Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2006, 20(4), 867–873

䉷 2006 National Strength & Conditioning Association

THE CONTRIBUTION OF MAXIMAL FORCE

PRODUCTION TO EXPLOSIVE MOVEMENT AMONG
YOUNG COLLEGIATE ATHLETES
MARK D. PETERSON,1 BRENT A. ALVAR,1 AND MATTHEW R. RHEA2
Department of Exercise and Wellness, Arizona State University, Mesa, Arizona 85212; 2Department of Physical
1

Education, Southern Utah University, Cedar City, Utah 84720.

ABSTRACT. Peterson, M.D., B.A. Alvar, and M.R. Rhea. The con- One of the most well known characteristics of muscle
tribution of maximal force production to explosive movement tissue functionality is the force-velocity relationship. This
among young collegiate athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 20(4): relationship exemplifies the interactions between mus-
867–873. 2006.—Critical to multidimensional sport conditioning
cular contraction velocity and magnitude of contraction-
is a systematic knowledge of the interactions between fitness
components, as well as the transference relationships to perfor- force, such that a muscle contracts at a speed inversely
mance. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the proportional to the load. Intuitively, the maximal velocity
relationships between lower body muscular strength and several of a given movement is dependent upon the resistance
fundamental explosive performance measures. Fifty-four men applied to that movement. This trade-off between velocity
and women collegiate athletes were tested to determine (a) low- and force for coordinated movement is easily demonstrat-
er-body muscular strength (1 repetition maximum barbell back ed during resistance training, in which extremely high
squat), (b) countermovement vertical jump height and peak pow- loads are lifted through a range of motion at very low
er output, (c) standing broad jump distance, (d) agility (cone T-
velocities. At some incremental point, the load may be
test time), (e) sprint acceleration (m·s⫺2), and (f) sprint velocity
(m·s⫺1). Analyses were performed using Pearson r correlations great enough that velocity reaches zero, and an isometric
to examine these relationships. Partial correlations tested for contraction is produced. It is at this point that maximal
relationships between performance measures while controlling force is generated. While isometric expressions of force
for muscular strength. T-tests were performed to assess the dif- output were traditionally considered to the measurable
ference between men and women. Correlation data demonstrat- benchmark for maximal muscular force, most current-day
ed that significant (p ⬍ 0.01) strong linear relationships were research investigations and sport conditioning practices
indicated between muscular strength and power, as well as ev- that conform to the principles of specificity utilize maxi-
ery sport-performance field tests. However, when controlling for
mal dynamic force (1 repetition maximum [1RM], the
strength with partial correlation, each of these relationships ap-
preciably diminished. Significant differences (p ⬍ 0.05) were maximum weight that can be lifted through an eccentric
found between men and women for each of the performance and concentric range of motion) as the gold standard.
tests. Muscular strength, peak power output, vertical jumping Essentially, the principles of specificity are governed
ability, standing broad jump, agility, sprint acceleration, and by the assumptions that not only are muscular fitness
sprint velocity were all shown to be very highly related. Further components distinct but also optimal development is
examination demonstrated that body mass–adjusted muscular highly contingent upon training modality. Although to
strength is more highly related to performance measures than some extent the principles are based in theory, many pro-
is absolute muscular strength. Current correlation data provide
a quantified look at the interaction between muscular fitness
fessionals successfully use the premises of specificity to
components, as well as the transfer relationship to several ath- prescribe exercise testing and training for sport. One par-
letic-specific performance measures. ticular aspect, velocity specificity, implies that resistance
training produces its greatest strength gains at the ve-
KEY WORDS. power, performance enhancement, correlations
locity that it is performed. As this principle suggests, im-
provement with high resistance, low velocity movements
INTRODUCTION will not bring about optimal improvement in low resis-
esistance training has been used as a means tance, high velocity movements. Likewise, improvement

R to augment muscular hypertrophy (7, 12, 25),

muscular strength capacity (28, 30), rate of
force production, and coordinated movement
speed (1, 17). Traditionally, each of these ob-
jectives was not thought to be mutually exclusive, and
in low resistance, high velocity movements will not elicit
optimal enhancement of high resistance, low velocity
movements.
In reality, muscular power is exhibited by all muscle
actions that produce a velocity and may be defined as the
athletes were trained haphazardly to get bigger, stronger, rate of muscular force production, throughout a range of
and faster. However, as scientists and practitioners con- motion (14). Muscular power is considered necessary for
tinue to collaborate, more empirical evidence suggests a sports, as well as normal functional ability. An increase
need for specific training approaches to accommodate the in power enables a given muscle to produce the same
various muscular fitness components. Training to stimu- amount of work in less time or a greater magnitude of
late adaptation within the muscular system exploits sev- work in the same time. Muscular peak power (PP) (i.e.,
eral synergistic physiological components that lend to in- maximal speed strength) has been designated as the max-
creased force production, including neuromuscular, met- imum potential product of strength and speed and is dem-
abolic, and hormonal-capacity modifications. onstrated as the highest power output attainable during

867
868 PETERSON, ALVAR, AND RHEA

a given movement/repetition (21). Given that PP is relat- is important to examine these fitness components in or-
ed both to force generation and movement velocity, mus- der to clarify the framework of exercise prescription with-
cular PP capacity has been viewed as an exceedingly im- in a periodized, sport-specific model. The purpose of this
portant testing variable and training objective in most investigation was therefore to analyze the relationships
sport conditioning programs, and especially for those between slow velocity dynamic muscular strength and
sports that involve sprinting and jumping. several higher velocity auxiliary fitness tests among first-
An area of exercise prescription research that requires year collegiate athletes, a population thought to exempli-
further delineation is that which investigates the fy advanced athleticism despite lacking extensive formal-
strength of relationships between maximal dynamic force ized fitness training. It was hypothesized that test data
capacity of the lower body and powerful lower body move- from lower body muscular strength measures (i.e., as
ments. Establishment of such data is necessary to fully measured by 1RM back squat) would reveal a moderate
comprehend the underlying strength requirement for su- positive association with explosive movement tests. Iden-
perior participation in power-related performance activi- tification of these interactions could offer insight into the
ties, as well as to demonstrate the relative importance of contribution of muscular strength capacities to the per-
specific training to stimulate optimized muscular formance of explosive sport-specific measures among
strength adaptation. A review of the literature indicates young collegiate athletes. Data may also elucidate the de-
a positive relationship between closed-kinetic-chain low- gree to which other unidentified physical (e.g., rate of
er-body strength and, both vertical jump (VJ) height and force production) and technique-related variables influ-
standing broad jump distance (2, 6, 8, 20, 23, 37, 40). Oth- ence the variances in power/performance profiles.
er investigations have found significant correlations be-
tween muscular strength and peak rate of force produc- METHODS
tion (17), peak muscular power (26), and instantaneous Experimental Approach to the Problem
power production (11).
To date, much of this research has been conducted During the normal conditioning schedule for each respec-
with novice study subjects or lesser-trained recreational tive sport, college athletes were tested regularly for ca-
athletes. Research examining more experienced individ- pacities of lower body muscular strength and jumping
uals has found conflicting results (3, 10, 36) and poses a ability on barbell back squat and countermovement VJ,
potentially diminished association between the magni- respectively. Tests of variable-distance timed sprints,
tude of dynamic force production and power-related per- standing broad jump, and a timed agility protocol were
formance measures. A theoretical explanation for this also assessed. Correlation analyses were performed to ex-
phenomenon may be considered: Greater strength capac- amine the relationship between each of these measures.
ities beyond a threshold level will not continue to elicit a The results were then analyzed to determine the degree
subsequent predictable/transferable improvement in of relation between each.
muscular power or explosive movement within an elite,
Subjects
homogeneous population. This tenuous belief has been
cultivated in recent years and has led many sport condi- First-year college athletes (n ⫽ 19 men and 36 women)
tioning professionals to adopt speed training modalities, of various sports were recruited as subjects for this in-
while simultaneously de-emphasizing fundamental vestigation (mean age ⫽ 19.4 years; age range ⫽ 18–21
strength exercises. years). Each of the athletes included in the analyses were
Ultimately, evidence suggests that muscular strength from one of the following sports: men’s basketball, wom-
shares a significant relationship with muscular power en’s basketball, women’s volleyball, men’s baseball, and
and, in some capacity, with sport specific powerful move- women’s softball. All subjects were involved in regular
ment. However, there is a shortage of empirical data ob- sport conditioning during the time of the investigation.
tained from trained individuals using biomechanically Subsequently, all subjects were of similar experience with
specific exercises and tests to verify these interactions, regard to pertinent testing protocols. Inclusion criteria for
and even less research to delineate these relationships participation in this study were (a) no pending medical
among various levels of training statuses (e.g., such as problems and (b) no ankle, knee, or back pathology within
within the hierarchy of athletic rankings). Alternatively, the preceding 4 months. All athletes were in good physi-
many recent investigations and reviews have been con- cal condition during the time of testing and cleared by a
ducted to identify the necessary training intensities and certified athletic trainer to participate in sport condition-
speeds to maximize the expression of muscular power (4, ing. Furthermore, each subject signed informed consent
19, 22, 33). These studies provide valuable information to documents allowing use of pertinent testing data for re-
the strength and conditioning professional with regard to search and publication purposes. All procedures were ap-
the optimal training load to accentuate peak mechanical proved by the human subjects review board of Arizona
power output during a given movement repetition. Un- State University.
fortunately, most do not incorporate a system of usage for
such recommendations. Ostensibly, during the conversion Procedures
process from science to practice, important practical ap- Lower body dynamic muscular strength was measured
plication is likely lost. via the 1RM barbell back squat exercise, according to the
As previously mentioned, muscular power and explo- National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA)
sive coordinated movement rely on rate of force produc- guidelines for strength testing (18). Each athlete had pre-
tion, as well as magnitude of force production. Case in viously performed this test numerous times in conjunc-
point, failure to optimize the basic force producing char- tion with his or her normal sport conditioning program,
acteristics of muscle may diminish the developmental po- for purposes of monitoring strength development. Hence,
tential of muscular power adaptation and expression. It each subject had been well familiarized with the proce-
 CONTRIBUTION OF MUSCULAR STRENGTH TO SPORT PERFORMANCE 869

dures of the test. Athletes were required to perform a (18) and were deemed to be fundamental competencies for
nonspecific warm-up of running and to participate in dy- each of the involved sports. Therefore, despite utilizing
namic stretching before executing approximately 10 various types of athletes within the study sample, an as-
squat repetitions with a light resistance. The resistance sumption was made that general closed-kinetic-chain
was then progressively increased to amounts estimated muscular strength ability would have an equivalent in-
to be less than the subject’s 1RM, for several subsequent fluence upon the battery of biomechanically diverse ex-
warm-up sets. Finally, for the 1RM test, the resistance plosive movements. As this research investigation incor-
was increased in incremental loads following each suc- porated a relatively large number of fitness tests, the bat-
cessful 1RM attempt, until failure. All 1RM values were tery of strength and explosive performance measures was
determined within 3–5 attempts, in order to ensure reli- administered over the course of several days, during each
ability. An inclusion criterion for squat depth was to com- of the respective athlete’s off-season training phase. As
plete the 1RM attempts at a 90⬚ knee angle. For each previously mentioned, each subject was thoroughly fa-
respective individual, this measurement standard was set miliarized with the experimental testing protocol, having
using a standard handheld goniometer (Jamar EZ-Read; completed the tests several times for his or her strength
Sammons Preston Roylan, Bolingbrook, IL) prior to and conditioning commitment. However, to ensure reli-
warm-up sets. If this depth of squat was not sufficiently able testing outcome measures, subjects were further fa-
met, the test was not counted. Trained sport conditioning miliarized prior to the investigation, which included prac-
specialists and investigators oversaw the testing process tice sessions of the exact testing procedure. Test-retest
to ensure proper technique and safety. Body masses were reliabilities for all experimental tests done in this same
taken to enable a standardized evaluation of maximal order demonstrated intraclass correlations of R ⱖ 0.90.
lower body relative strength.
Jumping ability was assessed using a countermove- Statistical Analyses
ment VJ and horizontal standing broad jump. For VJ Descriptive data (mean and standard deviation values)
testing, standing reach and VJ height were tested using for the various tests were computed. Independent t-tests
the Vertec apparatus (Sports Imports, Columbus, OH). with a Bonferroni adjustment were performed to assess
Each athlete was allowed 3–5 trials in order to achieve the differences between men and women for measures of
maximal jump performance. PP was estimated using the body mass adjusted strength, as well as for estimated PP
equations developed by Sayers et al. (29): PP (W) ⫽ (60.7) output from the VJ test (Sayer’s equation [28]). Pearson
⫻ (jump height [cm]) ⫹ 45.3 ⫻ (body mass [kg]) ⫺ 2.055. product correlation analysis was performed to test the re-
This equation was used to estimate PP output because lationships between muscular squat strength (1RM), body
gender differences do not interfere with the accuracy of mass–adjusted squat strength (1RM/body mass), counter-
PP estimates (29). Further, this method has been verified movement VJ height, 20-yard (18.23 meters) sprint ac-
as a valuable means of assessing lower-body PP and re- celeration, 40-yard (36.58 meters) sprint velocity, stand-
lationship with weightlifting ability among elite athletes ing broad jump distance, and cone agility T-test time. Re-
(8). Horizontal standing broad jumps were performed liability was set at p ⱕ 0.05. Additionally, partial corre-
with the use of a plastic measuring tape, which was fixed lations analyses were calculated between each of the
to the floor. Subjects began this testing with their toes aforementioned performance measures, while controlling
behind the 0-centimeter mark of the tape. The distance for the affect of muscular strength. Percent covariation
from the rearmost heel strike to the starting line was was examined between explosive movement tests prior to
used for measurement. Similar to the VJ test, each sub- and following partial correlation analyses to identify the
ject was allowed 3–5 trials in order to achieve maximal effect of muscular strength.
jump performance. Subjects were required to complete a
nonspecific warm-up of running and dynamic stretching, RESULTS
as well as a specific, submaximal jump warm-up protocol, Descriptive statistics may be seen in Table 1. Data are
prior to all jump testing. offered for body mass, 1RM squat, body mass–adjusted
Three readily used measures of sport-specific physical strength (1RM squat/body mass), countermovement VJ
fitness capacities are acceleration, speed, and agility (27, height, standing broad jump distance, agility T-test time,
38). Variable distance sprint tests were administered to sprint acceleration, and sprint velocity. T-tests demon-
assess acceleration over 20 yards (18.29 meters) and strated significant (p ⬍ 0.03) differences for body mass–
speed over 40 yards (36.58 meters). A timed cone T-test adjusted strength, as well as for estimated PP output,
was used to assess agility, in accordance with NSCA pro- between male and female subjects.
tocol (18). Time, in seconds, was recorded for each athlete Significant (p ⬍ 0.01) linear relationships were indi-
for the 20-yard (as a split time of the 40-yard), 40-yard, cated between lower body muscular strength, PP, and all
and agility tests. Acceleration (m·s⫺2) was calculated for explosive performance tests. Table 2 offers a correlations
the 20-yard sprint performance with the equation: Accel- matrix to delineate the strong significant relationships
eration ⫽ [distance/(time)2]. Subsequently, running veloc- between each of these measures. In regard to muscular
ity (m·s⫺1) was determined by the 40-yard sprint perfor- strength, further examination demonstrated that relative
mance and the equation: Velocity ⫽ (distance/time). Light muscular strength (adjusted for body mass) was more
stretching and submaximal sprint/agility trials preceded highly related to most power and performance measures
the respective tests to serve as a warm-up. All tests were than was absolute muscular strength. Interestingly, VJ
executed 3 times, with adequate rest between trials, and was found to be most highly correlated to sprint acceler-
the fastest trials were recorded. ation and velocity.
The aforementioned battery of fitness and perfor- To assess the effect of muscular strength on the rela-
mance tests is considered to be well-known and accepted tionships between muscular power and sport performance
indices within the strength and conditioning profession measures, partial correlations were calculated between
870 PETERSON, ALVAR, AND RHEA

TABLE 1. Descriptive statistics (mean ⫾ SD) for men, women, and the combined group.*
Women Men Combined
(n ⫽ 35) (n ⫽ 19) (n ⫽ 54)
Body mass (kg) 68.69 ⫾ 13.08 84.58 ⫾ 7.80 74.28 ⫾ 13.75
1RM squat (kg) 85.79 ⫾ 16.38 155.77 ⫾ 23.98 110.42 ⫾ 38.79
1RM squat/body mass 1.27 ⫾ 0.22 1.85 ⫾ 0.29 1.47 ⫾ 0.37
VJ (m) 0.47 ⫾ 0.06 0.7 ⫾ 0.07 0.55 ⫾ 0.13
VJ PP (W) 3,930.89 ⫾ 642.21 6,020.63 ⫾ 508.48 4,666.17 ⫾ 1,169.22
Broad jump (m) 1.74 ⫾ 0.59 2.34 ⫾ 0.59 1.95 ⫾ 0.65
Agility T-test (s) 11.48 ⫾ 0.64 9.89 ⫾ 0.46 10.91 ⫾ 0.96
Spring acceleration (m·s⫺2) 1.65 ⫾ 0.17 2.18 ⫾ 0.18 1.83 ⫾ 0.31
Sprint velocity (m·s⫺1) 6.22 ⫾ 0.33 7.4 ⫾ 0.28 6.62 ⫾ 0.65
* 1RM ⫽ 1 repetition maximum; VJ ⫽ vertical jump; PP ⫽ peak power.

TABLE 2. Correlations matrix for strength, power, and sport performance.*

Correlation coefficients
1RM
Body 1RM squat/body Broad Sprint
mass squat mass VJ VJ PP jump Agility acceleration
1RM squat (kg) 0.657†
1RM squat/body mass 0.231 0.879†
VJ (m) 0.400† 0.859† 0.852†
VJ PP (W) 0.796† 0.917† 0.685† 0.873†
Broad jump (m) 0.275 0.767† 0.814† 0.835† 0.697†
Agility T-test (s) ⫺0.327‡ ⫺0.784† ⫺0.805† ⫺0.856† ⫺0.739† ⫺0.900†
Sprint acceleration (m·s⫺2) 0.268 0.820† 0.876† 0.889† 0.732† 0.831† ⫺0.854†
Sprint velocity (m·s⫺1) 0.331‡ 0.854† 0.881† 0.908† 0.778† 0.856† ⫺0.889† 0.956†
* 1RM ⫽ 1 repetition maximum; VJ ⫽ vertical jump; PP ⫽ peak power.
† Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
‡ Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

TABLE 3. Partial correlations between muscular power (vertical jump) and tests of sport performances with muscular strength
controlled (n ⫽ 54).*
Correlation coefficients†
Sprint
Broad Agility acceler- Sprint
Control variables VJ VJ PP jump T-test ation velocity
1RM squat/body mass VJ (m) 1.00 0.756 0.468 ⫺0.540 0.544 0.616
Broad jump (m) 0.468 0.298 1.000 ⫺0.707 0.425 0.509
Agility T-test (s) ⫺0.540 ⫺0.376 ⫺0.707 1.000 ⫺0.477 ⫺0.624
Sprint acceleration (m·s⫺2) 0.544 0.334 0.425 ⫺0.477 1.000 0.795
Sprint velocity (m·s⫺1) 0.616 0.472 0.509 ⫺0.624 0.795 1.000
* 1RM ⫽ 1 repetition maximum; VJ ⫽ vertical jump; PP ⫽ peak power.
† All correlation coefficients are significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

VJ, broad jump, agility, sprint acceleration, and sprint DISCUSSION

velocity, while controlling for the effect of muscular
strength. Essentially partial correlational analyses allow For populations of very high levels of training, minute
for the correlation between 2 variables while holding con- changes in muscular fitness may have profound perfor-
stant the external influences of a third. Table 3 shows the mance ramifications. Further, it is at these levels of mus-
significant, yet greatly diminished correlations when the cular development that highly specific, exclusive regi-
extraneous effect of muscular strength is controlled. For mens are often implemented. Many researchers have in-
example, when normal bivariate correlations were ex- vestigated how strength training affects the force-velocity
amined between VJ and both sprint velocity and sprint relationship. Current data were consistent with previous
acceleration, a demonstrated 80 and 83% covariation studies that have examined a positive interaction be-
(percent covariation, or coefficient of determination ⫽ tween lower body muscular strength and various perfor-
[Pearson r]2) was exhibited, respectively. However, with mance measurements related to lower body muscular
partial correlation controlling for the third variable-mus- power, including VJ height (2, 6, 8, 15, 40), broad jump
cular strength capacity, a more scrupulous assessment of distance (6, 20, 32), and sprinting performance (15, 39,
30 and 38% covariation was established, respectively. 40). Subsequently, current data confirm that relative
 CONTRIBUTION OF MUSCULAR STRENGTH TO SPORT PERFORMANCE 871

TABLE 4. Correlations matrix for females and males.*

Correlation coefficients
1RM
squat/body Broad Sprint Sprint
1RM squat mass VJ VJ PP jump Agility acceleration velocity
Females (n ⫽ 35)
1RM squat (kg) 1.000 0.521† 0.371‡ 0.719† 0.313 0.408‡ 0.379‡ 0.402‡
1RM squat/body mass 0.521† 1.000 0.552† ⫺0.062 0.638† ⫺0.633† 0.718† 0.712†
VJ (m) 0.371‡ 0.552† 1.000 0.420‡ 0.594† ⫺0.713† 0.614† 0.622†
VJ PP (W) 0.719† ⫺0.062 0.420‡ 1.000 0.047 ⫺0.210 0.034 0.072
Broad jump (m) 0.313 0.638† 0.594† 0.047 1.000 ⫺0.788† 0.612† 0.668†
Agility T-test (s) ⫺0.408‡ ⫺0.633† ⫺0.713† ⫺0.210 ⫺0.788† 1.000 ⫺0.630† ⫺0.693†
Sprint acceleration (m·s⫺2) 0.379‡ 0.718† 0.614† 0.034 0.612† ⫺0.630† 1.000 0.874†
Sprint velocity (m·s⫺1) 0.402‡ 0.712† 0.622† 0.072 0.668 ⫺0.693† 0.874† 1.000
Males (n ⫽ 19)
1RM squat (kg) 1.000 0.843† 0.538‡ 0.663† 0.445 ⫺0.169 0.394 0.432
1RM squat/body mass 0.843† 1.000 0.667† 0.390 0.528‡ ⫺0.333 0.651† 0.716†
VJ (m) 0.538‡ 0.667† 1.000 0.734† 0.510‡ ⫺0.261 0.632† 0.646†
VJ PP (W) 0.663† 0.390 0.734† 1.000 0.337 ⫺0.033 0.201 0.189
Broad jump (m) 0.445 0.528‡ 0.510‡ 0.337 1.000 ⫺0.613† 0.484‡ 0.424
Agility T-test (s) ⫺0.169 ⫺0.333 ⫺0.261 ⫺0.033 ⫺0.613† 1.000 ⫺0.491‡ ⫺0.579‡
Sprint acceleration (m·s⫺2) 0.394 0.651† 0.632† 0.201 0.484‡ ⫺0.491‡ 1.000 0.836†
Sprint velocity (m·s⫺1) 0.432 0.716 0.646† 0.189 0.424 ⫺0.579‡ 0.836† 1.000
* 1RM ⫽ 1 repetition maximum; VJ ⫽ vertical jump; PP ⫽ peak power.
† Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
‡ Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

muscular strength may actually be more applicable to ence of force production capacity on measures of sport
most explosive performance measures than absolute low- specific performance and muscular power. Moreover, this
er-body muscular strength. Conceptually, this would sug- implies that measurement of muscular strength, to a
gest that in regard to transference of training for young large extent, may differentiate the variance in speed/ac-
collegiate athletes, neuromuscular adaptations are vital celeration profiles between subjects within this study.
to enhance body mass-adjusted force production ability Further, when current data were divided to assess
and should be maximized to complement muscle archi- performance differences among sexes, the mean relative
tectural and hypertrophic responses (5, 25, 28, 34). These and absolute performance measures for men were ex-
findings are supported by previous investigations con- pectedly significantly different (p ⬍ 0.03 and p ⬍ 0.05,
cerning the relationship between relative lower body respectively) in magnitude for each of the tests. More im-
strength and explosive movement such as sprinting and portant, however, when examining the various strength-
jumping (3, 24, 39). Clearly, however, further investiga- power-performance relationships, trends remained rela-
tion is warranted to determine the correct scaling model tively unaffected (i.e., muscular strength still shared sig-
(i.e., mathematical transformation of the function asso- nificant correlations between measures of explosive
ciated with strength and body mass, such as with allo- movement). Intuitively, this may mean that regardless of
metric scaling, the Wilks index, the Sinclair formula, etc.) sex, body mass–adjusted muscular strength, as expressed
that could be used to assess normalized muscular through the free weight squat exercise, largely influences
strength performance for the free weight squat exercise the performance capacity of lower body powerful activi-
among young collegiate athletes and offer a more precise ties in first year collegiate athletes. Table 4 offers exact
interpretation of the resultant relationship with sport correlation coefficients between measures of strength,
specific performance measures. power, and performance for both men and women.
Many professionals consider maximum strength to be On the contrary, several recent reports have suggest-
the basic quality that ultimately affects muscular power, ed that maximal strength affects muscular power in a
irrespective of external resistance (36). Current data sup- manner with diminishing influence as the load decreases
port this conjecture, as demonstrated by very high sig- (31). As this contention implies, at some point, another
nificant correlations for the entire group of young athletes factor, the rate of force production, may actually become
between strength and VJ (p ⬍ 0.001, r ⫽ 0.852), broad a more appropriate training directive than strength de-
jump (p ⬍ 0.001, r ⫽ 0.814), agility (p ⬍ 0.001, r ⫽ velopment. The concept of shifting the training emphasis
⫺0.805), sprint acceleration (p ⬍ 0.001, r ⫽ 0.876), and away from force production capacity, to speed develop-
maximum running speed (p ⬍ 0.001, r ⫽ 0.881). More- ment, is the underlying notion behind the aforementioned
over, as may be seen in Tables 2 and 3, the elevated cor- principle of velocity specificity. Many disciplinarians have
relations between each of the powerful performance mea- theorized that the magnitude of maximal force and the
sures were greatly diminished when partial correlations maximal potential velocity of force production are 2 in-
controlled for the effect of strength. The subsequent de- dependent entities of muscle tissue functionality. Like-
crease in percentage of covariation between these perfor- wise, high concentric force capacities are thought to be
mance measures ranged from approximately 20–60%. necessary for accelerating a body at rest, and high con-
Findings thoroughly demonstrate the unequivocal influ- traction velocities are necessary to maintain a high move-
872 PETERSON, ALVAR, AND RHEA

ment speed. Hence, unique training strategies must be pacity and muscular power, 2 fitness components known
directly applied to promote enhancement of these distinct to be highly interrelated.
muscular fitness components. Nevertheless, for correlation research conducted on
These theorized interactions of muscular functionality fitness variables (i.e., variables known to change with
have been supported by research with highly trained, training), this diminished covariance may also signify the
very homogeneous populations and have suggested a gen- movement toward, or beyond a virtual threshold wherein
eral nonsignificant relationship between basic slow-veloc- increases in the magnitude of 1 variable will not neces-
ity force production and high speed movement-proficiency sarily elicit a subsequent predictable improvement in an-
(3, 10). Seemingly, this decrement in contribution of sheer other variable. For instance, muscular strength is known
force production to power manifests as an inability to ex- to be related to muscular power, but there may be a point
plain variances in speed/acceleration profiles between in- at which force capacity improvement will not continue to
dividuals of progressive strength capacities, simply by ex- transfer to muscular power adaptation. By examining a
amining strength. Recently, Cronin et al. (10) examined small homogeneous group of subjects, it is impossible to
such variables among a select group of elite-level rugby observe/detect such a point of transition, as only a snap-
athletes. Various measures of strength and power were shot of the true relationship is being offered. Similarly,
assessed in order to extrapolate the relative contribution as the current investigation examined relationships
to PP output, first-step quickness, sprint acceleration, among tests for a semiheterogeneous sample population
and maximal sprint speed (10). Data analyses demon- (i.e., athletes of similar training experience, yet with dif-
strated a nonsignificant relationship between 3 repetition ferent sporting involvement), strong relationships were
maximum isoinertial squat strength and nearly every detectable, but little is still gained about these interac-
power-, explosive-, and sprint-performance measure. The tions as athletes progress to higher levels of training.
authors concluded that their findings ‘‘supports the con- Further research should therefore be conducted to ex-
tention that strength and power indices are not the same amine the variation in correlation coefficients between
and should be measured separately’’ (10, p. 352). To fur- lower body muscular strength, lower body power output,
ther rationalize these findings, data from previous stud- and explosive lower body movement among various levels
ies (3, 9) were cited to support the authors’ claim, as well of training/athletic echelons.
as the respective results. Interestingly, each of these PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
studies examined the interaction of strength and power
correlates among small, select groups of highly trained The results of the present investigation do not infer cause
and/or professional athletes. and effect, as correlational data offer only a glimpse of
The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient the relationship between variables. Nevertheless, all of
was chosen for data analyses because it is an effective the established relationships for low velocity muscular
way to measure the association between 2 variables on strength and measures of power, jumping ability, agility,
interval or ratio scales, such as the relationship between linear sprint acceleration, and sprinting speed were very
muscular strength capacity in kilograms and VJ height strong. Data do not refute the principle of velocity speci-
ficity, as it applies to exercise prescription, but enough
in inches. Calculation of the correlation coefficient relies
evidence exists to suggest that closed-kinetic-chain lower-
on variances, both among individuals within a sample
body muscular strength capacity (especially body mass
and between the 2 variables being measured for covari-
adjusted strength capacity) is very influential in the per-
ation (i.e., the degree to which the 2 variables change to-
formance of powerful, speed-related activities, among
gether) (16). When 2 variables covary, they may be cor-
first-year college athletes.
related to one another positively or negatively. Higher For all athletes, the ability to summon these muscular
magnitudes on one variable occurring with higher mag- fitness components to perform skill-related activity is es-
nitudes of another, and lower magnitudes on both, is a sential for performance and competitive success. Just as
demonstration of a positive correlation. The other possi- inferior skill limits the extent of success in sport perfor-
bility is that 2 variables may vary inversely or oppositely, mance and competition, for today’s athlete, inferior mus-
such as with a negative correlation (i.e., the higher mag- cular development will greatly limit the athletic achieve-
nitudes of one variable correspond with the lower mag- ment of even the most coordinated, skilled individual. The
nitudes of the other, and vice versa). synergism of combining the appropriate training with the
An effective way to measure the general relationship appropriate practiced skill/movement is a key determi-
between 2 fitness variables is to examine the associations nant to high-level athletic participation.
within a semiheterogeneous group, such as was the case Many coaches and athletes therefore rely heavily on
in the current investigation. As mentioned, the calcula- the principles of specificity to maximize training effec-
tion of the Pearson correlation coefficient relies on some tiveness. In combination with quality of movement, opti-
variance in the tested variables in order to even detect mizing muscular adaptation for PP output resides as a
covariance. Hence, when there is a decreased, or nonsig- principal developmental effect. This study convincingly
nificant relationship between 2 variables, 1 of 3 expla- sustains the contribution of basic force production as the
nations may be considered, including (a) the 2 variables primary underlying physical element that influences
do not share a relationship, (b) the 2 variables share a muscular power, as well as movement across various
relationship that is not a linear relationship, or (c) a re- speeds. Certainly, most athletes require a diverse perfor-
lationship may exist, but there was not enough variance mance enhancement program that addresses numerous
within the data for 1 or both variables, to accurately de- fundamental aspects of conditioning and sport-specific
tect a correlation between variables. Intuitively, the lat- movement. Nevertheless, from these findings it is rec-
ter may actually rationalize some of the recent findings ommended that enhancement of relative muscular
(3, 10) for a diminished relationship between strength ca- strength capacity be the fundamental training objective
 CONTRIBUTION OF MUSCULAR STRENGTH TO SPORT PERFORMANCE 873

for less experienced individuals. Further, the free weight 20. KOCH, A.J., H.S. O’BRYANT, M.E. STONE, K. SANBORN, C.
squat may offer this necessary stimulus to elicit optimal, PROULX, J. HRUBY, E. SHANNONHOUSE, R. BOROS, AND M.H.
transferable development across various explosive, bio- STONE. Effect of warm-up on the standing broad jump in
trained and untrained men and women. J. Strength Cond. Res.
mechanically diverse movements.
17:710–714. 2003.
21. KOMI, P.V., ed. Strength and Power in Sport. Oxford: Blackwell
REFERENCES Scientific Publications, 1992.
1. AAGAARD, P., E.B. SIMONSEN, J.L. ANDERSEN, P. MAGNUSSON, 22. MCBRIDE, J.M., T. TRIPLETT-MCBRIDE, A. DAVIE, AND R.U.
NEWTON. The effect of heavy- vs. light-load jump squats on the
AND P. DYHRE-POULSEN. Increased rate of force development
development of strength, power, and speed. J. Strength Cond.
and neural drive of human skeletal muscle following resistance
Res. 16:75–82. 2002.
training. J. Appl. Phyiol. 93:1318–1326. 2002.
23. MCCLEMENTS, L.E. Power relative to strength of leg and thigh
2. ASHLEY, C.D., AND L.W. WEISS. Vertical jump performance and
muscles. Res. Q. 37:71–78. 1966.
selected physiological characteristics of women. J. Strength 24. MECKEL, Y., H. ATTERBOM, A. GRODJINOVSKY, D. BEN-SIRA,
Cond. Res. 8:5–11. 1994. AND A. ROTSTEIN. Physiological characteristics of female 100
3. BAKER, D., AND S. NANCE. The relation between running speed metre sprinters of different performance levels. J. Sports Med.
and measures of strength and power in professional rugby Phys. Fitness 35:169–75. 1995.
league players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 13:230–235. 1999. 25. MORITANI, T., AND H.A. DE VRIES. Neural factors versus hy-
4. BAKER, D., S. NANCE, AND M. MOORE. The load that maximizes pertrophy in the time course of muscle strength gain. Am. J.
the average mechanical power output during jump squats in Phys. Med. 58(3):115–130. 1979.
power-trained athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15:92–97. 2001. 26. MOSS, B.M., P.E. REFSNES, A. ABILDGAARD, K. NICOLAYSEN,
5. BEHM, D.G. Neuromuscular implications and applications of AND J. JENSEN. Effects of maximal effort strength training with
resistance training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 9:264–274. 1995. different loads on dynamic strength, cross-sectional area, load-
6. BLACKBURN, J.R., AND M.C. MORRISSEY. The relationship be- power and load-velocity relationships. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 75:
tween open and closed kinetic chain strength of the lower limb 193–199. 1997.
and jumping performance. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 27: 27. NIEMAN, D.C. Exercise Testing and Prescription. A Health-Re-
430–435. 1998. lated Approach (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003.
7. CAMPOS, G.E., T.J. LUECKE, H.K. WENDELN, K. TOMA, F.C. HAG- 28. SALE, D.G. Neural adaptation to resistance training. Med. Sci.
ERMAN, T.F. MURRAY, K.E. RAGG, N.A. RATAMESS, W.J. KRAEMER, Sports Exerc. 20:S135–S143. 1988.
AND R.S. STARON. Muscular adatptation in response to three dif- 29. SAYERS, S.P., D.V. HARACKIEWICZ, E.A. HARMAN, P.N. FRYK-
ferent resistance-training regimens: Specificity of repetition max- MAN, AND M.T. ROSENSTEIN. Cross-validation of three jump
imum training zones. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 88:50–60. 2002. power equations. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 31:572–577. 1999.
8. CARLOCK, J.M., S.L. SMITH, M.J. HARTMAN, R.T. MORRIS, D.A. 30. SCHANTZ, P. Capillary supply in heavy-resistance trained non-
CIROSLAN, K.C. PIERCE, R.U. NEWTON, E.A. HARMAN, W.A. postural human skeletal muscle. Acta Physiol. Scand. 117:153–
SANDS, AND M.H. STONE. The relationship between vertical 155. 1983.
31. SCHIMIDTBLEICHER, D. Training for power events. In: Strength
jump power estimates and weightlifting ability: A field-test ap-
and Power in Sports. P.V. Komi, ed. London: Blackwell Scien-
proach. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18:534–539. 2004.
tific Publications, 1992. pp. 381–395.
9. COSTILL, D.L., S.J. MILLER, W.C. MYERS, F.M. KEHOE, AND
32. SEYFARTH, A., R. BLICKHAN, AND J.L. VAN LEEUWEN. Optimum
W.M. HOFFMAN. Relationship among selected tests of explosive take-off techniques and muscle design for the long jump. J.
leg strength and power. Res. Q. 39:785–787. 1968. Exp. Biol. 203:741–750. 2000.
10. CRONIN, J.B., AND K.T. HANSEN. Strength and power predictors 33. SIEGEL, J.A., R.M. GILDERS, R.S. STARON, AND F.C. HAGERMAN.
of sports speed. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19:349–357. 2005. Human muscle power output during upper- and lower-body ex-
11. CRONIN, J.B., P.J. MCNAIR, AND R.N. MARSHALL. The role of ercises. J. Strength Cond. Res. 16:173–178. 2002.
maximal strength and load on initial power production. Med. 34. STARON, R.S., D.L. KARAPONDO, W.J. KRAEMER, A.C. FRY, S.E.
Sci. Sport Exerc. 3:1763–1769. 2000. GORDON, J.E. FALKEL, F.C. HAGERMAN, AND R.S. HIKIDA. Skel-
12. CURETON, K.J., M.A. COLLINS, D.W. HILL, AND F.M. MC- etal muscle adaptations during early phase of heavy-resistance
ELHANNON. Muscle hypertrophy in men and women. Med. Sci. training in men and women. J. Appl. Physiol. 76:1247–1255.
Sports Exerc. 20:338–344. 1988. 1994.
13. DUGAN, E.L., T.L. DOYLE, B. HUMPHRIES, C.J. HASSON, AND 35. STONE, M.H., H.S. O’BRYANT, L. MCCOY, R. COGLIANESE, M.
R.U. NEWTON. Determining the optimal load for jump squats: LEHMKUHL, AND B. SCHILLING. Power and maximum strength
A review of methods and calculations. J. Strength Cond. Res. relationships during performance of dynamic and static
18:668–674. 2004. weighted jumps. J. Strength Cond. Res. 17:140–147. 2003.
14. FLECK, S.J., AND W.J. KRAEMER. Designing Resistance Train- 36. STONE, M.H., W.A. SANDS, K.C. PIERCE, J. CARLOCK, M. CAR-
ing Programs (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2004. DINALE, AND R. NEWTON. Relationship of maximum strength
15. FRY, A.C., AND W.J. KRAEMER. Physical performance charac- to weightlifting performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 37:1037–
teristics of American collegiate football players. J. Appl. Sports 1043. 2005.
Sci. Res. 5:126–138. 1991. 37. THOMAS, M., A. FIATARON, AND R.A. FIELDING. Leg power in
16. GRAVETTER, F.J., AND L.B. WALLNAU. Statistics for the Behav- young women: relationship to body composition, strength and
ioral Sciences (5th ed.). Belmont, MA: Wadsworth Thompson function. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 28:1321–1326. 1996.
38. TWIST, P. Lighting quickness. In: High-Performance Sports
Learning, 2000.
Conditioning. B. Foran, ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
17. HAFF, G.G., M.H. STONE, H.S. O’BRYANT, C.M. PROULX, AND
2001. pp. 99–119.
R.L. JOHNSON. Short term performance effects of high speed, 39. WEYAND, P.G., D.B. STERNLIGHT, M.J. BELLIZZI, AND S.
high force or combined weigh training. J. Strength Cond. Res. WRIGHT. Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater
11:269–272. 1997. ground forces not more rapid leg movements. J. Appl. Physiol.
18. HARMAN, E., J. GARHAMMER, AND C. PANDORF. Administration, 89:1991–1999. 2000.
scoring, and interpretation of selected tests. In: NSCA’s Essen- 40. WISLøFF, U., C. CASTAGNA, J. HELGERUD, R. JONES, AND J.
tials of Strength Training and Conditioning (2nd ed.). T.R. Bae- HOFF. Strong correlation of maximal squat strength with
chle and R.W. Earle, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, sprint performance and vertical jump height in elite soccer
2000. pp. 287–318. players. Br. J. Sports Med. 38:285–288. 2004.
19. KAWAMORI, N., AND G.G. HAFF. The optimal training load for
the development of muscular power. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18: Address correspondence to Mark D. Peterson,
675–684. 2004. [email protected].