Fig. 3).

DISCUSSION
We investigated the convergent validity and intrasession reliability of FVP variables and
DSI obtained from two practical tests–IMTP and SJ. We found that the FVP variables and
the DSI were reliable in athletes within a single session, and our investigation pointed out
that Pmax presented a very large correlation with jump J, demonstrating evidence of
convergent validity. These findings indicated that the FVP producing capacities can be
easily determined by performing only IMTP and SJ tests and then applying the two-point
method.
Our result demonstrating that DSI is reliable in combat athletes (ICC of 0.95 and CV of
1.9%) agrees with previous studies (Thomas, Jones & Comfort, 2015; García-Sánchez et al.,
2024) reporting ICC values of 0.80 and 0.97, and CV of 4.6% and 6.1% in male college
athletes (e.g., soccer, boxing, rugby) and semi-professional handball players, respectively.
However, DSI showed no correlation with JH (q = 0.09, p = 0.75, Fig. 3) in this study. Since
DSI may be considered a as proxy measure for SFV (we found that these two were strongly
correlated q = 0.94), the absence of correlation between DSI and jump performance was at
least partially expected since it was suggested that SFV and jump performance might
present inverse “U-shape” relationship, with SFV positively affecting performance until a
certain level, passing this level the influence becomes negative (Samozino et al., 2014).
Furthermore, others (Secomb et al., 2015; Suchomel et al., 2020) have directly reported the
lack of correlation between DSI and jump performance. Secomb et al. (2015) found no
correlation (r = −0.20 to −0.32, p > 0.05) investigating the relationship between DSI
obtained from IMTP and countermovement (CMJ) and SJ heights in adolescent surfing
athletes, while Suchomel et al. (2020) found a similar result (r = 0.11, p > 0.05) in a larger
sample of 155 NCAA division I collegiate athletes. This lack of correlation between DSI
and JH might also be due to JH being largely affected by body mass; it is harder for heavy
individuals to jump high since greater body mass impedes the effective acceleration of the
body mass, reaching greater takeoff velocity. However, a recent study found moderate
(r = 0.41) and large (r = 0.63) correlations between DSI and, CMJ and SJ height,
respectively (Pleša et al., 2024). More specifically, they found that isometric force (i.e., Fiso ),
and consequently DSI values, were primarily affected by body posture (150
, 120
and 90

knee angles), and the moderate and strong correlations were only observed when isometric
force was measured at a 90
knee angle. While this result might suggest that isometric force
should be measured at a 90
knee angle, a deeper analysis of their results points to the
opposite (Pleša et al., 2024). It was noted that the mean jump force was equal to (DSI

Vieira et al. (2024), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.18371 6/12

 Figure 2 Intrasession reliability of force-velocity-power variables obtained during the isometric
mid-thigh pull and squat jump testing. Data are presented as mean with a 95% confidence interval
(CI, vertical lines) of the coefficient of variations (upper panel) interpreted as good (<5%, green),
moderate (5% to 10%, yellow), and poor (>10%, red), while the intraclass correlation coefficients with
95% CI were interpreted as moderate (0.50-0.749), good (0.75-0.90), and excellent (>0.90).
Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18371/fig-2

ratio = 0.99) or even greater (1.11) than the isometric peak force, which violates the
well-established force-velocity inverse relationship. However, it is important to note that
our testing protocol was designed to allow participants to produce their greatest isometric
force (Fiso ), which is in line with the results of Pleša et al. (2024), who showed that peak
force occurred at a 150
knee angle, which was similar to the 140  5
angle used in our
study (our study 3,095  669 N vs. 3,000 N in their study). We showed a more realistic
0.84  0.13 DSI value at these knee angles, corresponding to the 0.64  0.19 DSI for the
150
knee angle in their study (Pleša et al., 2024). Therefore, the collective results of our
study and others (Samozino et al., 2014; Secomb et al., 2015; Suchomel et al., 2020)
demonstrated that jump performance and DSI are not correlated, leading coaches to
question whether either should be used in isolation or if other metrics could better indicate
whether an athlete lacks maximum force production, lacks explosive force production, or
is well-balanced between the two. In this regard, determining the individual FVP
producing capacities may provide a proxy measure of muscles’ mechanical capacity and
can guide training prescription, as theoretically and experimentally demonstrated in
previous studies (Samozino et al., 2014; Jaric, 2016; Morin & Samozino, 2016).
On the other hand, Šarabon, Kozinc & Markovic (2020) argued against the use of an
isometric-jumping approach to derive FVP variables because they found poor to fair
validity scores for F0 , V0 , SFV , but not for Pmax , which they described as highly valid. The
author’s argument was based on comparing the isometric-jumping method against the

Vieira et al. (2024), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.18371 7/12

 Figure 3 Correlation matrix between force-velocity-power variables and squat jump (SJ) height and
jump net impulse (J). The scatter plot depicting the “very large” relationship between net J and Pmax
(two-tailed p = 0.001). Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18371/fig-3

multiple-point method (assumed as a criterion). However, we noticed issues against using

multiple overloaded jumps as a criterion method. First, it estimates F0 and their estimation
was 32% (2,244 vs. 2,962 N) less than measured at 150
knee angle (the greatest force
output measured). Second, the study was performed with a heterogeneous sample of
participants, including athletes and recreationally active individuals from both sexes, who
were familiarized and tested in a single session. These issues might have affected the
overloaded jumps testing protocol, designed to begin from jumps with zero overload up to
a jump height <7.5 cm using 10 kg increments. It can be noted that some individuals
jumped against only three loads, while others jumped against 11 loads and then performed
the isometric maximal testing. We assumed the fatigue level differed between participants,
which may have compromised testing results. Furthermore, non-athletes might not
produce reliable force data from overload jumps (Fessl, Wiesinger & Kröll, 2022).
Therefore, considering the feasibility of the current protocol, which is less prone to induce
fatigue, we are arguing in favor of the two-point method for directly measuring the force at
null velocity (i.e., Fiso ) instead of estimating it.
Although the present study provides exciting insights into determining the individual’s
maximal neuromuscular capacity and testing for prescription, the approach is not free of
limitations. Our results suggest that the FVP variables are reliable during a single testing
session but must also be investigated between days to allow for athlete monitoring (i.e., 7
days apart or longer). Additionally, although we observed a “very large” correlation
between Pmax and jump J, correlation does not mean causation. It must be investigated
longitudinally, which is even more relevant because the correlation between jump J and
Pmax was derived from the same vertical jump test, making the variables susceptible to
covariance. Furthermore, although we have chosen a body posture that supposedly allowed
the participants to produce their maximal force (Rahmani et al., 2001), it was not directly
measured; it is well-known that the force output is angle-dependent. Furthermore, we are
proposing a link between the maximal isometric force generated by the lower limbs at a
specific body posture and the mean force produced over the range of the SJ motion.
However, it should be noticed the link between isometric and dynamic force production

Vieira et al. (2024), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.18371 8/12

 warrants further research. Finally, the present results apply to male combat athletes, and
further studies should investigate whether similar results might also be found in other
populations, including athletes from other modalities or non-athletic populations.
As a practical application, the present results suggest that IMTP and SJ tests serve to
evaluate the neuromuscular function in combat athletes. Combining results from both
tests can provide the athlete and coach deeper insight into the mechanical capacities of the
lower limbs by quantifying the FVP producing capacities, which is far more informative
than using a single test outcome like IMTP force or SJ height or combing data from the two
tests to obtain DSI. For example, the FVP profile allows one to distinguish “strong”, “fast”,
and “powerful” individuals. In addition, the Pmax reveals the optimal external load
maximizing power output since the maximum power produced is Fiso /2 at the velocity
V0 /2 (Jaric, 2016). Since athletes’ FVP can be quickly measured using the two-point
method, it is less time-consuming than a traditional procedure requiring several loading
conditions. Therefore, the current FVP approach may be easier to include in monitoring
testing routines for muscle mechanical capacities or to evaluate adaptations that might
occur in response to the athletes’ training program. Furthermore, we can suggest that all
those metrics presenting a low coefficient of variation, i.e., the “green zone” shown in
Fig. 2, are potential metrics to be utilized or tested in a longitudinal monitoring study.

CONCLUSIONS
The force-velocity-power variables are reliable intrasession, and the very large correlation
between Pmax and jump impulse is evidence of the convergent validity of the two-point
method using jump and isometric maximal tests. These promising results encourage
further investigations applying the FVP variables obtained from isometric and jump tests
for diagnosis and further investigating its effectiveness through a longitudinal study.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DECLARATIONS

Funding
This work was funded by the Fundação de Apoio à Pesquisa do Distrito Federal (FAPDF).
The APC was funded by Edital DPI/DPG/BCE 01/2024 from the University of Brasilia.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish,
or preparation of the manuscript.

Grant Disclosures
The following grant information was disclosed by the authors:
Fundação de Apoio à Pesquisa do Distrito Federal (FAPDF).
Edital DPI/DPG/BCE 01/2024 from the University of Brasilia.

Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Vieira et al. (2024), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.18371 9/12

 Author Contributions
. Amilton Vieira conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments,
analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the
article, and approved the final draft.
. Rafael Cunha conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments,
analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
. Carlos Gonçalves analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and
approved the final draft.
. Juliano Dal Pupo conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts
of the article, and approved the final draft.
. James Tufano conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of
the article, and approved the final draft.

Human Ethics
The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body
and any reference numbers):
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki for studies
involving humans and The Research Ethics Committee (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa-
CEP-Plataforma Brasil) granted ethical approval to carry out the study (protocol number
3.796.898).

Data Availability
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
The raw measurements are available as a Supplemental File.

Supplemental Information
Supplemental information for this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/
peerj.18371#supplemental-information.

REFERENCES
Bishop C, Shrier I, Jordan M. 2023. Ratio data: understanding pitfalls and knowing when to
standardise. Symmetry 15(2):318 DOI 10.3390/sym15020318.
Comfort P, Dos’Santos T, Beckham GK, Stone MH, Guppy SN, Haff GG. 2019. Standardization
and methodological considerations for the isometric midthigh pull. Strength & Conditioning
Journal 41(2):57–79 DOI 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000433.
Comfort P, Thomas C, Dos’Santos T, Suchomel TJ, Jones PA, McMahon JJ. 2018. Changes in
dynamic strength index in response to strength training. Sports (Basel, Switzerland) 6(4):176
DOI 10.3390/sports6040176.
Cormie P, McGuigan M, Newton R. 2010. Adaptations in athletic performance after ballistic
power versus strength training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 42(8):1582–1598
DOI 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181d2013a.
Couto D, Cunha R, Lage V, Rocha-Junior V, Santos W, Ferreira-Junior JB, Tufano J, Vieira A.
2023. Validity and intra-session reliability of a low-cost device for assessing isometric mid-thigh
pull force. Human Movement 24(2):52–58 DOI 10.5114/hm.2023.115918.

Vieira et al. (2024), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.18371 10/12

 Cronin J, Sleivert G. 2005. Challenges in understanding the influence of maximal power training
on improving athletic performance. Sports Medicine 35(3):213–234
DOI 10.2165/00007256-200535030-00003.
Ferreira ARP, Macedo VOC, Boullosa D, Vieira A. 2023. Identifying consistent metrics from the
force-time curve of the countermovement jump in combat fighters and physically active men.
International Journal of Exercise Science 16(4):1038–1051.
Fessl I, Wiesinger H-P, Kröll J. 2022. Power-force-velocity profiling as a function of used loads
and task experience. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 17(5):694–700
DOI 10.1123/ijspp.2021-0325.
García-Sánchez C, Lominchar-Ramos J, Jiménez-Ormeño E, Comfort P, Alonso-Aubin D,
Soriano M. 2024. The dynamic strength index is a reliable and feasible tool to assess
neuromuscular performance in male and female handball players. Sports Biomechanics 21:1–15
DOI 10.1080/14763141.2024.2351612.
Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. 2009. Progressive statistics for studies in
sports medicine and exercise science. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 41(1):3–13
DOI 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818cb278.
James L, Connick M, Haff G, Kelly V, Beckman E. 2020. The countermovement jump mechanics
of mixed martial arts competitors. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 34(4):982–987
DOI 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003508.
Jaric S. 2016. Two-load method for distinguishing between muscle force, velocity, and
power-producing capacities. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) 46(11):1585–1589
DOI 10.1007/s40279-016-0531-z.
Koo TK, Li MY. 2016. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for
reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine 15(2):155–163
DOI 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
Lauersen JB, Andersen TE, Andersen LB. 2018. Strength training as superior, dose-dependent
and safe prevention of acute and overuse sports injuries: a systematic review, qualitative analysis
and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine 52(24):1557–1563
DOI 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099078.
McMahon J, Lake J, Comfort P. 2022. Identifying and reporting position-specific
countermovement jump outcome and phase characteristics within rugby league. PLOS ONE
17(3):e0265999 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0265999.
McMahon J, Lake J, Ripley N, Comfort P. 2020. Vertical jump testing in rugby league: a rationale
for calculating take-off momentum. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 36(6):370–374
DOI 10.1123/jab.2020-0100.
McMahon JJ, Suchomel TJ, Lake JP, Comfort P. 2018. Understanding the key phases of the
countermovement jump force-time curve. Strength & Conditioning Journal 40(4):96–106
DOI 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000375.
Morin J-B, Samozino P. 2016. Interpreting power-force-velocity profiles for individualized and
specific training. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 11(2):267–272
DOI 10.1123/ijspp.2015-0638.
Pérez-Castilla A, Jaric S, Feriche B, Padial P, García-Ramos A. 2018. Evaluation of muscle
mechanical capacities through the two-load method: optimization of the load selection. Journal
of Strength and Conditioning Research 32(5):1245–1253 DOI 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001969.
Pleša J, Kozinc Ž, Bishop C, Šarabon N. 2024. Association between dynamic strength index
derived from isometric squat and squat jump or countermovement jump and force-velocity

Vieira et al. (2024), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.18371 11/12

 profile. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 28:57–65
DOI 10.1080/1091367X.2023.2223619.
Rahmani A, Viale F, Dalleau G, Lacour J-R. 2001. Force/velocity and power/velocity relationships
in squat exercise. European Journal of Applied Physiology 84(3):227–232
DOI 10.1007/PL00007956.
Rivière J, Morin J-B, Bowen M, Cross M, Messonnier L, Samozino P. 2023. Exploring the low
force-high velocity domain of the force–velocity relationship in acyclic lower-limb extensions.
Sports Medicine-Open 9:55 DOI 10.1186/s40798-023-00598-0.
Samozino P, Edouard P, Sangnier S, Brughelli M, Gimenez P, Morin J-B. 2014. Force-velocity
profile: imbalance determination and effect on lower limb ballistic performance. International
Journal of Sports Medicine 35(6):505–510 DOI 10.1055/s-00000028.
Samozino P, Morin J-B, Hintzy F, Belli A. 2008. A simple method for measuring force, velocity
and power output during squat jump. Journal of Biomechanics 41(14):2940–2945
DOI 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.07.028.
Šarabon N, Kozinc Ž, Markovic G. 2020. Force-velocity profile during vertical jump cannot be
assessed using only bodyweight jump and isometric maximal voluntary contraction tasks.
Scientific Reports 10(1):19127 DOI 10.1038/s41598-020-76262-4.
Secomb JL, Nimphius S, Farley ORL, Lundgren LE, Tran TT, Sheppard JM. 2015. Relationships
between lower-body muscle structure and, lower-body strength, explosiveness and eccentric leg
stiffness in adolescent athletes. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine 14(4):691–697.
Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Bellon CR, Stone MH. 2018. The importance of muscular strength:
training considerations. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) 48(4):765–785
DOI 10.1007/s40279-018-0862-z.
Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Stone MH. 2016. The importance of muscular strength in athletic
performance. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) 46(10):1419–1449
DOI 10.1007/s40279-016-0486-0.
Suchomel TJ, Sole CJ, Bellon CR, Stone MH. 2020. Dynamic strength index: relationships with
common performance variables and contextualization of training recommendations. Journal of
Human Kinetics 74(1):59–70.
Thomas C, Jones P, Comfort P. 2015. Reliability of the dynamic strength index in college athletes.
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 10(5):542–545
DOI 10.1123/ijspp.2014-0255.
Vieira A, Ribeiro GL, Macedo V, de Araújo Rocha Junior V, Baptista RdS, Gonçalves C,
Cunha R, Tufano J. 2023. Evidence of validity and reliability of Jumpo 2 and MyJump 2 for
estimating vertical jump variables. PeerJ 11(4):e14558 DOI 10.7717/peerj.14558.

Vieira et al. (2024), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.18371 12/12