Scaling maximum oxygen uptake using lower leg muscle volume provides further insight into the pitfalls of whole body-mass power laws.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Adult↗
Biomedical subjects
Goran Markovic
Publications and source records attributed to Goran Markovic.
Scaling of muscle power to body size: the effect of stretch-shortening cycle.
The present study investigates the relationship between muscle power recorded in vertical jumps and body size, and explores possible differences in this relationship between the concentric (CON) and stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) muscle action. Physical education students (N = 159) were tested with the performance of various CON and SSC maximum vertical jumps. The relationship between muscle power (P) and body size (S) was assessed by P=aS(b) where a and b were the constant multiplayer and scaling exponent, respectively. With respect to body mass and fat-free mass, the scaling exponents b for mean muscle power (calculated from the ground reaction force) in CON and SSC jumps were within the range 0.69-0.82 and 0.90-1.15, respectively. With respect to body height, the scaling exponent was higher (0.76-0.97 and 1.23-1.79, respectively), but the observed relationship proved to be relatively weak. However, when jump height was used as an index of muscle power, the same exponents were close to zero (suggesting no relationship with any of the indices of body size) in all the jumps except an SSC based hopping jump that demonstrated a weak but positive relation to body size. In conclusion, muscle power could scale to body size at a higher rate than predicted by geometric similarity (i.e. b = 0.67), while larger individuals could gain more when switching from CON to SSC muscle action. These findings could be based on a non-geometric scaling of transversal with respect to longitudinal dimensions and/or on different scaling rates of muscles and tendons.
Adolescent↗
Normalizing physical performance tests for body size: a proposal for standardization.
There is a lack of standardized methodology for normalizing various indices of muscle strength and movement performance tests for differences in body size in human movement-related disciplines. Most of the data presented in the literature have been body size dependent, which precludes both comparisons between subjects and establishment of standards for specific subject populations. The goal of the present review was to propose standardized tests that normalize physical performance tests to body size. Specifically, we propose (a) using an allometric normalization based on theoretical models that presume geometric similarity, (b) using classification of performance tests based on particular values of the allometric parameters required for normalization, and (c) using a simple "performance index" that represents an individual or group performance relative to a reference population. Correspondences between theory and experimental findings and limitations are discussed.
Body Size↗
Movement performance and body size: the relationship for different groups of tests.
It has been shown that inconsistently applied normalization for body size could be an important methodological problem in testing physical performance in areas such as sports, physical education, ergonomy, or physical medicine and rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to evaluate a part of the recently proposed classification of physical performance tests (Jaric 2003) based on the role of body size in the tested performance. Presuming a normalization method P(n)= P/ S(b) based on an allometric relationship between the tested performance P and a selected index of body size S (P(n) performance normalized for body size; b allometric parameter), we specifically hypothesized that: (1) the tests of exertion of external force (e.g., lifting weight, pushing, pulling), (2) tests of rapid movements (jumping, sprinting, kicking) and (3) tests of supporting body weight (chin-ups, squats) would reveal the values of the allometric parameters b=0.67, b=0 and b=-0.33 when body size is expressed as body mass, or b=2, b=0 and b=-1 when body size is expressed as body height, respectively. Male physical education students (n=77) were tested on 18 standard physical performance tests belonging to the aforementioned three groups. The obtained values of the allometric parameters proved to be closely in line with the hypothesized ones. While the finding regarding the tests of exertion of external force (i.e., the tested force should be divided by m(0.67) in order to normalize the force for body size) have been already demonstrated by some authors, the findings related to the tests of rapid movements and, particularly, tests of supporting body weight are novel. Although the normalization methods discussed need further evaluation, a more accurate and consistently applied assessment of the body size-independent indices of the evaluated groups of standard tests could improve the methodology of physical performance testing in general.
Adolescent↗
Reliability and factorial validity of squat and countermovement jump tests.
The primary aim of this study was to determine reliability and factorial validity of squat (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ) tests. The secondary aim was to compare 3 popular methods for the estimation of vertical jumping height. Physical education students (n = 93) performed 7 explosive power tests: 5 different vertical jumps (Sargent jump, Abalakow's jump with arm swing and without arm swing, SJ, and CMJ) and 2 horizontal jumps (standing long jump and standing triple jump). The greatest reliability among all jumping tests (Cronbach's alpha = 0.97 and 0.98) had SJ and CMJ. The reliability alpha coefficients for other jumps were also high and varied between 0.93 and 0.96. Within-subject variation (CV) in jumping tests ranged between 2.4 and 4.6%, the values being lowest in both horizontal jumps and CMJ. Factor analysis resulted in the extraction of only 1 significant principal component, which explained 66.43% of the variance of all 7 jumping tests. Since all jumping tests had high correlation coefficients with the principal component (r = 0.76-0.87), it was interpreted as the explosive power factor. The CMJ test showed the highest relationship with the explosive power factor (r = 0.87), that is, the greatest factorial validity. Other jumping tests had lower but relatively homogeneous correlation with the explosive power factor extracted. Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that CMJ and SJ, measured by means of contact mat and digital timer, are the most reliable and valid field tests for the estimation of explosive power of the lower limbs in physically active men.
Adult↗