thankyou for the video mam. one thing i need you to clarify is the peak vertical force and net peak vertical force. which one should we use for analysis and recommendation?
Thank you very much. The Peak Vertical Force is probably best but the most important thing is just that you are consistent with which you use. As I understand it, the Net Peak Vertical Force just removes the body mass.
Sure. Ratio scaling (i.e. simple division by bodyweight) allows comparisons between athletes normalized to bodyweight. However, this simple approach assumes that strength is directly proportional to body mass, which is not necessarily the case. Allometric scaling may be more appropriate, particularly in settings with wide variation in body size and strength. Dividing strength by body mass raised to an appropriate power can eliminate the effects of body mass, although debate remains regarding the most appropriate scaling exponents. You can read more in Folland et al (2008): link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-007-0654-x
Thank you for the clear and precise explanation. Recently, I got the chance to use Hawkin Dynamic forceplate, and their relative peak force metric is using peak force/system weight, however, when I report to my athlete about their relative strength score during the test, is it better to report peak force/body mass in Newton?
Thank you! So it is not necessarily that one is "better" than the other. I think you can use either as long as you are explaining them in a clear and consistent way. But from my experience it can be easier for people to understand "you pulled 2.3x your bodyweight" rather than "your relative peak force was 33N/kg" for example. You can easily convert body mass to Newtons, multiply kg by 9.80 or lb by 4.44.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 89 | คู่เอก "ยอดไอคิว vs คิริลล์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3vYkHJ_5Ig/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for starting this channel. This will be a great resource for many strength/sport science professionals!
Thank you, Dr Goodin. Big fan of your channel so that means a lot!
Fantastic video, thank you! Will be exploring this with a crane scale
Awesome, you're welcome!
Great one keep it going please!🎉
Thanks! Will do!
thankyou for the video mam.
one thing i need you to clarify is the peak vertical force and net peak vertical force. which one should we use for analysis and recommendation?
Thank you very much. The Peak Vertical Force is probably best but the most important thing is just that you are consistent with which you use. As I understand it, the Net Peak Vertical Force just removes the body mass.
Can you explain further the allometric normalization please?
Sure. Ratio scaling (i.e. simple division by bodyweight) allows comparisons between athletes normalized to bodyweight. However, this simple approach assumes that strength is directly proportional to body mass, which is not necessarily the case.
Allometric scaling may be more appropriate, particularly in settings with wide variation in body size and strength. Dividing strength by body mass raised to an appropriate power can eliminate the effects of body mass, although debate remains regarding the most appropriate scaling exponents.
You can read more in Folland et al (2008): link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-007-0654-x
Great video
Thanks!
👏👏👏👏
Thank you for the clear and precise explanation. Recently, I got the chance to use Hawkin Dynamic forceplate, and their relative peak force metric is using peak force/system weight, however, when I report to my athlete about their relative strength score during the test, is it better to report peak force/body mass in Newton?
Thank you! So it is not necessarily that one is "better" than the other. I think you can use either as long as you are explaining them in a clear and consistent way.
But from my experience it can be easier for people to understand "you pulled 2.3x your bodyweight" rather than "your relative peak force was 33N/kg" for example.
You can easily convert body mass to Newtons, multiply kg by 9.80 or lb by 4.44.
@@globalperformanceinsights thx for the advice🙏🙏