Laboratory Manual for Strength and

Conditioning

The Laboratory Manual for Strength and Conditioning is a comprehensive text that
provides students with meaningful lab experiences in the area of strength and condi-
tioning and applied sport science. While each lab may be conducted in a sophisticated
laboratory, there are opportunities to conduct the labs in a gym or field environment
without costly equipment. It is a useful resource as students prepare for a career as a
strength and conditioning coach, athletic trainer, physical therapist, or personal trainer.
The Laboratory Manual for Strength and Conditioning is designed to be a practi-
cal guide for training students and professionals in the skills to be applied to strength
and conditioning. The labs cover seven major aspects of strength and conditioning
including speed, power, flexibility, agility, and fitness. The labs are practical and easy
to follow with sample calculations, data tables, and worksheets to complete. Each
includes suggested tasks/activities to apply the theory to real-world applications.
Students will explore assessments of strength, aerobic capacity, power output,
speed, change of direction, and muscular endurance, and gain understanding in the
following areas:

• Definitions of commonly used terms within the area of exploration, as well as

commonly misused terms
• Assessing performance (i.e., power, strength, speed, etc.)
• Understanding laboratory- and field-based techniques for specific athlete
populations
• Describing optimal methods for testing in all aspects of physical performance
• Evaluation of test results based upon sport and/or athlete normative data

The lab manual is a valuable resource for strength coaches, personal trainers, kine-
siology students, and educators at the undergraduate and beginning graduate-level
programs and can be used in a graduate strength and conditioning course.

Joshua Miller, DHSc, CSCS, ACSM-EP, is a Clinical Associate Professor and Director
of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition at the Uni-
versity of Illinois Chicago.

Paul Comfort, PhD, ASCC, CSCS*D, is a Professor of Strength and Conditioning and
programme leader for the MSc Strength and Conditioning at the University of Salford,
UK and an adjunct professor at Edith Cowan University, Western Australia.

John McMahon, CSCS*D, ASCC, is a Reader (Associate Professor) in Sport and Exer-
cise Biomechanics at the University of Salford, UK.
Laboratory Manual for
Strength and Conditioning

Joshua Miller, Paul Comfort,

and John McMahon
Designed cover image: Dmytro Aksonov / Getty Images
First published 2023
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa
business
© 2023 Joshua Miller, Paul Comfort, and John McMahon
The right of Joshua Miller, Paul Comfort, and John McMahon to be
identified as authors of this work has been asserted in accordance
with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.

ISBN: 978-1-032-03328-0 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-032-03325-9 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-18676-2 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003186762

Typeset in Sabon LT Std

by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.
Contents

List of Figuresvii
List of Tablesx

1 Pre-Participation Health Screening, Medical Clearance,

and Informed Consent 1
JOSHUA MILLER

2 Athlete Needs Analysis 13

PAUL COMFORT AND JOHN McMAHON

3 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility 25

JOSHUA MILLER

4 Statistical Analysis and Test Administration 52

JOHN McMAHON, JOSHUA MILLER, AND PAUL COMFORT

5 Body Composition 61
JOSHUA MILLER

6 Muscular Strength 90
PAUL COMFORT AND JOHN McMAHON

7 Muscular Power 109

JOHN McMAHON AND PAUL COMFORT

8 Muscular Endurance 122

PAUL COMFORT AND JOHN McMAHON

9 Anaerobic Capacity 133

JOSHUA MILLER

10 Aerobic Capacity Testing 148

JOSHUA MILLER
vi Contents
11 Speed 173
JOHN McMAHON AND PAUL COMFORT

12 Change of Direction Performance 182

PAUL COMFORT AND JOHN McMAHON

Index 191
Figures

1.1 Example of an informed consent document.  2

1.2 The Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q+)
for Everyone. (Reprinted with permission from the PAR-Q+
Collaboration (www.eparmedx.com) and the authors of the PAR-Q+
[Dr. Darren Warburton, Dr. Norman Gledhill, Dr. Veronica Jamnik,
Dr. Roy Shephard, and Dr. Shannon Bredin].) 5
1.3 Example of a medical health history questionnaire. 10
2.1 Considerations for the selection of physical performance tests. 15
3.1 Examples of the different scores for the deep squat ranging
between 1 and 3. 29
3.2 Examples of the different scores for the hurdle step. 30
3.3 Examples of the different scores for the in-line lunge. 31
3.4 Examples of the different scores for the ankle clearing test. 32
3.5 Examples of the different scores for the shoulder mobility test. 33
3.6 Example of the shoulder mobility clearing test. 34
3.7 Examples of the different scores for the active-straight leg raise. 35
3.8 Examples of the different scores for the trunk stability push-up test. 36
3.9 Example of the trunk stability push-up clearing test. 36
3.10 Examples of the different scores for the trunk stability push-up test. 37
3.11 Example of the rotary stability clearing test. 38
3.12 Example of the scoring table for the Functional Movement Screen test. 39
3.13 Example of the scoring table for clearing test. 43
3.14 A goniometer, including the body axis or fulcrum, a stabilization arm,
and movement. 44
3.15 Example of the scoring table for the Sit-and-Reach test. 47
4.1 Example of excellent (left panel), moderate (middle panel), and poor
(right panel) test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) results
according to the lower bound 95% confidence interval (CI) which is
highlighted in bold text. The jump height data (in cm) used to create
each figure is shown below them. 54
4.2 An example of how to calculate absolute reliability in Microsoft
Excel with formulae shown. JH = jump height; SD = standard
deviation; Diffs = differences; SEM = standard error or
measurement; CI = confidence interval; CV = coefficient of
variation; MDC = minimal detectible change. 55
5.1 Two-, three-, and four-compartment body composition models. 62
viii Figures
5.2 (a) and (b) Example of an underwater weighing tank, and individual
being submerged. (Photos courtesy of Jeff Tesch, ExerTech.) 63
5.3 Bod Pod GS-X. (Courtesy of COSMED, USA. From https://www.
cosmed.com/hires/Bodpod_GS-X_Brochure_A3_4pages_C05140-
02-93_EN_print.pdf.)68
5.4 Bod Pod device schematic, including visualization of diaphragm
perturbations utilized to determine body volume of the participant
in the measurement chamber. (Courtesy of COSMED, USA. Schematic
from http://www.cosmed.com/hires/marketing_literature/product_
news/Product_News_Air_Displacement_EN_print.pdf.)69
5.5 Example of a printout from the Bod Pod. (Courtesy of the UIC
Human Performance Laboratory.) 71
5.6 Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) device, GE lunar
prodigy series. (Photo taken at the University of Illinois Chicago
Integrative Physiology Laboratory, Chicago, IL.) 72
5.7 Example of a printout-form DEXA device for body composition.
(Courtesy of the UIC Human Performance Laboratory.) 74
5.8 Example of a stadiometer by SECA. 75
5.9 Different skinfold callipers for the measurement of skinfolds.
(Photos courtesy by Kelley Altom, MS.) 76
5.10 Bioelectric impedance analysis using the RJL Systems device. 80
6.1 Relationships between isometric mid-thigh (IMTP) pull peak force
and performance in other tasks. (Adapted from Comfort et al.,
2019a].)92
6.2 Illustration of identification of force at 100 ms and 200 ms, which
can be used to calculate mean RFD across specific epochs. 92
6.3 Example posture for the IMTP (upright trunk = 5–10° forward lean,
resulting in a hip angle of 140–150°; dorsiflexed ankle; knee angle of
125–140°; representing the start of the second pull of a clean). 94
6.4 Standardized IMTP Testing Procedure. (Adapted from Comfort et al.,
2019a].)95
6.5 Acceptable force-time data, including at least one second of quiet
standing that represents body weight, no countermovement and peak
force occurring within two seconds of the start of force production. 96
6.6 Illustration of why mean RFD should not be calculated from the onset
of force production to the peak force, as the mean RFD slope is not
representative of the slope of the force-time curve. 96
6.7 Standardized traditional isometric squat testing procedure. 98
6.8 Standardized “explosive” isometric squat testing procedure. 99
6.9 Example flow diagram of 5 repetitions’ maximum testing. 100
7.1 An illustration of where peak power occurs during the
countermovement jump. The portion of the power-time curve
underneath the braces associated with the downward and upward
arrows denotes the countermovement (negative power values) and
propulsion (positive power values) phases, respectively. 111
7.2 A representative countermovement jump force-time curve collected
via a force plate. 113
 Figures ix
7.3 The countermovement jump power-time curves (absolute power
shown in top graph and relative power shown in bottom graph)
of two senior male professional rugby league players (both forwards;
athlete 1 = black line; athlete 2 = grey line). 116
7.4 The countermovement jump power-time curves (absolute power
shown in top graph and relative power shown in bottom graph) for a
senior female professional soccer player before (black line) and after
(grey line) a 15-week-long power-focussed training programme. 118
8.1 Push-up test sequence, (a) represents the start and finish position
of a repetition, and (b) represents the mid-point of the repetition. 124
8.2 Modified push-up test sequence, (a) represents the start and finish
position of a repetition, and (b) represents the mid-point of the
repetition.125
8.3 Standardized protocol for the pull-up endurance test. 126
8.4 Curl-up test sequence, (a) represents the start and finish positions
of a repetition, (b) represents the mid-point of the repetition. 128
8.5 Standardized sequence for the NFL-225 test. 130
9.1 Plot of VO2-power output relationship with linear equation. 136
9.2 Graphic representation of the Wingate test. 139
9.3 Margaria-Kalamen Step test illustration. 142
9.4 Wingate test data sheet.  144
9.5 Margaria-Kalamen step data sheet. 145
10.1 Example of COSMED Quark CPET metabolic cart. 151
10.2 A graphic representation of blood lactate collection during the
different stages of treadmill running. LT – lactate threshold;
LTP/RCP – lactate turnpoint/respiratory compensation point. 153
10.3 V-slope method for determination of ventilatory threshold. 155
10.4 Ventilatory equivalents for oxygen and carbon dioxide. This data is
from a healthy male athlete. 156
10.5 Anaerobic threshold determination using V-Slope method for
case study. 160
12.1 Comparison of the traditional and modified 505 change of direction
tests.184
12.2 Subdivision of the modified 505 change of direction test to provide
additional phase-specific information as suggested by Ryan et al.
(2022a, 2022b). 184
12.3 T-test set-up. 187
12.4 L-Run (a.k.a. 3 cone drill) sequence. The athlete performing
a shuttle run between cones 1 and 2, touching the cone 2 line
with their left hand prior to returning to cone 1, then sprints back
to and around cone 2 in a clockwise fashion, with the cone on their
right side, then counter-clock-wise around cone 3 with the cone on
their left side, back around cone 2 with the cone on their left and
finally back across the line at cone 1 to finish. Performance is
evaluated based on time to completion. 188
Tables

2.1 Example assessment methods for evaluating different force

production characteristics. 15
2.2 A comparison of T-score, z-score, standard ten and percentile values. 17
2.3 Commonly reported physical characteristics of elite female soccer
players, from published data. 18
2.4 Athlete characteristics – case study 1. 19
2.5 Commonly reported physical characteristics of collegiate and
professional basketball players, from published data. 20
2.6 Athlete characteristics – case study 2. 21
3.1 Scoring criteria for deep squat test. 28
3.2 Scoring criteria for the Hurdle Step test. 29
3.3 Scoring criteria for the in-line lunge. 30
3.4 Scoring criteria for the ankle clearing test. 31
3.5 Scoring criteria for the shoulder mobility test. 33
3.6 Scoring criteria for the active straight leg test. 34
3.7 Scoring criteria for the Trunk Stability Push-up test. 35
3.8 Scoring criteria for the trunk stability push-up test. 37
3.9 Average range of motion (ROM) for different joints in healthy adults. 45
3.10 Age-gender norms for the standard sit-and-reach test. 45
3.11 Percentile ranks for the modified sit-and-reach test in females. 48
3.12 Percentile ranks for the modified sit-and-reach test in males. 48
3.13 Mean and standard deviation of the Sit-and-Reach test in athletes. 49
5.1 Regression equations to estimate residual volume. 64
5.2 Population-specific formulas for converting body density to percent
body fat. 65
5.3 Density of water at various temperatures. 65
5.4 Body fat percentage categories for males and females. 67
5.5 Body composition characteristics of athletes. 67
5.6 Body mass index categories. 77
5.7 Skinfold prediction equations. 78
5.8 Bioelectric impedance analysis population-specific equations. 81
5.9 Skinfold site locations. 82
6.1 Recommendations for interpretation of relative peak force categories. 97
6.2 Comparison of force-time characteristics between methods of
isometric squat testing. 99
6.3 Recommended relative strength categories. 103
 Tables xi
7.1 Select countermovement jump variables derived from a force
plate for two senior male professional rugby league players (both
forwards) and the position average (Avg.) and standard deviation
(SD) values. 115
7.2 Select countermovement jump variables derived from a force plate
for a senior female professional soccer player before and after a
fifteen-week-long power-focussed training programme. 117
8.1 Percentiles for push-up performance.  125
8.2 Percentiles for 90° push-up performance for adolescents. 126
8.3 Percentiles for pull-up performance. 127
9.1 Values of the VO2-power output relationship (cycling). 136
9.2 O2 uptake values obtained during 120% of peak power output test. 137
9.3 The optimal load for the Wingate test in males and females. 138
9.4 The optimal load for the Wingate test in male and female athletes. 139
9.5 Time representation of the Wingate test. 140
9.6 Examples of PP and MP for specific sport populations as well as
male and female. 140
9.7 Category for peak and mean anaerobic power and fatigue index
for men and women. 141
9.8 Normative values for the Margaria-Kalamen stair step sprint test. 143
10.1 General classification of running economy expressed as the VO2
cost of running a specific speed and the O2 cost of running a
specific distance. 154
10.2 General classifications of VO2max relative to body mass (ml/kg−1/min−1)
at a variety of levels of performance for male and female athletes. 154
10.3 Prediction equations for cardiorespiratory field tests. 158
10.4 Men’s and women’s aerobic fitness classifications based upon age
and relative VO2. 159
10.5 Data collection for a case study. 159
11.1 Sprint times, split distances, and speeds of male 100-m sprinters. 177
11.2 Sprint time, speed, and acceleration of male youth rugby players. 178
11.3 Sprint time, speed, and momentum of international female rugby
league players comprised of backs (top half) and forwards
(bottom half). 179
12.1 Comparison of a selection of common change of direction tests. 183
12.2 Example normative data for the traditional 505 and 505 deficit
for a range of sports. 185
12.3 Example normative data for the modified 505 test for a range
of sports.  186
12.4 Changes in physical characteristics of a rugby union player
over two phases of training. 189
Taylor & Francis
Taylor & Francis Group
http://taylorandfrancis.com
1 Pre-Participation Health Screening,
Medical Clearance, and Informed Consent
Joshua Miller

Part 1: Introduction
Pre-participation screening is necessary to be performed prior to conducting any type
of exercise training or testing because it is essential to determine if there are any med-
ical contraindications to exercise, with risk factors, and special needs. The American
College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) (ACSM, 2020) and the National Strength and
Conditioning Association (NSCA) (Evetovich and Hinnerichs, 2012) recommend
that all individuals complete a pre-participation screening. The goal of the screen is
multifactorial: (1) to determine whether an individual has any medical condition that
contraindicates performing certain fitness-related assessments, (2) to determine if an
individual should have a medical evaluation before undergoing a fitness assessment
and consult a physician, and (3) to determine if the participant has other health or
medical concerns (i.e., orthopaedic limitations, diabetes, etc.).
The three components of the pre-participation screening include: (a) an informed
consent, (b) an exercise pre-participation health screening, and (c) a medical health
history (Gibson et al., 2019). This information will be used to determine if medi-
cal clearance should be obtained prior to performing any screening tests or exercise
training. These documents are essential to determine the individual’s current health
status and the possible need for medical clearance by a physician or therapist and
making sure the individual understands what will be asked of them during their par-
ticipation in the exercise testing.

Informed Consent for Exercise Testing

The informed consent should be obtained first when working with a new participant
(Liguori, 2018). Obtaining informed consent from a participant is an important ethical
and legal consideration and should be completed prior to any collection of any personal
and confidential information, any fitness testing, or exercise training. Each informed
consent document may be different from one another based upon the type of testing
that will be completed, the information that must be present in the informed consent
should make sure that the participant understands the purpose and risks associated
with screening, testing, and exercise programming. The consent form should be ver-
bally explained, and the participant should be given the opportunity to ask as many
questions they have and to be answered completely as possible prior to signing the
document. It is important to document any questions the participant may have as well
as the answers given. The consent should state that the participant is free to withdraw
their consent at any time. In addition, all necessary steps will be taken for confiden-
tiality of the participant. A sample informed consent is provided in Figure 1.1. It is

DOI: 10.4324/9781003186762-1
2 Pre-Participation Health Screening

Figure 1.1 Example of an informed consent document. (Continued)

 Pre-Participation Health Screening 3

Figure 1.1 (Continued)

4 Pre-Participation Health Screening
suggested to have the informed consent reviewed by legal counsel. If the individual is
an adolescent (< 18 years), a parent or guardian must sign in addition to the individual.
Most informed consent forms should include a statement about “emergency pro-
cedures.” The personnel should be appropriately trained and authorized to carry out
emergency procedures that use specific equipment. Written emergency procedures
should be in place, and emergency drills should be practised at least once every
3 months, or more frequently when there is a change in staff (American College of
Sports Medicine, 2018).

Procedures for Informed Consent

1 Begin administrating the Informed Consent by instructing the individual to read
the document in its entirety.
2 Upon completion and prior to signing, review the document with the individual
by verbally highlighting the benefits and risks associated with each test described
for complete understanding.
3 Ask if he or she has any questions that they would like to answer for a particular test.
4 Upon answering all questions, ask them to sign the document. If they are an ado-
lescent (< 18 years), ask he or she to do so and then ask their parents or guardians
to sign below the signature.

Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire for Everyone

The Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q+) (http://eparamedix.com/)
was developed in Canada. It consists of a questionnaire that requires the partici-
pant to self-recall signs and symptoms that they may have or currently experience
(Warburton et al., 2011). The PAR-Q+ is a widely recognized valid tool that is a safe
pre-screening questionnaire for those individuals that will undertake low- to moderate-
intensity exercise (Warburton et al., 2019). The seven questions are in a yes-or-no
response format that are easy to understand and answer. Additionally, the PAR-Q+
has ten follow-up questions that are asked to follow-up on any of the “Yes” responses
to the initial seven questions. If the individual answers “Yes” to any of the follow-up
questions, he or she should be referred for medical clearance prior to testing. The
questions should be followed up with the participant to make sure all questions are
answered accurately and, if necessary, to ask any follow-up questions. A sample PAR-
Q+ is provided in Figure 1.2.
The advantages to a PAR-Q+ are that this tool is cost effective, easy to adminis-
ter, and sensitive to identify participants that may require physician clearance while
not excluding those participants that would benefit from low-intensity activities
(Warburton et al., 2011). There is a limitation to the use of the PAR-Q+ in that it only
determines safety from exercise, but not risk of cardiovascular disease (Evetovich and
Hinnerichs, 2012). Therefore, a medical health history questionnaire is completed in
order to have a complete picture of the participant.

Procedures for PAR-Q+

1 Begin administrating the PAR-Q+ by instructing the individual to complete the
first seven questions.
 Pre-Participation Health Screening 5

Figure 1.2 T
 he Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q+) for Everyone. (Reprinted
with permission from the PAR-Q+ Collaboration (www.eparmedx.com) and
the authors of the PAR-Q+ [Dr. Darren Warburton, Dr. Norman Gledhill,
Dr. Veronica Jamnik, Dr. Roy Shephard, and Dr. Shannon Bredin].) (Continued)
6 Pre-Participation Health Screening

Figure 1.2 (Continued)

 Pre-Participation Health Screening 7

Figure 1.2 (Continued)

8 Pre-Participation Health Screening

Figure 1.2 (Continued)

 Pre-Participation Health Screening 9
2 If the participant answers “Yes” to one or more of the questions, instruct him or
her to complete the additional ten follow-up questions. Upon review, instruct the
individuals that they will be referred to their physicians for medical clearance.
3 If the participant answers “No” to the initial seven questions, he or she should be
allowed to perform the exercise testing.

Health History Questionnaire or Medical History Questionnaire

All individuals must complete a health history questionnaire or medical history ques-
tionnaire (Figure 1.3) which includes questions that pertain to personal and family
health history. The questionnaire should address the following questions:

• Personal illnesses, medications, surgeries, and hospitalizations

• Previous medical diagnoses and signs and symptoms of disease that are current
or within the previous year, and
• Family history of heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and hypertension (high blood
pressure)

Upon reviewing the responses, focus should be placed on any medical conditions that
may require physician/medical clearance. If any of the responses indicate the need
for physician clearance, make sure this is obtained prior to testing or starting any
exercise training.

Procedures for the Health History Questionnaire

1 Begin administrating the Health History Questionnaire by instructing the indi-
vidual to complete all the general information on the top of the questionnaire and
all sections below.
2 Upon completion, review all questions and if further information is needed, ask
follow-up questions and place their response in the margin of the document. If
determined that the individual can completely perform the exercise testing safely,
continue the pre-screening procedures.

If you determine there are risks that need to be addressed with medical clearance, tell
the individual they will need to obtain medical clearance prior to testing.
Laboratory task: Is your athlete ready for exercise?
Complete all tasks of the pre-participation screening.

1 Administer the PAR-Q+, and Health History Questionnaire to someone in your

class. Based on the results from the questionnaire, could the individual safely per-
form the following types of testing from the following list of types of tests. Place
a check next to the appropriate test the individual could perform.
Body composition testing
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing
Muscular strength and endurance
Flexibility
Unable to perform, must obtain medical clearance prior to testing
10 Pre-Participation Health Screening

Figure 1.3 Example of a medical health history questionnaire. (Continued)

 Pre-Participation Health Screening 11

Figure 1.3 (Continued)

12 Pre-Participation Health Screening
2 Administer the Informed Consent to the same individual that you completed
question 1 in the activities. Properly describe and explain the tests that individual
is able to perform based upon the PAR-Q+ and Health History Questionnaire.
Body composition testing
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing
Muscular strength and endurance
Flexibility
Unable to perform, must obtain medical clearance prior to testing
3 Complete the PAR-Q+ and Health History Questionnaire on yourself. Based
upon the results, determine which types of tests are you able to complete or must
obtain medical clearance.

References
American College of Sports Medicine. 2018. Emergency planning and policies. In: Sanders,
M. E. (ed). ACSM’s Health/Fitness Facility Standards and Guidelines. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Evetovich, T. K. & Hinnerichs, K. R. 2012. Client consultation and health appraisal. In:
Coburn, J. W. & Malek, M. H. (eds). NSCA’s Essentials of Personal Training, 2nd ed.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Gibson, A. L., Wagner, D. R. & Heyward, V. H. 2019. Physical activity, health, and chronic
disease. In: Advanced Fitness Assessment and Exercise Prescription. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Liguori, G. 2018. ACSM’s Health-Related Physical Fitness Assessment Manual. Baltimore,
MD:Wolters Kluwer.
Warburton, D., Jamnik, V., Bredin, S., Shephard, R. & Gledhill, N. 2019. The 2020 physi-
cal activity readiness questionnaire for everyone (PAR-Q+) and electronic physical activity
readiness medical examination (ePARmed-X+). HFJC, 12(4), 58–61.
Warburton, D. E. R., Gledhill, N., Bredin, S. S. D., Mckenzie, D. C., Charlesworth, S. &
Shephard, R. J. 2011. The physical activity readiness questionnaire for everyone (PAR-Q+)
and electronic physical activity readiness medical examination (ePARmed-X+): Summary of
consensus panel recommendations. HFJC, 4, 26–37.
Warburton, D., Jamnik, V. & Bredin, S., et al. 2011. Evidence-based risk assessment and rec-
ommendations for physical activity clearance: An introduction. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab,
36 (Suppl 1), S1–2.
2 Athlete Needs Analysis
Paul Comfort and John McMahon

Part 1: Introduction
A needs analysis consists of two key components: the identification of the demands of
the sport followed by the evaluation of the athlete(s), with the latter used to determine
if their physical characteristics meet the required demands of the sport and subse-
quently identify short-term and long-term training goals. It is worth noting that some
important points need to be considered when determining these physical characteris-
tics, including age, sex, and level of competition. For team sports, differences in style
of play and fixture schedules may also need to be considered, with further considera-
tions for the differences in competition demands if the athlete competes domestically
and for a national team where the demands notably increase. Such considerations
help to ensure that the comparisons drawn are fair and appropriate so that the athlete
is appropriately prepared for competition.
It is important to note that most published normative data include means and
standard deviations alone, which do not reflect any extremes in performance. For
example, when considering the total match distances covered in elite female soccer,
Trewin et al. (2018) reported a squad average of 10,368 ± 952 m; however, based on
these data, the maximum distance could be ~12,272 m and the minimum distance
could be ~8,464 m, with this difference exceeding the smallest worthwhile change
(1.8%) that has been reported for this metric. The differences in average total match
distance between positions within soccer were also greater than the smallest worth-
while change, highlighting the importance of considering the position that the athlete
plays. It is also recommended that, where possible, the strength and conditioning
coach consider the “normal” distance, volume of high-speed running, number of
sprints, etc., for the individual athlete, based on their own data.
Total distance covered and total relative distance (relative to time) covered are
the two most common match variables reported for soccer (Miguel et al., 2021).
It should be noted, however, that relative distance (distance/time played) is actu-
ally average speed and really should be referred to as such. While the total distance
and average heart rate are important when considering the aerobic demands of the
sport, the activities which make up this distance (e.g., accelerations, decelerations,
changes of direction, and repeated high-intensity efforts) are also extremely impor-
tant to understand when considering the overall demands of the sport and the physi-
cal characteristics of the athlete. To put this in context, average heart rate in a game
of soccer is usually reported to be ~85% maximum heart rate, but when an average
of 12 km is covered over a 90-minute duration, this results in an average speed of

DOI: 10.4324/9781003186762-2
14 Athlete Needs Analysis
8 km ⋅ hr−1, which in well-trained athletes would not result in such high heart rates. It
is the fact that there are multiple accelerations, decelerations, and changes of direc-
tion that elicit such high heart rates, and during some periods of repeated high-intensity
activities, athletes will experience near-maximal heart rates.

Needs Analysis of the Sport

Initially it is important to determine the key performance indicator(s) (KPIs) for the
sport. For some sports, where the performance outcome is based on time, distance, or
weight lifted, the KPIs may be easier to determine. In such examples, it may be pos-
sible to develop a deterministic model to predict such outcomes, with additional con-
sideration of how such performance outcomes are likely to change over time, based
on previous national and world records. This is especially important for Olympic
sports where quadrennial planning for the next Olympic Games is commonplace.
In sports where athletes are subjectively scored (e.g., figure skating, gymnastics,
and surfing), determining performance outcomes becomes more difficult; however,
if additional rotations in a task enhance the skill requirement/difficulty, then deter-
mining the requirements of the specific tasks is possible, which can then aid in the
development of physical training priorities, as demonstrated in surfing (Secomb et al.,
2015; Tran et al., 2015; Parsonage et al., 2017). For example, if a surfer can increase
the height that they jump during skilled tasks, this results in additional time for
increased rotations, which increases the difficulty of the task and therefore the asso-
ciated score, as long as the style/technique is not compromised.
In team sports, due to the complex interaction between players, teams, environment,
etc., the approach used to identify the requirements of the sport is usually based on
the physical demands of the sport, which is usually based on the movement demands
(usually derived via Global Positioning System [GPS], accelerometry, and time motion
capture) and ideally heart rate data during competition. Such data commonly includes
total distance covered, mean and peak heart rate, number of accelerations and decelera-
tions, and changes of direction (some consideration may be given to the common angles
of change of direction as this increases the demands of the task), and average sprint
distance, along with distance covered at specific velocities (these can be expressed as
arbitrary values or relative to the athlete’s maximum speed). One should be mindful
that exact data varies between certain sports, for example, field- vs. court-based sports
and that the sampling frequency of accelerometers and GPS will affect the accuracy
of the data especially for short-duration events (Portas et al., 2010; Scott et al., 2016;
Huggins et al., 2020). In collision sports (e.g., rugby union, rugby league, and football),
the number of impacts/collisions/tackles and the magnitude of these events may also
be reported, as such actions affect recovery times post game and the requirement for
additional body mass (Austin et al., 2011; Mclellan et al., 2011; Mclellan and Lovell,
2012; Mclellan and Lovell, 2013; Fullagar et al., 2017; Colomer et al., 2020).

Athlete Needs Analysis

A battery of assessments to reliably evaluate the athletes’ physical characteristics is
usually required to evaluate the athletes’ physical capability in relation to the demands
of the sport. Such testing batteries usually include assessment of aerobic capacity,
force production characteristics, and objective assessments of sport-specific tasks, for
example, in field-based sports, this may include short-sprint performance (e.g., 5-,
 Athlete Needs Analysis 15
Table 2.1 Example assessment methods for evaluating different force production characteristics.

Force production Maximum force Ballistic force Reactive force

characteristic production production production

Assessment methods 1 RM Squat jump Drop jump

Isometric mid-thigh pull CMJ Single leg drop jump
Isometric squat Loaded CMJ 10–5 jump test
Force-velocity profiles
Chapter location 6 7 7

1 RM = One Repetition Maximum; CMJ = Countermovement Jump.

10-, 20-, and 40-m sprint times), change of direction performance (e.g., 5-0-5 change
of direction times) and jump performance (e.g., countermovement jump height). Force
production characteristics can be divided into numerous categories (Table 2.1), with
multi-joint isometric assessments also permitting calculation of rapid force produc-
tion (e.g., force at specific time-points [100 ms, 150 ms, 200 ms, and 250 ms] and
rate of force development over specific epochs [0–150 ms, 0–200 ms, and 0–250 ms]).
The selection of relevant tests is usually determined based on four key factors:
(1) the assessment of the characteristics which align with the demands of the sport,
(2) testing methods included in published research to provide benchmarks, (3) the reli-
ability and validity of the methods (see Chapter 4), and (4) the facilities and equip-
ment available (Figure 2.1). If the testing methods are not valid or reliable, or there
is simply no research regarding the validity or reliability of the testing methods (and
you are unable to determine the validity and reliability of the methods for yourself),
it is advisable to select a different testing method. It is also important to consider the
measurement error associated with the testing method and the variables of interest
so that you can determine if observed changes in the future are greater than the asso-
ciated measurement error, especially for individual athlete performances. Validity,
reliability, and measurement error are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.

Figure 2.1 Considerations for the selection of physical performance tests.

16 Athlete Needs Analysis
If normative or benchmark data is available for comparisons to be made, it is impor-
tant to consider if the benchmarks are for a comparable group of athletes, in terms
of level of competition, age, and sex, to ensure that fair comparisons are made. It is
also important to ensure that the methods of assessment and data analyses that were
employed to compile any published normative data reflect those used when assess-
ing your athletes. If using the data for longitudinal planning, then consideration for
older age groups or a higher level of competition may be relevant. However, when
published benchmark data is not available, it may be appropriate to set performance
criteria based on the ranges observed within the squad, in relation to the demands of
the sport and/or positional groups.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Including several fitness tests as part of athlete fitness-testing batteries results in the
accumulation of many different types of data, many with different units of measure-
ment. To overcome the difficulty of presenting several fitness test results to athletes
and coaches, there is a potential benefit of reporting the results in a standardised form
(McMahon et al., 2021). Specifically, the calculation of standardised scores, such as
the z-score, standard ten score, percentiles, or t-score will likely aide the athletes’
understanding of how they have performed for a range of potentially complex fitness
test results. The z-score is commonly reported by many fitness test software manu-
facturers. It tells us how many standard deviations an individual athlete’s test score
is from the mean test score (either the squad mean or a normative data mean). It is
calculated using the following formula (McGuigan et al., 2013; Lockie et al., 2018):

(the individual athlete’s test score − the squad or normative data

z-score = mean [ average ] test score) ÷ the squad or normative data standard
deviation for the test score

One assumption of the z-score calculation is that the squad or normative data mean
and standard deviation values are normally distributed. Another assumption of the
z-score calculation is that the sample size (i.e., number of individual athletes’ data)
from which the squad or normative data mean and standard deviation are derived is
≥30 (Turner et al., 2019). Most z-scores range between –3 and 3 by accounting for
~99.7% of normally distributed values (Turner et al., 2019). T-scores are arguably
more intuitive for most non-statistically trained athletes as they avoid the use of small
and often negative numbers and instead provide a score for each fitness test out of
a maximum of 100 (e.g., a 0–100 scale). T-scores can be easily calculated from the
z-score using the following formula:

T = ( z − score × 10) + 50

Turner et al. (2019) also highlight that t-scores, if preferred to z-scores, can be calcu-
lated directly from any fitness test score by using the following formula:

50 + 10 × ((the individual athlete’s test score − the squad or normative

t-score = data mean [ average ] test score) ÷ the squad or normative data
standard deviation for the test score)
 Athlete Needs Analysis 17
Table 2.2 A comparison of T-score, z-score, standard ten and percentile values.

Description T-Score Z-Score STEN Percentile

Excellent >80 >3.0 >10.0 >99.9

Very Good 70 2.0 9.5 97.7
Good 60 1.0 7.5 84.1
Above Avg. 55 0.5 6.5 69.1
Average (Avg.) 50 0.0 5.5 50.0
Below Avg. 45 −0.5 4.5 30.9
Poor 40 −1.0 2.5 6.7
Very Poor 30 −2.0 0.5 0.6
Extremely Poor <20 <−3.0 0.0 <0.1

Examples of presenting T-scores for a range of performance metrics on a radar chart

with an integrated traffic light system approach have been reported in both a recent
book (McMahon et al., 2022b) and peer-reviewed study McMahon et al. (2022a).
Also, a framework for constructing performance bands from T-scores was recently
proposed which includes suggested qualitative terms to describe the different per-
formance bands (McMahon, 2022, McMahon and Comfort, 2022). The qualitative
descriptions, ranged from extremely poor to excellent, based on the T-score range,
are as follows: <20 (extremely poor), ≥20 to ≤30 (very poor), >30 to ≤40 (poor),
>40 to ≤45 (below average), >45 to ≤55 (average), >55 to ≤60 (above average), >60
to ≤70 (good), >70 to ≤80 (very good), and >80 (excellent) (McMahon, 2022). This
approach, shown in Table 2.2, alongside the corresponding z-score, standard ten, and
percentile values, may be considered by strength and conditioning coaches who wish
to standardise their athlete’s test results and create benchmarks.

Part 2: Example 1 – Women’s Soccer Needs Analysis

Match Demands
Elite female soccer players generally cover ~10 km in a match, although this varies depend-
ing on the position and style of play (Datson et al., 2017; Trewin et al., 2018; Randell
et al., 2021). More important are the actions and activities that collectively make up
the total distance covered, including high-speed running (347–2,917 m), total sprinting
distance (98–850 m), maximal running speed accelerations, and decelerations (Datson
et al., 2014; Randell et al., 2021), with high-intensity running and sprinting making up
~25% of the total distance covered (Vescovi and Favero, 2014), as these may be better
related to successful match outcomes (Randell et al., 2021). The pattern of such high-­
intensity activities is also essential, as the “worst-case scenario,” which constitutes the
most demanding theoretical period of a match based on repeated high-intensity efforts,
has not been described within the literature (Datson et al., 2019; Randell et al., 2021).

Physical Characteristics
Key physical characteristics are presented in Table 2.3. The characteristics repre-
sent some of the commonly conducted tests to evaluate important physical charac-
teristics in elite female soccer. Remember that the mean is simply the average of the
18 Athlete Needs Analysis
Table 2.3 Commonly reported physical characteristics of elite female soccer players, from
published data.

Physical characteristics Range Mean ± standard deviation

Height (m) 1.61–1.70

Body Mass (kg) 56.6–65.1
Body Fat (%) 14.5–22.0
VO2max (ml ⋅ kg−1 ⋅ min−1) 49.8–57.6
Yoyo Intermittent Recovery Test, Level 1 (m) 600–1,960 1,224 ± 255
Yoyo Intermittent Endurance Test, Level 2 (m) 1,774 ± 532
Sprint 5 m (s) 1.14 ± 0.04
Time* 10 m (s) 1.91 ± 0.04
20 m (s) 3.17 ± 0.03
Countermovement Jump Height (cm) 26.1 ± 4.8 to 51.0 ± 5.0
(Commonly reported average
~35 cm)
Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull, Relative Peak Force 28.5 ± 2.2
(N ⋅ kg−1)#

Source: Data obtained from Datson et al. (2014), Randell et al. (2021), and Emmonds et al. (2020).
Varying methodologies may have been used to collect this data across numerous studies.
* Sprint times are from research >10 years old and physical performances have improved over the last
decade, although there is a lack of published data in elite female soccer players.
# Based on youth athletes – as no data is available for senior female soccer players.

squad and that ± one standard deviation represents 68% of the athletes’ data and
± two standard deviations represent 95% of the athletes’ data who make up the
cohort included (based on normally distributed data – see detailed discussion about
this in Chapter 4). Other characteristics, such as a change of direction performance
or rebound jump performance, may also be beneficial to consider when evaluating
female soccer athletes’ training needs.

Injury Considerations
Adult female soccer players demonstrate an incidence of 6.1 injuries per 1,000 hours
of playing time, with the incidence six to seven times higher in competition compared
to training. These injuries are more commonly non-contact in nature, occurring in
the lower limbs, with the ankle and knee being the most common sites and muscle,
tendon, and ligament injuries most prevalent (Randell et al., 2021). The fact that the
majority of the injuries are non-contact highlights the potential to decrease injury
risk with appropriate training interventions.

Identification of Training Priorities (Short- and Long-Term)

Table 2.4 presents the physical characteristics of a female soccer player, which you
should compare to the normative data in Table 2.3, while considering the demand
for the sport, to determine the athlete’s training priorities. Both short-term (e.g.,
4–8 weeks) and long-term (e.g., annual) goals should be identified, prioritised, and
then appropriately sequenced, so that the culmination of the short-term goals should
ensure attainment of the long-term goals.
 Athlete Needs Analysis 19
Table 2.4 Athlete characteristics – case study 1.

Physical characteristic Value/performance Normative data Evaluation (✓/×)

Height (m) 1.65

Body Mass (kg) 55.0
Body Fat (%) 15.3
VO2max (ml ⋅ kg−1 ⋅ min−1) 56.5
Yoyo Intermittent Recovery Test, 1900
Level 1 (m)
Sprint 5 m (s) 1.21
Time 10 m (s) 2.02
20 m (s) 3.25
Countermovement Jump Height (cm) 36.5
Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull, Peak 1,250
Force (N)

Short-Term Goals
1–
2–
3–
4–

Long-Term Goals
a)
b)
c)

Sequencing of Short-Term Goals to Achieve Long-Terms Goals

Part 3: Example 2 – Basketball Needs Analysis

Game Demands
Basketball is a physically demanding team sport in which athletes have to repeatedly accel-
erate, decelerate, change direction, and jump (~40 × per game) throughout the four quarters
of the game (Stojanović et al., 2018; García et al., 2020). Interestingly, rapid decelerations
(>3 m ⋅ s−2) occur more frequently (3.2 ± 0.7 to 4.5 ± 1.4 per minute, depending on posi-
tion) than rapid accelerations (0.8 ± 0.3 to 1.5 ± 0.4 per minute, depending on position),
while the number of moderate accelerations (<3 m ⋅ s−2) exceeds the number of moderate
decelerations (Vázquez-Guerrero et al., 2018), highlighting an important consideration
20 Athlete Needs Analysis
for training to enhance performance and mitigate injury risk. While the distances of the
accelerations are generally short, athletes reach peak speeds of between 20 and 22 km ⋅ hr−1
(García et al., 2020). In contrast to other team sports, such as soccer, the total distances
covered are dramatically lower (5–6 km). However, this is over only a 40-minute duration,
resulting in heart rates >85% maximum heart rate (Stojanović et al., 2018).
Interestingly, there is a general trend of a decrease in speed, distance covered, accel-
erations, and decelerations across the four quarters of a game (Stojanović et al., 2018;
Vázquez-Guerrero et al., 2018; García et al., 2020; García et al., 2021), highlight-
ing the importance of a high aerobic capacity to permit rapid recovery between the
high-intensity efforts across the game. Stojanović et al. (2018) also highlight that
there are differences between positional demands and that there are notable differ-
ences in game demands between countries, both of which should be considered when
determining “benchmarks” and comparing to published “norms.”

Physical Characteristics
Key physical characteristics are presented in Table 2.5. The characteristics represent
some of the commonly conducted tests to evaluate important physical characteristics
of collegiate and professional basketball. Remember that the mean is simply the aver-
age of the squad and that ± one standard deviation represents 68% of the athletes’ data
and ± two standard deviations represent 95% of the athletes’ data who make up the
cohort included (based on normally distributed data – see detailed discussion about
this in Chapter 4). Other characteristics, such as change of direction performance or
rebound jump performance, may also be beneficial to consider when evaluating basket-
ball athletes’ training needs. Additionally, some of these data are from rather old stud-
ies, although much of this information is the most up-to-date information available.

Injury Considerations
Between 58% and 66% of basketball injuries are sustained to the legs, consisting of
non-contact and traumatic injuries (Taylor et al., 2015). These tend to be predomi-
nantly ankle and knee ligament injuries; however, anterior cruciate ligament injuries

Table 2.5 Commonly reported physical characteristics of collegiate and professional

basketball players, from published data.

Physical characteristics Range Mean ± standard deviation

Height (m) 1.75–2.28

Body Mass (kg) 64.0–116.0
Body Fat (%) 5.5–20.1
VO2max (ml ⋅ kg−1 ⋅ min−1) 50–60
40-yard Sprint Time 4.81 ± 0.26
Countermovement Jump Height (cm) 36.1–83.0 Forwards – 57.8 ±6.5
Centres – 54.6 ± 6.9
Guards – 59.6 ± 9.6
1-RM Back Squat – Absolute (kg) and Absolute – 152.2 ± 36.5
relative (kg ⋅ kg−1) Relative – 1.67 ± 0.47

Source: Data from Latin et al. (1994) Berg and Latin (1995) Ostojic et al. (2006) and Ziv and Lidor (2009).
Varying methodologies may have been used to collect this data across numerous studies.
 Athlete Needs Analysis 21
Table 2.6 Athlete characteristics – case study 2.

Physical Characteristic Value/Performance Normative Data Evaluation (✓/×)

Height (m) 2.05

Body Mass (kg) 118
Body Fat (%) 21.2
VO2max (ml ⋅ kg−1 ⋅ min−1) 48.5
40-yard Sprint Time 5.01
Countermovement 56.5
Jump Height (cm)
1 RM Back Squat (kg) 105

are of great concern as the incidence is notably higher than in most other sports (Agel
et al., 2005). The fact that the majority of the injuries are non-contact highlights the
potential to decrease injury risk with appropriate training interventions focusing on
strengthening and appropriate movement mechanics during deceleration during land-
ing and change of direction tasks (Herrington, 2010; Myer et al., 2012; Taylor et al.,
2015; Herrington et al., 2015).

Identification of Training Priorities (Short- and Long-Term)

Table 2.6 presents the physical characteristics of a male collegiate basketball player,
which you should compare to the normative data in Table 2.5, while considering the
demands of the sport, to determine the athlete’s training priorities. Both short-term
(e.g., 4–8 weeks) and long-term (e.g., annual) goals should be identified, prioritised,
and then appropriately sequenced so that the culmination of the short-term goals
should ensure attainment of the long-term goals.

Short-Term Goals
1–
2–
3–
4–

Long-Term Goals
a)
b)
c)

Sequencing of Short-Term Goals to Achieve Long-Terms Goals

22 Athlete Needs Analysis
References
Agel, J., Arendt, E. A. & Bershadsky, B. 2005. Anterior cruciate ligament injury in national
collegiate athletic association basketball and soccer: A 13-year review. Am J Sports Med,
33, 524–30.
Austin, D. J., Gabbett, T. J. & Jenkins, D. J. 2011. Repeated high-intensity exercise in a pro-
fessional rugby league. J Strength Cond Res, 25, 1898–904.
Berg, K. & Latin, R. W. 1995. Comparison of physical and performance characteristics of
NCAA division I basketball and football players. J Strength Cond Res, 9(1), 22–6.
Colomer, C. M. E., Pyne, D. B., Mooney, M., Mckune, A. & Serpell, B. G. 2020. Performance
analysis in rugby union: A critical systematic review. Sports Med Open, 6, 4.
Datson, N., Drust, B., Weston, M. & Gregson, W. 2019. Repeated high-speed running in elite
female soccer players during international competition. Sci Med Footb, 3, 150–6.
Datson, N., Drust, B., Weston, M., Jarman, I. H., Lisboa, P. J. & Gregson, W. 2017. Match
physical performance of elite female soccer players during international competition. J
Strength Cond Res, 31, 2379–87.
Datson, N., Hulton, A., Andersson, H., Lewis, T., Weston, M., Drust, B. & Gregson, W.
2014. Applied physiology of female soccer: An update. Sports Med, 44, 1225–40.
Emmonds, S., Sawczuk, T., Scantlebury, S., Till, K. & Jones, B. 2020. Seasonal changes in the
physical performance of elite youth female soccer players. J Strength Cond Res, 34.
Fullagar, H. H. K., Mccunn, R. & Murray, A. 2017. Updated review of the applied physiol-
ogy of American College Football: Physical demands, strength and conditioning, nutrition,
and injury characteristics of America’s favorite game. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 12,
1396–403.
García, F., Castellano, J., Reche, X. & Vázquez-Guerrero, J. 2021. Average game physi-
cal demands and the most demanding scenarios of basketball competition in various age
groups. J Hum Kinet, 79, 165–74.
García, F., Vázquez-Guerrero, J., Castellano, J., Casals, M. & Schelling, X. 2020. Differences
in physical demands between game quarters and playing positions on professional basket-
ball players during official competition. J Sports Sci Med, 19, 256–63.
Herrington, L. 2010. The effects of 4 weeks of jump training on landing knee valgus and
crossover hop performance in female basketball players. J Strength Cond Res, 24, 3427–32.
Herrington, L., Munro, A. & Comfort, P. 2015. A preliminary study into the effect of jumping-
landing training and strength training on frontal plane projection angle. Man Ther, 20,
680–5.
Huggins, R. A., Giersch, G. E. W., Belval, L. N., Benjamin, C. L., Curtis, R. M., Sekiguchi,
Y., Peltonen, J. & Casa, D. J. 2020. The validity and reliability of global positioning system
units for measuring distance and velocity during linear and team sport simulated move-
ments. J Strength Cond Res, 34, 3070–7.
Latin, R. W., Berg, K. & Baechle, T. 1994. Physical and performance characteristics of NCAA
division I male basketball players. J Strength Cond. Res, 8, 214–18.
Lockie, R. G., Risso, F. G., Giuliano, D. V., Orjalo, A. J. & Jalilvand, F. 2018. Practical fitness
profiling using field test data for female elite-level collegiate soccer players: A case analysis
of a division I team. Strength Cond J, 40, 58–71.
McGuigan, M. R., Cormack, S. J. & Gill, N. D. 2013. Strength and power profiling of ath-
letes: Selecting tests and how to use the information for program design. Strength Cond J,
35, 7–14.
Mclellan, C. P. & Lovell, D. I. 2012. Neuromuscular responses to impact and collision during
elite rugby league match play. J Strength Cond Res, 26, 1431–40.
Mclellan, C. P. & Lovell, D. I. 2013. Performance analysis of professional, semi-professional
and junior elite rugby league match-play using global positioning systems. J Strength Cond
Res, 27, 3266–74.
 Athlete Needs Analysis 23
Mclellan, C. P., Lovell, D. I. & Gass, G. C. 2011. Performance analysis of elite rugby league
match play using global positioning systems. J Strength Cond Res, 25, 1703–10.
McMahon, J.J. Turner, A.N. & Comfort, P. 2021. Analysis and presentation of fitness test
results. In: Turner, A.N. & Comfort, P. (eds) Advanced Strength and Conditioning: An
evidence Based Approach. 2nd ed. Routledge. pp. 176–189.
Mcmahon, J. J. 2022. Future Considerations for Contextualising Force Plate Test Results
in Professional Football, 31st August European College of Sport Science Congress. Seville,
Spain.
Mcmahon, J. J. & Comfort, P. 2022. Countermovement jump take-off momentum bench-
marks for professional rugby league forwards and backs. British Association of Sport and
Exercise Sciences Biomechanics Interest Group Annual Meeting, 25th May, 2022, On-line.
Mcmahon, J. J., Lake, J. P. & Comfort, P. 2022a. Identifying and reporting position-spe-
cific countermovement jump outcome and phase characteristics within rugby league. PLOS
One, 17, e0265999.
Mcmahon, J. J., Turner, A. N. & Comfort, P. 2022b. Analysis and presentation of fitness test
results. In: Turner, A. N. & Comfort, P. (eds). Advanced Strength and Conditioning: An
Evidence-Based Approach. 2 ed. London, UK: Routledge.
Miguel, M., Oliveira, R., Loureiro, N., García-Rubio, J. & Ibáñez, S. J. 2021. Load measures
in Training/Match monitoring in soccer: A systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public
Health, 18, 2721.
Myer, G. D., Ford, K. R., Brent, J. L. & Hewett, T. E. 2012. An integrated approach to change
the outcome part II: Targeted neuromuscular training techniques to reduce identified ACL
injury risk factors. J Strength Cond Res, 26, 2272–92.
Ostojic, S. M., Mazic, S. & Dikic, N. 2006. Profiling in basketball: Physical and physiological
characteristics of elite players. J Strength Cond Res, 20, 2417–22.
Parsonage, J. R., Secomb, J. L., Tran, T. T., Farley, O. R. L., Nimphius, S., Lundgren, L. &
Sheppard, J. M. 2017. Gender differences in physical performance characteristics of elite
surfers. J Strength Cond Res, 31, 2417–22.
Portas, M. D., Harley, J. A., Barnes, C. A. & Rush, C. J. 2010. The validity and reliability of
1-Hz and 5-Hz global positioning systems for linear, multidirectional, and soccer-specific
activities. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 5, 448–58.
Randell, R. K., Clifford, T., Drust, B., Moss, S. L., Unnithan, V. B., De Ste Croix, M. B. A.,
Datson, N., Martin, D., Mayho, H., Carter, J. M. & Rollo, I. 2021. Physiological charac-
teristics of female soccer players and health and performance considerations: A narrative
review. Sports Med (Auckland, N.Z.), 51, 1377–99.
Scott, M. T., Scott, T. J. & Kelly, V. G. 2016. The validity and reliability of global positioning
systems in team sport: A brief review. J Strength Cond Res, 30, 1470–90.
Secomb, J. L., Farley, O. R. L., Lundgren, L., Tran, T. T., King, A. & Nimphius, S. 2015.
Association between the performance of scoring manoeuvres and lower-body strength and
power in elite surfers. Int J Sports Sci Coach, 10, 911–8.
Stojanović, E., Stojiljković, N., Scanlan, A. T., Dalbo, V. J., Berkelmans, D. M. & Milanović,
Z. 2018. The activity demands and physiological responses encountered during basketball
match-play: A systematic review. Sports Med, 48, 111–35.
Taylor, J. B., Ford, K. R., Nguyen, A.-D., Terry, L. N. & Hegedus, E. J. 2015. Prevention
of lower extremity injuries in basketball: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports
Health, 7, 392–8.
Tran, T. T., Lundgren, L., Secomb, J., Farley, O. R., Haff, G. G., Seitz, L. B., Newton, R. U.,
Nimphius, S. & Sheppard, J. M. 2015. Comparison of physical capacities between nonse-
lected and selected elite male competitive surfers for the national junior team. Int J Sports
Physiol Perform, 10, 178–82.
Trewin, J., Meylan, C., Varley, M. C. & Cronin, J. 2018. The match-to-match variation of
match-running in elite female soccer. J Sci Med Sport, 21, 196–201.
24 Athlete Needs Analysis
Turner, A. N., Jones, B., Stewart, P., Bishop, C., Parmar, N., Chavda, S. & Read, P. 2019.
Total score of athleticism: Holistic athlete profiling to enhance decision-making. Strength
Cond J, 41, 91–101.
Vázquez-Guerrero, J., Suarez-Arrones, L., Casamichana Gómez, D. & Rodas, G. 2018.
Comparing external total load, acceleration and deceleration outputs in elite basketball
players across positions during match play. Kinesiology, 50, 228–34.
Vescovi, J. D. & Favero, T. G. 2014. Motion characteristics of women’s college soccer matches:
Female Athletes in Motion (FAiM) study. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 9, 405–14.
Ziv, G. & Lidor, R. 2009. Physical attributes, physiological characteristics, on-court perfor-
mances and nutritional strategies of female and male basketball players. Sports Med, 39,
547–68.
3 Injury Risk Assessment
Including Flexibility
Joshua Miller

Part 1: Introduction – Movement Screen Testing

Muscular injury is one of the major problems facing professional and recreational ath-
letes. Injuries to skeletal muscles account for more than 30% of the injuries seen by ther-
apists and sports medicine physicians (NEISS, 2019). Nearly 2 million people each year
in the United States suffer from sports-related injuries, ranging from relatively minor
to quite serious (NEISS, 2019). These injuries are classified by the tissue that is injured.
The different types of injuries include bone, muscle/tendon, joint, and spinal injuries
(Amako et al. 2003; Garrett Jr. 1990; Armstrong 1990). Bone injuries are related to
fractures. Muscle/tendon injuries are associated with sprains and strains. Joint injuries
refer to the different types of joints in the body (i.e., ball-and-socket, sliding, and other
types of joints). Finally, spinal injuries involve any type of injury to the spine, including
the lower back. Injury risk assessment is the initial starting point for a strength and
conditioning program to determine the individual’s strengths and weaknesses to make
sure the training program is created specifically for the athlete’s requirements. The risk
assessment results will expose weaknesses in the physical profile, which may predispose
an athlete at risk for injury or limit performance. In addition, a coach knowing where
the limits occur for a full ROM, especially during specific movement, will enable them
to observe and address any issues immediately during training or practice.

Why Assess Injury Risk Assessment and Flexibility?

The aim of assessing injury risk by using a movement screening assessment allow to
measure motor function and physical strength. The purpose of the movement screen
is to identify how well an individual can complete basic and fundamental movement
patterns. These movements are basic skills that support nearly every movement used
in sport and life. Individuals that score poorly on these tests are unlikely to move
well on the field, track, or any area that the individual participates in the sport they
enjoy. The FMS requires flexibility, ROM, coordination, balance, and proprioception
to complete the seven fundamental movement patterns (Cook et al., 2006a; Cook
et al., 2006b). Upon completion of the screen, the results allow the individual to work
with their strength and conditioning coach, physiotherapist, or physical therapist to
improve their ability to move freely and efficiently, thus reducing the potential risk of
injury in this individual.
The common reasons for injury by individuals are multifactorial. The common
reasons for movements breaking down are due to lack of strength, ROM (mobility),

DOI: 10.4324/9781003186762-3
26 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility
inability to control uninvolved joints (stability), and poor skill (motor control). Strength
training has demonstrated a direct effect in preventing injuries, specifically hamstring
muscle injuries. Walden et al. (2012) reported a 64% reduction in anterior cruciate liga-
ment (ACL) injuries through improvement of core stability, pelvis control, and extrem-
ity coordination (Arendt, 2007; Steffen et al., 2010; Wilkerson and Colston 2015).
Lauersen et al. (2014) reported that strength training was a better preventative than
proprioception training and stretching in reduction of injuries. Lack of ROM is due to
a joint being unable to move through a complete ROM during the assessment test. One
such example would be seen performing a deep squat and the participants cannot lower
themselves to the proper depth of thighs parallel with the ground; however, this can
also be due to poor technique rather than limited. Issues with joint stability are demon-
strated when muscles are unable to contract in the proper fashion to stabilize the joints.
When the muscles are weakened, this may result in a poor movement pattern. Finally,
poor skill is demonstrated when muscles do not relax and contract during appropriate
times to allow the proper movement pattern to occur.
One of the most common movement screens that is conducted by coaches and
therapists is the Functional Movement Screen® (FMS). The FMS has been utilized to
determine potential risk of athletes, and non-athletes’ risk of injury in multiple sports
and military personnel (Kiesel et al., 2007; Miller and Susa, 2018; Chang et al., 2020;
Davis, et al. 2020; Campa et al., 2019; Chapman et al. 2014; Lisman et al., 2018). The
FMS places an individual in positions that will enable deficits to become noticeable if
appropriate stability and mobility are not used. The athlete can complete fundamen-
tal movements using compensatory movements to achieve or maintain the level of per-
formance required for the activity. The compensation leads to poor movement which
can limit increases in performance and increases the risk of injury during training or
sport. Researchers suggest that tests that assess multiple facets of function such as
balance, strength, ROM, and motor control simultaneously may assist profession-
als in identifying athletes at risk for injury (Chorba et al., 2010; Kiesel et al., 2007;
Plisky et al., 2006; Shimoura et al., 2019; Šiupsinkas et al., 2019). Thus the FMS does
not evaluate the strength of the individual, rather allows to monitor changes in body
movement. Total FMS scores have been investigated in relation to injury in National
Football League (NFL) football players and in female collegiate soccer, basketball,
and volleyball players (Kiesel et al., 2007; Chorba et al., 2010). Kiesel et al. (2007)
reported an increase of 15% (pre-test probability) to 51% probability of football
players sustaining a serious injury over the course of one season. It is estimated that
there are between 18.4 and 5.17 injuries per 100 players (DeLee and Farney, 1992;
Powell 1987). Chorba et al. (2010) found a significant correlation between low FMS
scores (<14) in female athletes and lower extremity injury (in those without a prior
ACL injury) participating in fall and winter sports. Furthermore, a score of 14 or less
on the FMS resulted in an 11-fold increase in the risk of sustaining injury in profes-
sional football players and a 4-fold increase in the risk for lower extremity injury in
female collegiate athletes (Kiesel et al., 2007; Chorba et al., 2010).
There are conflicting opinions reflecting methods of reducing injury through
stretching which will increase flexibility or ROM. The coach’s responsibility is to
make sure an athlete can complete movements through a ROM or as completely
as possible can determine if it will be necessary to make modifications to exercises
that are being completed as part of their training program. Measuring ROM can be
completed through sit-and-reach flexibility testing and goniometry. The sit-and-reach
 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility 27
flexibility test includes the two muscle groups that have been suggested to be asso-
ciated with low back pain – the hamstring and lower back muscles. The sit-and-
reach test has been incorporated into several different national fitness battery tests
such as the President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, the Fitnessgram, and
AAHPERD Physical Best tests (Ref).

Part 2: Functional Movement Screen

The FMS consists of seven movement patterns that serve as a comprehensive func-
tional movement. Additionally, four clearing tests, each associated with one of the
FMS movement patterns, assess pain for the shoulder rotation motions, trunk exten-
sion, ankle flexion, and/or trunk flexion. An FMS kit can be purchased commercially
(www.performbetter.com), but includes a 48-inch dowel rod, 2 smaller dowel rods
approximately 24 inches, a 48-inch piece of 2″ × 6″ board, and an elastic band.
Testing should be completed in an open space that will allow for clearance of the
dowel and movement of the individual in a minimum of an 8-foot area. The indi-
vidual should be assessed in shorts and t-shirt or clothing that will enable complete
visualization of the movements. All movements should be completed while wearing
sneakers. When conducting the screening tests, athletes should not be bombarded
with multiple instructions about how to perform the tests. Rather, the athlete should
be moved to the starting position and then simple commands to allow for achieve-
ment of the test movement while observing performance. The coach will cue the ath-
lete with the individual and clearing tests as they perform them to which may address
balance, ROM, etc. The FMS is scored on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 to 3, where
3 is the best and 0 is the worst. An athlete is given a score of zero (0) if, at any time
during the testing, they have any pain anywhere in the body. If pain occurs, a score of
0 is given and should be noted where the pain was located. A score of one (1) is given
if the athlete is unable to complete the movement pattern or is unable to complete the
movement. A score of two (2) is given when the athlete can complete the movement
but compensates to perform the fundamental movement. A score of three (3) is given
when the athlete performs the movement correctly without any compensation. The
clearing tests are scored on a scale of positive or negative for pain only. If pain is
present during the clearing test, then a score of 0 is placed for the score of that test.
The FMS consists of the following movements:

• Overhead squat
• In-line lunge
• Hurdle step
• Shoulder mobility
• Active straight-leg raise
• Trunk stability push-up
• Rotary stability test

There are four clearing tests that determine if the participant has any pain or limita-
tions. These include the following movements:

• Ankle clearing after the in-line lunge test

• Shoulder clearing test after the shoulder mobility test
28 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility
• Extension clearing test after the trunk stability push-up test
• Flexion clearing test after the rotary stability test

When testing the athlete observe from front and side views. All positions including
foot position should remain unchanged throughout the test and score the test upon
completion of complete movement. Do not coach the movement, repeat instructions
as needed. Ask if the individual had any pain, and when in doubt, score low.

Testing Protocol of the Functional Movement Screen

1 The Deep Squat
The deep squat assesses bilateral, symmetric mobility, and stability of the hips,
knees, ankles, and core. The overhead position of the arms (holding the dowel)
also assesses the mobility and symmetry of the shoulders and thoracic spine. To
perform the test:
i The athlete starts with the feet at approximately shoulder width apart in the
sagittal plane. Toes should be pointed forward throughout the test.
ii The dowel is grasped with both hands, and the arms are pressed overhead
while keeping the dowel in line with the trunk and the elbows extended
slightly wider than shoulder width.
iii Arms will be a little wider than shoulder width.
iv The athlete is instructed to descend slowly and fully into a squat position
while keeping the heels on the ground and the hands above the head.
v If unable to perform, athletes will be placed on the 48-inch 2″ × 6″ board
with their heels on the board and the movement is repeated. This will be
scored as a maximum of 2.
vi Score the test based upon completion of squat (Table 3.1, Figure 3.1).
2 The Hurdle Step
The hurdle step is designed to challenge the ability to stride, balance, and per-
form a single-limb stance during coordinated movement of the lower extremity.
To perform the test:
i The height of the hurdle or string should be equal to the height of the tibial
tubercle of the athlete measured with the dowel rod.

Table 3.1 Scoring criteria for deep squat test.

Scoring Criteria = 3 Scoring Criteria = 2 Scoring Criteria = 1 Score Criteria = 0

• Upper torso is • Upper torso is • Tibia and upper • Any pain at

parallel with tibia parallel with tibia torso are not any time of
or towards vertical or toward vertical parallel movement
• Femur below • Femur is below • Femur not below
horizontal horizontal horizontal
• Knees aligned • Knees aligned • Knees not aligned
over feet over feet over feet
• Dowel aligned • Dowel aligned over • Lumbar flexion
over feet feet on a 2 × 4 noted
 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility 29

Figure 3.1 Examples of the different scores for the deep squat ranging between 1 and 3.
Note: Reprinted with the approval of the Functional Movement Screen.

ii Place the elastic band at the height of the tibial tuberosity.

iii The athlete assumes the start position by placing the feet together and align-
ing the toes just in contact with the base of the hurdle or 2 × 6 board (board
will be placed on its side).
iv The dowel is placed across the shoulders below the neck, and the athlete is
asked to step up and over the hurdle, touch the heel to the floor (without
accepting weight) while maintaining the stance leg in an extended position,
and return to the start position.
v The leg that is stepping over the hurdle is scored.
vi Repeat steps iii–v and score the opposite leg (Table 3.2, Figure 3.2).

Table 3.2 Scoring criteria for the Hurdle Step test.

Scoring Criteria = 3 Scoring Criteria = 2 Scoring Criteria = 1 Score Criteria = 0

• The hips, knees, • Alignment is lost • Contact with • Any pain at

and ankles remain between hips, foot and hurdle any time of
aligned in the knees, and ankles • Loss of balance movement
sagittal plane • Movement in the at any time
• Minimal movement lumbar spine
in the lumbar spine • Dowel and hurdle
• Dowel and hurdle do not remain
remain parallel parallel
30 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility

Figure 3.2 Examples of the different scores for the hurdle step.
Note: Reprinted with the approval of the Functional Movement Screen.

3 In-Line Lunge
The in-line lunge attempts to challenge the athlete with a movement that chal-
lenges the athlete with balance and lateral challenge. To perform the test:
i Lunge length is determined by the tester by measuring the distance to the
tibial tuberosity from the floor. (If not using an FMS kit: A piece of tape or a
tape measure is placed on the floor at the determined lunge distance.)
ii The arms are used to grasp the dowel behind the back with the top arm
externally rotated, the bottom arm internally rotated, and the fists in contact
with the neck and low back region.
iii The hand opposite the front or lunging foot should be on top.
iv The dowel must begin in contact with the thoracic spine, back of the head, and
sacrum.
v The athlete is instructed to lunge out and place the heel of the front/lunge
foot on the tape mark.
vi The knee will touch the board momentarily.
vii The athlete is then instructed to slowly lower the back knee enough to touch
the floor while keeping the trunk erect and return to the start position.
viii The front leg identifies the side being scored.
ix Repeat steps ii–vii and score the opposite leg (Table 3.3, Figure 3.3).

Table 3.3 Scoring criteria for the in-line lunge.

Scoring Criteria = 3 Scoring Criteria = 2 Scoring Criteria = 1 Score Criteria = 0

• Minimal to no • Movement noted • Loss of balance • Any pain at

torso movement in torso at any time any time of
• Feet remain in • Feet do not remain movement
sagittal plane of in sagittal plane on
2×6 the 2 × 6
• Knee touches 2 × 6 • Knee does not touch
behind the heel of 2 × 6 behind the
the front foot heel of front foot
 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility 31

Figure 3.3 Examples of the different scores for the in-line lunge.
Note: Reprinted with the approval of the Functional Movement Screen.

Ankle Clearing Test

An important purpose for this clearing test is to identify pain and to ensure ankle
mobility is not a barrier to the movement pattern. The lower body is adversely affected
when ankle mobility is painful and/or limited. Normal, adequate mobility without
pain is a prerequisite for movement patterns. To perform the test:

i Place the outside of your left foot next to the test kit so that the outside foot is in
contact with the kit.
ii Place the right foot in front of the left foot so that you are in the heel-to-toe position
with both feet touching each other and the test kit and use a dowel for balance.
iii I will adjust the test kit so that the red start line is at the front of the medial malleolus.
iv While maintaining the heel-to-toe position, drop straight down, bending the back
knee and taking it as far as possible in front of your toes while keeping the heel down.
v Once you have reached your maximum distance, I will measure and ask you where
you felt the stretch (front, back of ankle, or no stretch) (Table 3.4, Figure 3.4).

Table 3.4 Scoring criteria for the ankle clearing test.

Pass Okay Tight

• Knee moves beyond the • The knee resides within • The individual’s knee
medial malleolus of the the width of the medial does reach the medial
front leg while the heel malleolus of the front malleolus of the front leg
stays down leg while the heel stays while the heel stays down
• This indicates the ankle down • This indicates a potential
has cleared mobility • This indicates a potential ankle mobility limitation
requirements ankle mobility limitation
32 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility

Figure 3.4 Examples of the different scores for the ankle clearing test.
Note: Reprinted with the approval of the Functional Movement Screen.

Additional Considerations
• Pain: If the athlete experiences pain with this screen, indicate positive for pain in
scoring and referral to a healthcare professional is recommended.
• Stretch: The goal of this ankle stretch is to be beyond 40 degrees of ankle dor-
siflexion without ankle pain. However, if the athlete experiences a stretch or
feeling of tightness of the ankle and it does not resolve with soft tissue or stretch-
ing applications, further assessment by a healthcare professional is needed. The
excessive stretch or tightness should be above a normal feeling of discomfort
associated with a static stretch.

4 Shoulder Mobility
This mobility screen assesses bilateral shoulder ROM by combining rotation
and abduction/adduction motions. It also requires normal scapular and thoracic
mobility. To perform the test:
i Begin by determining the length of the hand of the athlete by measuring from
the distal wrist crease to the tip of the third digit using the dowel rod. This
distance is used during scoring of the test.
ii The athlete is instructed to make a fist with each hand with the thumb placed
inside the fist.
iii The athlete is then asked to place both hands behind the back in a smooth
motion (without walking or creeping them upward) – the upper arm in an
externally rotated, abducted position (with a flexed elbow) and the bottom
arm in an internally rotated, extended, and adducted position (also with a
flexed elbow).
iv The tester measures the distance between the 2 fists. The flexed (uppermost)
arm identifies the side being scored.
v Repeat and test the opposite arm following steps i–iv (Table 3.5, Figure 3.5).
 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility 33
Table 3.5 Scoring criteria for the shoulder mobility test.

Scoring Criteria = 3 Scoring Criteria = 2 Scoring Criteria = 1

• Fists should be within • Fists should be within one- • Fists fall greater than one-
one hand length and-a-half hand lengths and-a-half hand lengths

Shoulder Clearing Test

After the shoulder mobility test is performed, the athlete places a hand on the oppo-
site shoulder and attempts to point the elbow upward and touch the forehead. If
painful, this clearing test is considered positive and the previous test must be scored
as 0 (Figure 3.6).

5 Active Straight-Leg Raise

This test assesses the ability to move the lower extremity separately from the
trunk, as well as tests for flexibility of the hamstring and gastrocnemius. To
perform the test:
i The athlete begins in a supine position, arms at the side.
ii The tester identifies the midpoint between the anterior superior iliac spine
and the middle of the patella and places a dowel on the ground, held perpen-
dicular to the ground.
iii The athlete is instructed to slowly lift the test leg with a dorsiflexed ankle and
a straight knee as far as possible while keeping the opposite leg extended and
in contact with the ground.
iv Make note to see where the lower extremity ends at its maximal excursion.
If the heel clears the dowel, a score of 3 is given; if the lower part of the leg

Figure 3.5 Examples of the different scores for the shoulder mobility test.
Note: Reprinted with the approval of the Functional Movement Screen.
34 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility

Figure 3.6 Example of the shoulder mobility clearing test.

Note: Reprinted with the approval of the Functional Movement Screen.

(between the foot and the knee) lines up with the dowel, a score of 2 is given;
and if the patient is only able to have the thigh (between the knee and the hip)
line up with the dowel, a score of 1 is given.
v Repeat with the opposite leg (Table 3.6, Figure 3.7).

6 Trunk Stability Push-up

This test assesses the ability to stabilize the spine in anterior/posterior and
sagittal planes during a closed-chain upper-body movement. To perform the
test:
i The athlete assumes a prone position with the feet together, toes in contact
with the floor, and hands placed shoulder width apart (level determined
by gender per criteria), as though ready to perform a push-up from the
ground.
a For males – thumbs aligned with the forehead (score of 3), if unable to
perform movement of thumbs to be aligned with the chin (maximal score
of 2 possible)
b For females – thumbs are aligned with the chin (score of 3), if unable to
perform movement of thumbs to be aligned with the clavicle (maximal
score of 2 possible)
ii The athlete is instructed to perform a single push-up in this position with the
body lifted as a unit.
a If the athlete is unable to do this, the hands should be moved to a
less-challenging position per criteria and a push-up attempted again as
stated in step i(a) or i(b) based upon gender.

Table 3.6 Scoring criteria for the active straight leg test.

Scoring Criteria = 3 Scoring Criteria = 2 Scoring Criteria = 1 Score Criteria = 0

• Malleoli resides • Malleoli resides • Malleoli resides • Any pain at

between mid- between mid-thigh below mid-patella any time of
thigh and ASIS and mid-patella movement
 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility 35

Figure 3.7 Examples of the different scores for the active-straight leg raise.
Note: Reprinted with the approval of the Functional Movement Screen.

iii The chest and stomach should come off the floor at the same instance, and no
“lag” should occur in the lumbar spine (Table 3.7, Figure 3.8).

Trunk Stability Push-Up Clearing Test

A clearing examination is performed at the end of the trunk stability push-up test
and graded as pass or fail, failure occurring when pain is experienced during the
test. Spinal extension is cleared by using a full-range prone press-up manoeuvre from
the beginning push-up position; if pain is associated with this motion, a score of 0 is
given (Figure 3.9).

7 Rotary Stability
The rotary stability test is a complex movement that requires neuromuscular
control of the trunk and extremities and the ability to transfer energy between

Table 3.7 Scoring criteria for the Trunk Stability Push-up test.

Scoring Criteria = 3 Scoring Criteria = 2 Scoring Criteria = 1 Score Criteria = 0

• Males perform • Males perform • Males unable to • Any pain at

one repetition one repetition perform one repetition any time of
with the thumbs with thumbs in with hands in line movement
above head line with the chin with the chin
• Females perform • Females perform • Females unable
one repetition one repetition to perform one
with the thumbs with the thumbs repetition with the
in line with the in line with the hands in line with
chin clavicle the clavicle
36 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility

Figure 3.8 Examples of the different scores for the trunk stability push-up test.
Note: Reprinted with the approval of the Functional Movement Screen.

segments of the body. It assesses multiplane stability during a combined upper

extremity and lower extremity motion. To perform the test:
i The athlete will begin in a quadruped position, on their hands and knees,
straddling the board with your thumbs, knees, and toes touching the board.
ii Make sure the athlete’s hands are under their shoulders and knees are under
their hips with their feet pointing backward.
iii At the same time, in one smooth and controlled motion, shift and lift the
same side arm and leg.
iv Without touching down, the athlete will reach back with their hand and
touch the outside of the ankle.
v Then extend that same side leg backward and arm forward, fully extending
knee and elbow.
vi Finally, reach back to touch the ankle with the hand again, and then return
to the starting position.
vii Perform this pattern while keeping the arm and leg moving in-line with the
board.
viii The test is repeated on the opposite side.
ix The upper extremity that moves during testing is scored.
x Completion of this task allows a score of 3. If unable to perform, the athlete
is cued to perform the same manoeuvre with the opposite lower extremity
and upper extremity, which allows a score of 2 to be awarded. Inability to
perform a diagonal-touch stability results in a score of 1.

Figure 3.9 Example of the trunk stability push-up clearing test.

Note: Reprinted with the approval of the Functional Movement Screen.
 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility 37
Table 3.8 Scoring criteria for the trunk stability push-up test.

Scoring Criteria = 3 Scoring Criteria = 2 Scoring Criteria = 1 Scoring Criteria = 0

• Hand and knee • Hand and knee • Loss of balance • Any pain at
leave ground at the did not leave • Hand does not any time of
same time ground at same touch the lateral movement
• Ability to perform time malleolus
this pattern while • Inability to keep • Inability to get
keeping the arm the arm and leg into starting
and leg moving moving in-line position
in-line and parallel and parallel with
with the board the board
• Fingers touch the • Fingers touch the
lateral malleolus lateral malleolus
• Knee and elbow • Knee and elbow
achieve full achieve full
extension extension

xi The test is then repeated for the opposite side and scored the same way using
steps i–vi (Table 3.8, Figures 3.8 and 3.10).

Rotary Stability Clearing Test

A clearing examination is performed at the end of this test and again is scored as
positive if pain is reproduced. From the beginning position for this test, the athlete
rocks back into spinal flexion and touches the buttocks to the heels and the chest to
the thighs. The hands should remain in contact with the ground. Pain on this clearing
test overrides any score for the rotary stability test and causes the athlete to receive a
score of 0 (Figure 3.11).

Figure 3.10 Examples of the different scores for the trunk stability push-up test.
Note: Reprinted with the approval of the Functional Movement Screen.
38 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility

Figure 3.11 Example of the rotary stability clearing test.

Note: Reprinted with the approval of the Functional Movement Screen.

How to score the FMS

Score Explanation

3 The person performs the movement correctly, without any compensation.

2 The person can complete the movement but must compensate in some way to
complete the task.
1 The person is unable to complete the movement pattern or is unable to assume
the position to perform the movement.
0 Any time during the test, the athlete has pain anywhere in the body.
Clearing tests consider only pain, which would indicate a “positive” clearing test
and requires a score of 0 for the test with which it is associated.

Data Interpretation for the Functional Movement Screen

A total score of 21 is the highest possible score on the FMS, which implies excellent
and symmetric (in tests that are performed bilaterally) performance of the variety of
screening manoeuvres (Figure 3.12).

1 Raw Score: This score is used when comparing movements for the individual
sides right and left. Remember both sides are scored and are documented.
2 Final Score: This score is used for the overall score. When comparing right side
with left side, the side that has the lower score will be used in the calculation of
total score.
3 It is suggested that a score of less than 14 would be indicative of risk of injury.
Previous studies have demonstrated a greater prevalence of athletes that have
become injured either during the season or during training may be related to a
lower FMS score (Kiesel et al., 2007; Chorba et al., 2010).

Movement Screen Test

1 Overhead Squat
This test will assess mobility of the thoracic spine, hips, and ankles, and deter-
mine the skill and control during a bilateral squat pattern.
Overhead Squat Procedures
i Grasp a dowel where the arms are wide enough to make 90° angles with the
elbows and forearms.
ii Straighten the arms so that the broomstick is directly overhead.
iii Feet should be placed slightly wider than hip width with toes pointed slightly
outwards.
 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility 39

Figure 3.12 Example of the scoring table for the Functional Movement Screen test.
40 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility
iv Lower into a squat by pushing the hips backwards and sitting through the
heels.
v Make sure the knees track over the toes and not to allow the feet move inward.
vi The back should remain in a neutral position with the chest and head facing
forward.
vii Lower to a point just below parallel with the quadriceps or until the back is
no longer in a neutral position.
viii Return to the starting position and repeat two more times.
How to Score the Overhead Squat
Make sure to observe the movement from both the front and side while scoring
(Yes and No only).
• Is the dowel or broomstick over the crown of the head?
• Is the low back in a neutral position?
• Did the quadriceps break parallel with the ground?
• Were the ankles able to stay on the ground?
• Did the knees track over the toes?
Typical errors that may be demonstrated during the overhead squat:
• Unable to maintain the dowel or broomstick over the crown of the head.
• Flexion in the lower back.
• Quadriceps do not break parallel with the ground
• Knees do not track over the toes.
• Ankles come off the ground during the lowering phase of the squat.
2 Single-Legged Hip Hinge
This test will assess the ability to hinge from the hips, determine the range of
movement of the hamstrings, and also unilateral balance and control.
i Stand with both feet on the ground and raise one foot off the ground.
ii Slightly bend the knee of the support leg.
iii Raise the arms out to the side to assist with balance.
iv Contract the core musculature and raise the chest.
v Bend at the hip while maintaining a straight support leg.
vi Bend over until the torso is nearly parallel with the ground.
vii Return to the starting position and repeat two more times.
How to Score the Single-Legged Hip Hinge
Make sure to observe the movement from both the front and side while scoring
(Yes and No only):
• Is the lower back in a neutral position?
• Is the knee of the supporting leg only slightly bent?
• Did the participant move through a ROM that the torso is nearly parallel
with the ground?
• Was each repetition performed with balance and control?
Typical errors that may be demonstrated during the single-legged hip hinge:
• Poor posture, i.e., inability to maintain a neutral lower back, unable to main-
tain a straight back
 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility 41
• Excessive bend in the support leg’s knee
• Lack of ROM
• Misalignment of the shoulder-hip-ankle
• Lack of balance and control

3 Standing Lunge
This test will assess posture during a stepping movement, range of movement in
hip extension, and unilateral balance and control:
i
From a standing position with arms on hips and feet together, take a step
forward, larger than a normal step so that the non-stepping foot’s ankle is
off the ground.
ii Lower the hips towards the ground by bending at the knees.
iii Descend so that the front leg quadricep is below parallel and the posterior
knee nearly touches the ground.
iv The torso should remain upright with the lower back in a neutral position.
v The posterior leg should be used for stabilization only.
vi Return to the starting position and repeat two more times.

How to Score the Standing Lunge

Make sure to observe the movement from both the front and side while scoring
(Yes and No only):
• Do the toes point forward, and is the weight of the posterior leg on the ball
of the foot?
• Is there hip-knee-ankle alignment?
• Is the front foot aligned with knee over toes?
• Is the torso upright?
• Is the lower back in a neutral position and chest up?
• Is there balance and control?

Typical errors that may be demonstrated during the standing lunge:

• Rear foot flat on ground or twisted
• Front heel rise
• Hip-knee-ankle misalignment
• Torso not upright
• Poor posture
• Lack of balance and control
4 Quadruped Superman
This test will assess stability of the trunk and hips, and balance and control:
i Begin in a position with both hands and knees on the ground. Hands should
be directly under the shoulders and knees directly under the hips.
ii Back should be neutral and stabilize the core musculature.
iii Slowly extend one arm to be parallel with the ground, while extending the
opposite leg posteriorly.
iv Bring the elbow of the extended arm and knee to touch in one movement
without touching the ground with the hand or knee.
v Return to the starting position and repeat two more times.
42 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility
How to Score the Quadruped Superman
Make sure to observe the movement from both the front and side while scoring
(Yes and No only):
• Does the lower back remain in a neutral position at the end of the movement?
• Does the lower back remain in a neutral position when the knee and elbow
touch?
• Does the movement remain stable so there is no movement to the right or left?
• Is there alignment with the shoulder-hip-ankle?
• Is there balance and control?
Typical errors that may be demonstrated during the quadruped superman:
• Unable to hold a neutral back.
• Shifting of the hips during the movement.
• Shoulder-hip-ankle misalignment.
• Lack of balance and control.
5 Shoulder Mobility
This test will assess bilateral shoulder ROM by combining rotation and abduction/
adduction motions:
i Begin by determining the length of the hand of the athlete by measuring from
the distal wrist crease to the tip of the third digit using the dowel rod. This
distance is used during scoring of the test.
ii The athlete is instructed to make a fist with each hand with the thumb placed
inside the fist.
iii The athlete is then asked to place both hands behind the back in a smooth
motion (without walking or creeping them upward) – the upper arm in an
externally rotated, abducted position (with a flexed elbow) and the bottom
arm in an internally rotated, extended, adducted position (also with a flexed
elbow).
iv The tester measures the distance between the two fists. The flexed (upper-
most) arm identifies the side being scored.
v Repeat and test the opposite arm following steps ii–iv.
How to Score Shoulder Mobility
Make sure to observe the movement from both the front and side while scoring
(Yes and No only):
• Is the movement smooth?
• Is the distance between the hands less than one-hand length?
• Is there any pain with the movement?
Typical errors that may be demonstrated during the quadruped superman:
• Inching the hands closer to one another behind the back?

Data Interpretation for the Functional Movement Screen

This movement screen utilizes a “Yes” or “No” answer scheme (Figure 3.13). There
is no numerical scoring in comparison to the FMS test. The individuals that score
poorly on these movements may move poorly on the field and are unable to com-
plete complex movements during training. As a result, those individuals that have
 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility 43

Figure 3.13 Example of the scoring table for clearing test.

more “No” answers than “Yes” may be at greater risk of injury. Early screening and
retraining proper movements may allow the coach or trainer to make adjustments
and reduce the potential of injury in the future.

Part 2: Direct and Indirect Testing of Flexibility

Introduction
When measuring the ROM of a joint or a series of joints to determine a muscle’s abil-
ity to lengthen within the limitation of the joint different techniques can be utilized in
the lab. The measurement of the joint angle can be considered a direct measurement
of flexibility. Flexibility is described as the ROM at a specific joint. An athlete can be
very flexible at one joint but this does not mean that all joints will respond the same
way. Therefore, there is not one test that can determine overall body flexibility. There
are several different types of techniques that can be used to measure the ROM of a
joint. This includes indirect and direct methods. One of the most common indirect
methods for measuring flexibility is the sit-and-reach test. Direct methods for assess-
ing flexibility measures the angular displacements between adjacent segments or from
an external reference point is goniometry.
44 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility
Indirect and direct methods use different tools to determine the ROM of a joint.
A sit-and-reach box allows for the measurement of lower back flexibility to be deter-
mined in inches or centimetres where a goniometer determines ROM in degrees.
With both methods, there are several variables that cannot be controlled during the
test. For example, in the sit-and-reach test, the external zero point can be arbitrarily
chosen or for goniometry, it may be difficult to identify the axis of motion for com-
plex actions such as wrist flexion and extension which involve more than two bony
articulations (Moore, 1948).

Direct Technique: Goniometry

The goniometer is a protractor-like device with two steel or plastic arms that meas-
ure the joint angle at different ROM (see Figure 3.14) and will be used to measure
the ROM at a joint in degrees. There are different types of goniometers that can be
used to measure ROM. Digital goniometers provide a digital ROM value rather than
having to read the value off the device itself by the practitioner. Carey et al. (2010)
reported no significant differences between universal and digital goniometers when
measuring joint ROM, and the inter- and intrarater reliability is equivalent to the
universal goniometer. The digital goniometer may reduce reader errors when reading
the value from the screen in comparison to the universal device.
The stationary arm of the goniometer is attached at the zero line of the protractor,
and the other arm is moveable. To use the goniometer, place the centre of the device
so it coincides with the axis of rotation of the joint. Align the arms of the goniom-
eter with the bony landmarks along the longitudinal axis of each moving body seg-
ment. Measure the ROM as the difference between the joint angles (degrees) from the
beginning to the end of the movement. Table 3.9 describes goniometer measurement
for various joints.
Once measurements of various joint ROMs have been completed, comparison can be
made with healthy adults. Table 3.10 presents average ROM value for healthy adults.
When utilizing goniometry, ROM can be determined to determine if the joint can
move through a complete ROM to determine if there may be an underlying issue
associated with injury or structural abnormality.

Figure 3.14 A
 goniometer, including the body axis or fulcrum, a stabilization arm, and
movement.
 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility 45
Table 3.9 Average range of motion (ROM) for different joints in healthy adults.

Joint ROM (degrees) Joint ROM (degrees)

Shoulder Thoracic-Lumbar spine

Flexion 150–180 Flexion 60–80
Extension 50–60 Extension 20–30
Abduction 180 Abduction 25–35
Medial rotation 70–90 Rotation 30–45
Lateral rotation 90 Hip
Elbow Flexion 100–120
Flexion 140–150 Extension 30
Extension 0 Abduction 40–45
Radioulnar Adduction 20–30
Pronation 80 Medial Rotation 40–45
Supination 80 Lateral Rotation 45–50
Wrist Knee
Flexion 60–80 Flexion 135–150
Extension 60–80 Extension 0
Radial Deviation 20 Ankle
Ulnar Deviation 30 Dorsiflexion 20
Cervical Spine Plantar Flexion 40–45
Flexion 45–60 Subtalar
Extension 45–75 Inversion 30–35
Lateral Flexion 45 Eversion 15–20
Rotation 60–80

Case Study
A coach wants to measure the ROM of their athlete’s hip flexion utilizing the
Hamstring Criterion Test. To perform the test, the athletes will lay on their back on
a plinth or bench. The goniometer is placed at the athlete’s hip joint. The stationary
arm is placed in line with the trunk and the moving arm in line with the femur.
The athlete’s knee will be straight while moving the leg towards hip flexion. Once

Table 3.10 Age-gender norms for the standard sit-and-reach test.

15–19 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69

years years years years years years

Men
Excellent ≥ 39 ≥ 40 ≥38 ≥ 35 ≥ 35 ≥ 33
Very good 34–38 34–39 33–37 29–34 28–34 25–32
Good 29–33 30–33 28–32 24–28 24–27 20–24
Fair 24–28 25–29 23–27 18–23 16–23 15–19
Needs improvement ≤ 23 ≥ 24 ≥ 22 ≥ 17 ≥ 15 ≥ 14
Women
Excellent ≥ 43 ≥ 41 ≥ 41 ≥ 38 ≥ 39 ≥ 35
Very good 38–42 37–40 36–40 34–37 33–38 31–34
Good 34–37 33–36 32–35 30–33 30–32 27–30
Fair 29–33 28–32 27–31 25–29 25–29 23–26
Needs improvement ≥ 28 ≥ 27 ≥ 26 ≥ 24 ≥ 24 ≥ 22

Data adapted from Greene and Heckman (1994) and Levangie, Norkin and Lewek (2019).
Distance is measured in centimetres.
46 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility
tightness is felt by the coach, the leg is helped there and the ROM is read from the
goniometer. The test is repeated two additional times. The measurements were 112°,
115°, and 110°. The measurement is averaged and compared to the normative data for
hip flexion (0–120°). The results would fall within normal limits.

Indirect Technique (Sit-and-reach)

Indirect measurement of static flexibility can be determined with the use of a sit-and-
reach test. This test is one of the most common health-related fitness tests that is used
to evaluate static flexibility of the lower back and hamstring muscles (Payne et al.,
2000). The sit-and-reach test provides an indirect measurement of the ROM. There
are several different types of sit-and-reach tests that have been developed using a
box, yardstick, or both to measure flexibility in inches or centimetres. Several studies
have demonstrated that the sit-and-reach test is moderately related to hamstring flex-
ibility (r = .46−.67), but poorly related to low back flexibility (r = .16−.35) in adults
(Mayorga-Vega et al., 2014) and in older adults independently living (r = .54−.74)
(Lemmink et al., 2003).

Methodological Information
There are several different protocols for various sit-and-reach tests. Prior to having
the athlete complete the protocol, have them perform a general warm-up to increase
muscle temperature, as well as hamstring and lower back stretches. The athlete’s
shoes should be removed for all the different protocols.

1 Standard Sit-and-Reach Test

This test utilizes a sit-and-reach box (Figure 3.14) with a zero point at 26 cm. To
perform the test:
i The athletes will sit on the floor with their knees extended and the soles of
their feet against the edge of the box.
ii The feet must be 6 in. (15.2 cm) apart.
iii Remind the athletes to keep their knees fully extended, arms evenly stretched,
and hands placed on top of one another with their palms down as they slowly
reach forward as far as possible along the top of the box.
iv Have the athlete lower their head between their extended arms while exhal-
ing throughout the movement.
v Hold this position for approximately 2 seconds and then have them return to
the starting position.
vi Repeat the test twice and record the highest test to the nearest 0.5 cm as the
maximal score.
vii Report data on sheet (Figure 3.15).
Remind the athletes not to bend their knees or perform the movement in a bounc-
ing or jerky movement. If they do, have them repeat the trial. Repeat the test
twice and record the highest test to the nearest 0.5 cm as the maximal score.
Tables 3.11–3.13 present age–gender norms for this test from males, females, and
sport-specific athletes.
 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility 47

Figure 3.15 Example of the scoring table for the Sit-and-Reach test.

2 V Sit-and-Reach Test
The V sit-and-reach test, or the YMCA test (YMCA, 2000), uses a yardstick
instead of a box. Prior to testing, make sure the yardstick is secured to the floor
by placing tape at the 15-in. (38-cm) mark on the yardstick. To perform the test:
i The athletes will sit, straddling the yardstick, with their knees extended (but
not locked out), and their feet 12 in. (30.5 cm) apart.
ii The heels of their feet should be touching the 15-in. mark.
iii Make sure their knees do not flex and they do not extend one arm further
than the other one.
iv Have the athlete lower their head between their extended arms while exhal-
ing throughout the movement.
v Hold this position for approximately 2 seconds and then have them return to
the starting position.
vi Repeat the test twice and record the highest test to the nearest 0.5 cm as the
maximal score.
48 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility
Table 3.11 Percentile ranks for the modified sit-and-reach test in females.

Females

< 18 years 19–35 years 36–49 years > 50 years

Percentile rank
99 57.4 53.3 50.3 43.7
95 49.5 49.0 48.8 39.9
90 47.5 45.5 44.2 38.1
80 45.2 42.4 41.1 36.1
70 41.9 41.1 38.6 34.5
60 40.6 40.1 36.8 31.2
50 38.6 37.6 34.3 28.2
40 36.8 36.8 32.5 25.7
30 34.8 34.8 31.0 23.4
20 32.0 32.0 27.9 21.1
10 29.0 25.7 24.6 19.1

Distance is measured in centimetres.

Remind the athletes not to bend their knees or perform the movement in a bounc-
ing or jerky movement. If they do, have them repeat the trial. Repeat the test
twice and record the highest test to the nearest 0.5 cm as the maximal score.
3 Back-Saver Sit-and-Reach Test
The Back-Saver test was created to relieve some of the discomfort of the lower back
when compared to the standard, modified, and V sit-and-reach tests. The validity
of the version of the sit-and-reach test is very similar to the standard version in men
(r = .47–.67) and in women (r = .023–0.54) (Hui and Yuen 2000). This test meas-
ures the flexibility of the hamstrings one leg at a time. To perform the test:
i Tell the athlete to place the sole of the extended foot against the edge of the
sit-and-reach box.

Table 3.12 Percentile ranks for the modified sit-and-reach test in males.

Males

< 18 years 19–35 years 36–49 years > 50 years

Percentile rank
99 51.7 62.7 48.0 41.1
95 49.8 48.0 46.2 40.1
90 46.2 43.7 40.9 38.1
80 45.2 43.2 37.1 33.8
70 40.6 40.1 35.3 31.2
60 38.6 38.1 34.0 29.2
50 36.8 36.6 32.0 25.9
40 35.6 34.3 29.5 24.6
30 34.0 33.0 27.4 23.6
20 30.0 29.5 25.1 22.4
10 24.1 23.4 21.1 19.8

Distance is measured in centimetres.

 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility 49
Table 3.13 Mean and standard deviation of the Sit-and-Reach test in athletes.

Sport Level Gender Age Sit-and-reach Reference

Volleyball NCAA F 19.6 (0.6) 17.3 (4.9) Fry et al. (1991)

Division I
Basketball Professional M Parr et al. (1978)
C NBA 27.7 (5.2) 14.8 (0.0)
F 25.3 (3.8) 16.2 (2.7)
G 25.2 (3.6) 15.9 (3.1)
Football NCAA M Schmidt (1999)
DB Division III 19.9 (1.4) 11.4 (3.8)
L 19.9 (1.6) 14.2 (5.2)
TE/LB 19.9 (1.2) 10.5 (6.5)
Football NCAA M Stuempfle et al. (2003)
Team Division III 19.6 (1.3) 12.1 (5.9)
OL 19.0 (1.1) 10.7 (3.9)
DL 19.5 (1.2) 14.3 (6.1)
OB 19.9 (1.4) 11.4 (6.4)
DB 19.8 (1.2) 12.1 (5.9)

Data is reported in centimetres.

C = centre; F = forward, G = guard; DB = defensive back; L = lineman; TE = tight end; LB = linebacker;
OL = offensive lineman; DL = defensive lineman; OB = offensive back.

ii Flex the untested leg by placing the sole of the foot flat on the floor 2–3 in.
(5–8 cm) to the side of the extended knee.
iii Follow the same directions of the standard sit-and-reach test.
iv Repeat the test for the opposite leg.

Data Interpretation
Table 3.13 demonstrates different mean and standard deviations for different com-
petitive sports in high school, college, and professional sports.

Laboratory Task: Are You at Risk of Injury?

• Complete different types of measurements on risk for injury and flexibility.

Summary
Physical inactivity is a major cause of inflexibility and can lead to injuries. Injury pre-
vention is the key to longevity of the athlete’s career whether they are a professional
or recreational athlete. Using the Functional Movement Screen to determine poten-
tial risk of injury as well muscle imbalances can direct training programs to reduce
this possible risk. Flexibility is highly joint specific and the ROM, partly, depends
upon the structure of the joint. Incorporating indirect and/or direct measurements
of flexibility can ensure proper mobility of a joint. Goniometry allows for a direct
measurement, whereas the Sit-and-Reach test uses indirect assessment of the ROM
of the specific joints.
50 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility
References
Amako, M., Oda, T., Masuoka, K., Yokoi, H. & Campisi, P. 2003. Effect of static stretching
on prevention of injuries for military recruits. Mil Med, 168, 442–6.
Arendt, E. 2007. Core strengthening. Instr Course Lec, 56, 379–84.
Armstrong, B. A., 1990. Initial events in exercise-induced muscular injury. Med Sci Sports
Exerc, 22, 429–35.
Campa, F., Piras, F., Raffi, M. & Toselli, S. 2019. Functional movement patterns and body
composition of high-level volleyball, soccer, and rugby players. J Sport Rehabil, 28, 740–5.
Carey, M. A., Laird, D. E., Murray, K. A. & Stevenson, J. R. 2010. Reliability, validity, and
clinical usability of a digital goniometer. Work, 36, 55–66.
Chang, W. D., Chou, L. W., Chang, N. J. & Chen, S. 2020. Comparison of functional move-
ment screen, star excursion balance test, and physical fitness in junior athletes with different
sports injury risk. Biomed Res Int, 25, 2020:8690540.
Chapman, R. F., Laymon, A.S. & Arnold, T. 2014. Functional movement scores and longitu-
dinal performance outcomes in elite track and field athletes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform,
9, 203–11.
Chorba, R. S., Chorba, D. J., Bouillon, L. E., Overmyer, C. A. & Landis, J. A. 2010. Use of a
functional movement screening tool to determine injury risk in female collegiate athletes. N
Am J Sports Phys Ther, 5, 47–54.
Cook, G., Burton, L. & Hogenboom, B. 2006a. The use of fundamental movements as an
assessment of function – Part 1. NAJSPT, 1, 62–72.
Cook, G., Burton, L. & Hogenboom, B. 2006b. Pre-participation screening: The use of fun-
damental movements as an assessment of function – Part 2. NAJSPT, 1, 132–9.
Davis, J. D., Orr, R., Knapik, J. J. & Harris, D. 2020. Functional Movement Screen (FMSTM)
scores and demographics of US Army pre-ranger candidates. Mil Med, 185, e788–94.
DeLee, J. C. & Farney, W. C. 1992. Incidence of injury in Texas high school football. Am J
Sports Med, 20, 575–80.
Fry, A. C., Kraemer, W. J., Weseman, C. A., Conroy, B. P., Gordon, S. E., Hoffman, J. R. &
Maresh, C. M. 1991. The effects of off-season strength and conditioning program on start-
ers and non-starters in women’s intercollegiate volleyball. J Strength Cond Res, 5, 174–81.
Garrett, Jr., W. E. 1990. Muscle strain injuries: Clinical and basic aspects. Med Sci Sports
Exerc, 22, 436–43.
Greene, W. B. & Heckman, J. D. 1994. The Clinical Measurement of Joint Motion. Rosemont,
IL: American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons.
Hui, S. S. & Yuen, P. Y. 2000. Validity of the modified back-saver sit-and-reach test: a com-
parison with other protocols. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 32, 1655–9.
Kiesel, K. Plisky, P. J. & Voight, M. L. 2007. Can serious injury in professional football be
predicted by a preseason functional movement screen? N Am J Sports Phys Ther, 2, 147–52.
Lauersen, J. B., Bertelsen, D. M. & Andersen, L. B. 2014. The effectiveness of exercise inter-
ventions to prevent sport injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized
controlled studies. Br J Sports Med, 48, 871–7.
Lemmink, K. A., Kemper, K. A., de Greef, M. H., Rispens, P. & Stevens, M. 2003. The valid-
ity of the sit-and-reach test and the modified sit-and-reach test in middle-aged to older men
and women. Res Q Exerc Sport, 74, 331–6.
Levangie, P. K., Norkin, C. C. & Lewek M. D. 2019. Joint Structure and Function. 6th ed.
Philadelphia, PA: FA Davis Company, 552.
Lisman, P., Nadelen, M., Hildebrand, E., Leppert, K. & de la Motte, S. 2018. Functional
movement screen and Y-balance test scores across levels of American football players. Biol
Sport. 35, 253–60.
Mayorga-Vega, D., Merino-Marban, R. & Viciana, J. 2014. Criterion-related validity of sit-
and-reach tests for estimating hamstring and lumbar extensibility: A meta-analysis. J Sports
Sci Med, 13, 1–14.
 Injury Risk Assessment Including Flexibility 51
Miller, J. M. & Susa, K. J. 2018. Functional movement screen in a group of division IA ath-
letes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 59, 779–83.
Moore, M. L. (1948). The measurement of joint motion; the technic of goniometry. Phys Ther
Rev, 29, 256-264.
NEISS. 2019. Data Highlights – 2019. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC),
Bethesda, MD.
Parr, R. B., Hoover, R., Wilmore, J. H., Bachman, D. & Kerlan, R. K. 1978. Professional
Basketball Players: Athletic Profiles. Phys Sportsmed, 6, 77–87.
Payne, N. Gledhill, N., Katzmarzyk, P. T., Jamnik, V. K. & Keir, P. J. 2000. Canadian mus-
culoskeletal fitness norms. Can J Appl Physiol, 25, 430–42.
Plisky, P. J., Rauh, M. J., Kaminski, T. W. & Underwood, F. B. 2006. Star excursion balance
test as a predictor of lower extremity injury in high school basketball players. J Orthop
Sports Phys Ther, 36, 911–9.
Powell, J. 1987. Incidence of injury associated with playing surfaces in the national football
league. J Alth Train, 22, 202–6.
Schmidt, W. D. 1999. Strength and physiological characteristics of NCAA Division III
American football players. J Strength Cond Res, 13, 210–3.
Shimoura, K., Nakayama, Y., Tashiro, Y., Hotta, T., Suzuki, Y., Tasaka, S., Matsushita, K.,
Kawagoe, M., Sonoda, T., Yokota, Y. & Aoyama, T. 2019. Association between functional
movement screen scores and injuries in male college basketball players. J Sport Rehabil, 29,
621–5.
Šiupšinkas, L., Garbenyte-Apolinskiene, T., Salakaite, S., Gudas, R. & Trumpockas, V. 2019.
Association of pre-season musculoskeletal screening and functional testing with sports inju-
ries in elite female basketball players. Sci Rep, 9, 9286.
Steffen, K., Andersen, T. E., Krosshaug, T., et al. 2010. ECCS Position Statement 2009:
Prevention of acute sports injuries. Eur J Sport Sci, 10, 223–36.
Stuempfle, K. J., Katch, F. I. & Petrie, D. F. 2003. Body composition relates poorly to perfor-
mance tests in NCAA Division III football players. J Strength Cond Res, 17, 238–44.
Walden, M., Atroshi, I., Magnusson, H., et al. 2012. Prevention of acute knee injuries in ado-
lescent female football players: cluster randomised control trial. BMJ, 344, e3042.
Wilkerson, G. B. & Colston, M. A. 2015. A refined prediction model for core and lower
extremity sprains and strains among collegiate football players. J Athl Train, 50, 643–50.
YMCA of the USA. 2000. YMCA Fitness Testing and Assessment Manual, 4th ed. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
4 Statistical Analysis and
Test Administration
John McMahon, Joshua Miller, and Paul Comfort

Part 1: Introduction
As described in detail in Chapter 2, strength and conditioning coaches will likely assess
their athletes’ physical capabilities in a variety of ways depending upon the nature
of the sport (as determined following the completion of a thorough needs analysis).
The tests used to physically assess athletes will likely involve a variety of measurement
devices and will either require the strength and conditioning coach to conduct their
own data analyses to extract key metrics of interest (such as sprint speed from a timing
device [see Chapter 11], for example) or this will be done via the software associated
with the measurement device (e.g., automated force plate systems). In the case of the
latter scenario, we encourage strength and conditioning coaches to ask software manu-
facturers how their calculations are performed to facilitate comparisons with published
data or those obtained from an equivalent device by another company (i.e., a different
brand). In either case, strength and conditioning coaches should ascertain the reliabil-
ity, measurement error and, whenever possible, the validity of the metrics obtained by
the test devices that they use to allow them to interpret the data more effectively and
thus better apply it to their athletes’ training program design.

Part 2: Reliability

Intraclass Correlation Coefficient

A test of reliability should consider both the degree of correlation and the agreement
between measurements (Koo and Li, 2016). The suggested statistical test for this pur-
pose is the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (Shrout and Fleiss, 1979). There are
ten forms of ICC which differ based on “model,” “type,” and “definition” selections
and the precise form required will depend on the intended application (Koo and Li,
2016). Most strength and conditioning coaches will be interested in applying the ICC
to determine the test-retest reliability of chosen test metrics, such as the vertical jump
height obtained during a countermovement jump, for example. In this case, a two-way
mixed effects ICC “model” should be selected (Koo and Li, 2016). Then a decision
must be made to which “type” of ICC should be selected and this depends on whether
the data represent a single measurement or the mean average of multiple measurements
(Koo and Li, 2016). For example, several researchers have suggested that the average
across two or more countermovement jump trials should be taken forward for statisti-
cal analyses rather than the single best trial (which is usually decided as the trial which
DOI: 10.4324/9781003186762-4
 Statistical Analysis and Test Administration 53
led to the highest jump) (Kennedy and Drake, 2021; Claudino et al., 2017). Thus,
we recommend that strength and conditioning coaches should utilize the mean average
of multiple (often denoted by a k) for test-retest applications. Finally, based on these
ICC “model” and “type” decisions, the absolute agreement ICC “definition” should
be applied (Koo and Li, 2016). The maximum value that any form of ICC can be is 1
and in simple terms, the closer to 1, the more reliable the test. However, the data should
be interpreted based on the representative spread of the ICC, based on the lower bound
95% confident interval (CI) of the estimated ICC value, <0.50, between 0.50 and 0.75,
between 0.75 and 0.90, and >0.90 are indicative of poor, moderate, good, and excel-
lent reliability, respectively (Koo and Li, 2016). When the lower- and upper-bound 95%
CIs of the ICC estimate are wide, the range of qualitative interpretations that they span
should be acknowledged. For example, if the estimated ICC is 0.80, and the lower- and
upper-bound 95% CIs are 0.65 and 0.95, respectively, the interpretation should be that
the reliability was “moderate to excellent” rather than “good,” as the estimated ICC
value of 0.80 alone would suggest.
Recommendations for determining a sufficient sample size when applying the ICC
to test-retest study designs were recently published (Borg et al., 2022). Given that
most strength and conditioning coaches work with limited athlete numbers, they may
struggle to conduct test-retest reliability analyses within single squads. One solution
to this might be to group athletes of a similar age and/or ability together to reach a
large enough sample size. In any case, low sample sizes can lead to erroneous ICC
values (Borg et al., 2022) and so they should be avoided where possible. Based on
the sample size lookup tables provided by Borg et al. (2022), researchers and prac-
titioners can estimate the minimum sample size required depending on whether the
goal is to estimate the desired ICC with sufficient precision, based on an estimation
approach, or to demonstrate that the ICC is above a particular threshold, e.g., higher
than 0.75 (i.e., the threshold for “good” reliability according to Koo and Li, 2016),
based on a hypothesis testing approach. The hypothesis testing approach is usually
applied within strength and conditioning research settings and normally a test-retest
study design would only include two testing sessions (e.g., day 1 and day 2, as shown
in Figure 4.1). Based on these assumptions, an estimation of the anticipated ICC value
(which can be based on ICC values reported in published studies) and a minimum sta-
tistical power requirement of either 80% (most typical) or 90%, the minimum sample
size requirement can be estimated (Borg et al., 2022). Let’s say we plan to conduct
a test-retest study involving the countermovement jump test over two sessions sepa-
rated by one week and we want the ICC for vertical jump height to be above 0.75 to
be considered good (Koo and Li, 2016), and we anticipate the test-retest ICC for ver-
tical jump height in the countermovement jump test to be 0.90 based on a published
study (McMahon et al., 2018), and we want a minimal statistical power of 80%. In
this scenario, the minimum sample size recommendation is 33, according to Borg
et al. (2022). This minimum sample size should be achievable for many strength and
conditioning coaches who work in team sports by involving two squads of a similar
age and ability (e.g., the under-16s and under-18s in a soccer club).
As visually shown in Figure 4.1, an excellent ICC value is observed when athletes
achieve the same rank for the test metric on each test occasion (shown in the left panel
of Figure 4.1). Thus, the more that athletes switch ranks on each test occasion, the
worse the ICC for the test metric will be. In the right panel of Figure 4.1, for exam-
ple, the best performing athlete who attained a jump height of 54 cm on day 1 was
54 Statistical Analysis and Test Administration

Figure 4.1 E
 xample of excellent (left panel), moderate (middle panel), and poor (right panel)
test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) results according to the lower
bound 95% confidence interval (CI) which is highlighted in bold text. The jump
height data (in cm) used to create each figure is shown below them.

the joint-third performing athlete with a jump height of 46 cm on day 2. Similarly,

the lowest scoring athlete for jump height on day 1 (jump height = 38 cm) was third
from bottom on day 2 (jump height = 45 cm). Therefore, a test metric that has a
poorer ability to rank athletes’ performances will yield a lower ICC value and so will
be considered to have poorer relative reliability compared to a test that does well at
distinguishing athlete performance levels.
It is important to note that the familiarity of the athlete with the test will influ-
ence the resultant ICC values. Thus, strength and conditioning coaches should allow
their athletes to become acquainted with a test before having confidence in the results.
Also, working with homogenous groups, as is common when working with athletes,
may negatively affect the ICC due to the potentially reduced spread of scores across the
group. There can be instances where the relative reliability is high, thus the test met-
ric assessed can distinguish well between athletes between trials or test occasions
(depending on the application), but the absolute reliability is low. That is why it is also
important to assess the absolute reliability (i.e., measurement error) for key measure-
ments, particularly if being used to monitor changes over time.

Standard Error of Measurement

The most common statistical test used to assess absolute reliability is the standard
error of measurement (SEM) which is most often reported as a coefficient of variation
(CV) expressed as a percentage of the observed mean value. The measurement error
of a test metric will vary from athlete to athlete, independently of magnitude of the
score obtained so it cannot be predicted. Thus, we must estimate the average meas-
urement error for a cohort by estimating the within-athlete variability and assuming
 Statistical Analysis and Test Administration 55
that it is the same for all athletes, which is an accepted limitation of this approach.
The SEM calculation may not always be embedded in common statistical analysis
packages but can easily be calculated in common applications such as Microsoft
Excel (Figure 4.2). To calculate the SEM, firstly the difference score between the two
testing occasions (e.g., day 1 and day 2) can be calculated for each athlete by subtract-
ing their session 1 mean score from their session 2 mean score for each test metric.
Each athlete’s mean score obtained for each session is calculated as the mean (i.e.,
average) score across the trials recorded for each test (e.g., the average of three trials,
if that is how many trials the athletes did). The between-athlete standard deviation
of the difference scores for each test metric can then be calculated and the answer
divided by the square root of 2 to give the SEM (Swinton et al., 2018). This method of
calculating the SEM is said to be numerically equivalent to the “direct method” when
we have just two measurements for each participant (or two session average meas-
urements, as is the case in the example described thus far and, in most applied sports
environments). The 95% CI of the SEM can be calculated by multiplying it by 1.96.
Both the SEM and SEM + 95% CI can be expressed as a CV percentage by dividing
them by the grand mean (the between-athlete mean score across sessions 1 and 2)
and multiplying the answer by 100. The minimal detectible change (MDC) can be
calculated by multiplying the SEM + 95% CI by the square root of 2 (see Figure 4.2).
The MDC can also be expressed as a percentage by dividing it by the grand mean and
multiplying the answer by 100.
Each of the calculations explained above is shown in Figure 4.2 and is applied to
countermovement jump height data that are also presented in Figure 4.1 (left panel).
Based on these data, the strength and conditioning coach could assume that (1) 95%
of countermovement jump height measurements will fall within 1.7 cm of what is

Figure 4.2 An example of how to calculate absolute reliability in Microsoft Excel with formu-
lae shown. JH = jump height; SD = standard deviation; Diffs = differences; SEM =
standard error or measurement; CI = confidence interval; CV = coefficient of varia-
tion; MDC = minimal detectible change.
56 Statistical Analysis and Test Administration
observed for an athlete who is from a similar cohort and (2) 2.4 cm is the minimal
amount of change in countermovement jump height required to exceed measurement
error. These assumptions are based on the athletes being from the same sport, from a
similar competitive level and tested using equivalent methods (e.g., same instrumen-
tation [e.g., force plate] and jump height calculation [e.g., from impulse-momentum
theorem]). This information is useful to strength and conditioning coaches as it pro-
motes caution when interpreting data obtained from testing their athletes. We should
remember that due to both instrumentation and biological noise (i.e., unwanted dis-
turbance in an electrical signal) being present whenever we test our athletes (Swinton
et al., 2018), we cannot know what an athlete’s “true” test score is and, therefore,
what a true change in the test score is. Instead, we should interpret the observed data
for our athletes alongside the SEM +95% CI and MDC each time we assess them.

Concurrent Validity
There are many types of validity, but concurrent validity is arguably of most rele-
vance to strength and conditioning coaches in the context of physically testing ath-
letes. Concurrent validity specifies the amount of agreement between two different
test devices that purportedly measure the same thing (Adams et al., 2014). As strength
and conditioning coaches, we should attempt to test our athletes with devices that
have been concurrently validated against an assumed criterion device (i.e., an industry
gold standard) wherever possible to give us and our athletes’ confidence in the data.
The concurrent validity of a new test device should be determined by quantifying the
agreement between it and a well-established test device that has already been proven
(or is considered) to be valid (i.e., a criterion device). It should be noted that a test
device can be reliable but not valid. For example, some electronic contact mats that are
commonly used to test an athlete’s vertical jump height showed high between-trial reli-
ability but poor concurrent validity when compared to a force plate (i.e., the criterion
device) (McMahon et al., 2016). Therefore, such devices may be used reliably to mon-
itor changes in an athlete’s vertical jump height over time, but the actual jump height
values obtained from the systems are likely to be erroneous, and, therefore, will need
to be corrected (i.e., brought in line with force plate jump height values) via published
equations (McMahon et al., 2016). Ideally, even modern portable force plates, which
are increasingly likely to be used by strength and conditioning coaches (Weldon et al.,
2021), should be assessed for agreement with industry gold standard force plates. This
has been done for some of the common portable force systems to date via researchers’
own algorithms (Lake et al., 2018; Badby et al., 2022), but it should be noted that dif-
ferent commercial force plate software should not be used interchangeably due to poor
agreement for many vertical jump variables, even when applied to the same force plate
data (Merrigan et al., 2022). For example, there was a 121% difference in counter-
movement jump propulsive net impulse, which directly influences vertical jump height
(Kirby et al., 2011; McBride et al., 2010), between two of the current commercial force
plate software leaders (Merrigan et al., 2022).
In the absence of peer-reviewed concurrent validity studies, strength and condi-
tioning coaches may wish to quantify the agreement between the test device they are
using and a criterion test device if they are able to collect the required data with their
athletes. As concurrent validity is concerned with ascertaining the amount of agree-
ment between two different test devices that purportedly measure the same thing
 Statistical Analysis and Test Administration 57
(Adams et al., 2014), appropriate statistical tests must be applied. A test of mean
difference (e.g., a paired t-test) or a correlation test (e.g., Pearson) between the two
test devices is insufficient, despite their common application in published concurrent
validity studies (Ranganathan et al., 2017). Instead, ordinary least products regression
analysis is recommended, as this will inform us as to whether there is any fixed or pro-
portional bias between two methods. Specifically, fixed bias is present if the 95% CIs
of the intercept does not include 0. Proportional bias is present if 95% CIs of the slope
does not include 1. Fixed bias means that one method produces higher or lower values
than those from the other by a constant amount (e.g., always a 2 cm higher differ-
ence). Alternatively, proportional bias means that one method produces higher or lower
values than the other by an amount that is proportional to the level of the measured
variable (Ludbrook, 1997). Good agreement between test devices occurs when there is
neither fixed on proportional bias present. The reader is referred to Ludbrook (2010)
for more information on ordinary least product regression analyses.

Part 3: Test Administration

To achieve accurate test results, testing needs to be completed in a safe, correct, and
organized manner that achieves the goals of the strength and conditioning coach and/
or team management. When selecting the specific tests the athletes will complete,
the strength and conditioning coach needs to ensure proper health and safety for
each athlete. In addition, the coach needs to be properly trained on performance of
each test in order to be administered accurately, and the athlete needs to be properly
instructed on how to prepare for the upcoming testing session.

Health and Safety Considerations

Prior to testing an athlete, the athlete should be medically cleared and/or a full health
screening should be conducted to determine if medical clearance is necessary (see
Chapter 1). During each test, the coach needs to be aware of any physical signs and
symptoms of any medical issues before, during, or after exertion. Medical referral
may be necessary for an athlete that has any of the following symptoms:

• Chest pressure, pain, or discomfort

• Light-headedness, dizziness, blurred vision, or syncope
• Confusion or headache
• Irregular heart rate – too fast or slow
• Bone or joint pain
• Shortness of breath
• Weakness either not commensurate with the level of exertion or unresponsive to
rest (McGuigan, 2016).

Selection of Training of Testers

A sporting team may conduct testing on the entire team at the same time and may
require additional assistance in testing. These additional testers should be well trained
and have a thorough understanding of all tests being conducted. The head strength
coach should make sure that all testers perform the testing protocol and score the test
58 Statistical Analysis and Test Administration
the same. It is very important that all testers have sufficient practice to obtain scores
that closely correlate with other testers. All testers should explain the tests in a stand-
ardized manner and give the same verbal encouragement to make sure that athletes
receive similar opportunities to perform the test.

Recording Forms
All tests that are being conducted for a specific testing session should have the proper
forms necessary for that day’s testing. These test forms can be created by the team or
may be downloaded from different books or manuals. Additional information should
be documented on the form as well including environmental conditions (room tem-
perature, humidity, time of day), and how the testing was set up, i.e., pin height for
barbell in a squat rack or seat height on a machine.

Sequence of Tests
Proper order of tests will ensure test reliability. The central principle of testing
sequence should be that one test should not affect the performance of another test.
This will allow for optimal performance during each test. When testing consideration
of recovery timing is very important as different tests may affect the different energy
systems. An example would be a test that affects the phosphagen system (ATP-PC
system) would need between 3 and 5 minutes of recovery (Bogdanis et al., 1995).
The proper sequence of tests should be as follows:

1 Non-fatiguing tests – e.g., height, body mass, flexibility, body composition

2 Agility tests – e.g., T-test, pro agility test
3 Maximal power and strength tests – e.g., 1-RM
4 Sprint tests – e.g., 40 m sprint test
5 Muscular endurance – e.g., push-up, curl-up tests
6 Fatiguing anaerobic capacity tests – e.g., Wingate test
7 Aerobic capacity tests – e.g., VO2max, Yo-Yo intermittent test

Preparing Athletes for Testing

Selecting the testing date should include the time of day and announcing to the athlete
when to arrive at the facility is important. Prior to the test date, the strength and con-
ditioning coach may consider having the athletes come to the lab facility and allow
them to practise performing the tests prior to the main testing day. This will allow the
athletes to familiarize themselves with the testing protocol to make sure they know
what will be expected from them. Instructions should be given to the athlete prior to
testing which include the purpose of testing, how to perform the tests, when to arrive,
what to eat prior to testing, and what to wear. The instructions need to be clear
and concise to allow the athlete to give their best effort. Prior to testing, a proper
warm-up should be given. The warm-up should incorporate a general warm-up and
finish with a specific warm-up. The warm-up should include movements that are
similar to the testing protocol to follow. Before each test, consider including a few
repetitions as a warm-up.
 Statistical Analysis and Test Administration 59
Upon conclusion of testing, a cool-down should be performed after tests that
increases heart rate and at the end of the testing battery. The cool-down should
include active recovery that incorporates low-intensity movements to enhance the
recovery process.

Summary
Strength and conditioning coaches who assess the physical characteristics of their
athletes should have an appreciation of the reliability, measurement error, and valid-
ity of the devices and metrics that they use. This will allow them to critically interpret
the generated data before utilizing it to inform the construction of their athletes’
strength and conditioning programs. Strength and conditioning coaches should also
invest time in preparing the administrative aspects of testing their athletes to ensure
that all testing conducted is as well organized and safe as possible, to facilitate an
efficient and ethical performance testing environment.

References
Adams, H., Cervantes, P., Jang, J. & Dixon, D. 2014. Chapter 25 – Standardized assessment.
In: Granpeesheh, D., Tarbox, J., Najdowski, A. C. & Kornack, J. (eds). Evidence-Based
Treatment for Children with Autism. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Badby, A. J., Mundy, P., Comfort, P., Lake, J. & Mcmahon, J. J. 2022. Agreement Among
Countermovement Jump Force-Time Variables Obtained from a Wireless Dual Force
Plate System and an Industry Gold Standard System. Liverpool: International Society of
Biomechanics in Sports.
Bogdanis, G. C., Nevil, M. E., Boobis, L. H., Lakomy, H. K. A. & Nevill, A. M. 1995.
Recovery power output and muscle metabolites following 30 s of maximal sprint cycling in
man. J Appl Physiol, 482, 467–80.
Borg, D. N., Bach, A. J. E., O’Brien, J. L. & Sainani, K. L. 2022. Calculating sample size for
reliability studies. PM R, 14, 1018–25.
Claudino, J. G., Cronin, J., Mezêncio, B., Mcmaster, D. T., Mcguigan, M., Tricoli, V., Amadio,
A. C. & Serrão, J. C. 2017. The countermovement jump to monitor neuromuscular status: A
meta-analysis. J Sci Med Sport, 20, 397–402.
Kennedy, R. A. & Drake, D. 2021. Improving the signal-to-noise ratio when monitoring coun-
termovement jump performance. J Strength Cond Res, 35, 85–90.
Kirby, T. J., McBride, J. M., Haines, T. L., & Dayne, A. M. (2011). Relative net vertical
impulse determines jumping performance. J Appl Biomech. 27(3), 207–14.
Koo, T. K. & Li, M. Y. 2016. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation
coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med, 15, 155–63.
Lake, J., Mundy, P., Comfort, P., Mcmahon, J. J., Suchomel, T. J. & Carden, P. 2018.
Concurrent validity of a portable force plate using vertical jump force-time characteristics.
J Appl Biomech, 34, 410–3.
Ludbrook, J. 1997. Comparing methods of measurements. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol, 24,
193–203.
Ludbrook, J. 2010. Linear regression analysis for comparing two measures or methods of
measurement: But which regression? Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol, 37, 692–9.
McBride, J. M., Kirby, T. J., Haines, T. L. & Skinner, J. (2010) Relationship between relative
net vertical impulse and jump height in jump squats performed to various squat depths and
with various loads. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 5(4), 484–96.
60 Statistical Analysis and Test Administration
Mcguigan, M. 2016. Principles. Of test selection and administration. In G. Haff & N. T.
Triplett (eds), Essentials of Strength and Conditioning, 4th ed. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics. 249–58.
McMahon, J. J., Jones, P. A. & Comfort, P. 2016. A correction equation for jump height meas-
ured using the just jump system. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 11, 555–7.
McMahon, J. J., Lake, J. P. & Comfort, P. 2018. Reliability of and relationship between flight
time to contraction time ratio and reactive strength index modified. Sports, 6, 81.
Merrigan, J. J., Stone, J. D., Galster, S. M. & Hagen, J. A. 2022. Analyzing force-time curves:
Comparison of commercially available automated software and custom MATLAB analyses.
J Strength Cond Res, 36, 2387–402.
Ranganathan, P., Pramesh, C. S. & Aggarwal, R. 2017. Common pitfalls in statistical analy-
sis: Measures of agreement. Perspect Clin Res, 8, 187–91.
Shrout, P. E. & Fleiss, J. L. 1979. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Psychol Bull, 86, 420–8.
Swinton, P. A., Hemingway, B. S., Saunders, B., Gualano, B. & Dolan, E. 2018. A statistical
framework to interpret individual response to intervention: Paving the way for personalized
nutrition and exercise prescription. Front Nutr, 5, 41.
Weldon, A., Duncan, M. J., Turner, A., Sampaio, J., Noon, M., Wong, D. & Lai, V. W. 2021.
Contemporary practices of strength and conditioning coaches in professional soccer. Biol
Sport, 38, 377–90.
5 Body Composition
Joshua Miller

Part 1: Introduction
Body composition is a key component of an individual’s health and physical fitness
profile. Athletes today come in all different shapes and sizes and understanding what
physical appearance is necessary to compete in the sport of their choice. Appropriate
anthropometrics and body composition is necessary for achievement in their sport.
Some endurance and power sports are weight dependent, and those athletes that
are leaner, i.e., endurance athletes may benefit from a lower percentage of body fat.
This benefit of lower percentage body fat may be demonstrated in reduced oxygen
consumption during higher intensity exercise when compared to greater weight ath-
letes. However, if percentage body fat is too low in female endurance runners, this
may increase the risk of female athlete triad (FAT) or relative energy deficiency in
sport (RED-S) (Folscher et al., 2015; Logue et al., 2020). The FAT is a syndrome that
involves and interplays between low energy availability, menstrual dysfunction, and
altered bone mineral density (Deimel and Dunlan, 2012). RED-S has been demon-
strated to occur in male cyclists (Keay et al., 2019) and endurance athletes (Heikura
et al., 2018a; Heikura et al., 2018b). Obesity is a serious health problem that affects
more than one-third of the population (Williams et al., 2015). However, in certain
sports, athletes may have a greater amount of body fat for success in the position. An
example would be an offensive lineman in American football. In addition, too little
body fatness, seen in individuals in weight-dependent sports or endurance sports,
may lead to physiological dysfunction.
It is necessary to understand the underlying theoretical models when assessing
body composition. The body is made up of water, protein, minerals, and fat. Certain
methods divide the body into two compartments: fat (adipose tissue) mass and fat-
free (everything else) mass (Siri 1961; Brozek et al., 1963). Certain assumptions are
made when using the two-component model (Gibson, Wagner and Heyward):

1 The density of fat is 0.901 g ⋅ cc−1.

2 The density of fat-free mass is 1.100 g ⋅ cc−1.
3 The densities of fat and fat-free components are the same for all individuals.
4 The densities of the fat-free mass are constant within an individual, and their
proportional contribution to the lean component remains constant.
5 The individual being measured differs from the reference body only in the amount
of fat. The fat-free mass of the reference body is assumed to be 73.8% water,
19.4% protein, and 6.8% mineral (Mitchell et al., 1945).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003186762-5
62 Body Composition

Figure 5.1 Two-, three-, and four-compartment body composition models.

The three-compartment model will allow for a direct measurement of bone mineral
content and/or total body water. Depending upon available testing equipment utiliz-
ing a two-compartment model and measuring a third component will increase the
significance of the estimation of percent body fat. The use of DEXA in the exercise
physiology laboratory and sporting teams has allowed for a four-compartment mode
that controls for biological variability in both total body water (TBW) and bone min-
eral content. Withers et al. (1999) reported that a multi-compartment technique for
body composition can be time-consuming and expensive but is a widely recognized
reference method for body composition assessment (see Figure 5.1).
When selecting the body composition technique that will be used to estimate body
fat percentage, the tester needs to understand possible error rates and reasons for
the error. The ranges can be between 1% and 10% depending upon the technique
selected. Traditionally, the gold standard test was hydrostatic weighing and all other
techniques have been compared to hydrostatic weighing. Today, the gold standard
measurements include densitometry (hydrostatic weighing and air displacement ple-
thysmography [ADP]) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) to obtain esti-
mates of body composition. For densitometric methods, total body density (Db) is
estimated from the ratio of body mass (BM) to body volume (BV) (Db = BM/BV). BV
can be measured either from hydrodensitometry and ADP.

Proper Clothing Attire for Measurements

When performing any type of body composition measurement, proper clothing
should be worn to make measurements as quick and efficient as possible. This means
wearing clothing must be of minimal thickness and follow the natural shape of the
 Body Composition 63
body to allow access to areas of the skin for skinfolds and other measures. In contrast
during tests of hydrodensitometry and/or ADP, spandex shorts for males and spandex
shorts and a sports bra for females should be worn to reduce risk of error.

Laboratory Testing

Densitometry
Hydrostatic weighing or underwater weighing (UWW) and ADP (Bod Pod®) are effec-
tive, consistent, and widely used laboratory methods for assessing Db. Densitometry
provides an estimate of BV based upon the water and/or air that is displaced by the
body’s volume. This is based upon Archimedes’ principle, which states the weight of a
body of water is directly proportional to the volume of water displaced by the body’s
volume. To calculate Db, BM is divided BV. The total Db is made up of the amounts
of muscle, bone, water, and fat in the body.

Underwater Weighing
To determine BV, the individual is submerged in an UWW tank or pool and the BM of
the individual is measured underwater. When measuring the underwater weight, the
individual can either be seated in a chair that is attached to scale (see Figure 5.2a) or
a platform attached to load cells (see Figure 5.2b). The weight loss from the individual
being under water is directly proportional to the volume of water displaced by the
body’s volume; the BV is equal to BM minus the underwater weight. Some individu-
als will need additional weight to keep them underwater and this mass is termed the
tare weight (TW) and must be subtracted from the underwater weight. Additionally,
the BV must be corrected for the volume of air that is remaining in the lungs after a
maximal exhalation (this is residual volume (RV)), as well as the gas that is trapped
in the gastrointestinal tract (GT). The air in the GT is assumed to be 100 ml.

Figure 5.2 (a) and (b) Example of an underwater weighing tank, and individual being sub-
merged. (Photos courtesy of Jeff Tesch, ExerTech.)
64 Body Composition
RV can be measured directly via a nitrogen washout test. The RV is measured in
litres and must be converted to kilograms (kg) to correct the underwater weight. 1 L
of air weighs approximately 1 kg, so the conversion is easy to do. To correct BV for
air remaining, RV and GT (100 ml or 0.1 kg) must be subtracted from the equation.
The density of water must be corrected based upon the temperature of the water and
this can affect BV. Thus, the equation for BV is:

( )
BV = ( BM – net UWW ) /density of water – ( RV + GT )

If unable to measure RV via a nitrogen washout test. Several regression models have
been created to estimate RV. Calculation of RV can be made by using the RV equa-
tions in Table 5.1.
To calculate Db, divide BM by BV: Db = BM − BV. Once Db is calculated, it can
be converted to percent body fat (%BF) by using the appropriate population-specific
conversion formula (see Table 5.2).

Underwater Weighing

Guidelines for Underwater Weighing

Pre-test Guidelines
• Do not eat or engage in strenuous exercise at least 4 hours prior to testing.
• Avoid ingesting any gas-producing foods or beverages for at least 12 hours prior
to testing.
• Bring proper attire for the test (i.e., swimsuit).

Testing Procedure Guidelines

• Prior to testing, make sure the scale is properly calibrated to manufacturer
specifications.
• Encourage the individual to use the restroom to empty their bladder and change
into a swimsuit.
• Measure the individual’s BM (dry) to the nearest 0.01 kg.

Table 5.1 Regression equations to estimate residual volume.

Age (years) Gender Equation Reference

White 15–91 Female 0.0197 (H) + 0.0201 Crapo et al. (1982)

(A) – 2.421
White 15–91 Male 0.0216 (H) + 0.0207 Crapo et al. (1982)
(A) – 2.840
African American 20–60 Female 0.01542 (H) + 0.0230 Petersen and Hodous,
(A) + 0.00726 (W) – (1988)
0.0225 (A) – 2.205
African American 20–60 Male 0.01542 (H) + 0.0230 Petersen and Hodous,
(A) + 0.00726 (W) – (1988)
0.0421 (A) – 2.032

H = height in centimeters; A = age in years; W = body mass in kilograms.

 Body Composition 65
Table 5.2 Population-specific formulas for converting body density to percent body fat.

Age (years) Gender Equation FF Db (g.cc-1) Reference

American Indian 18–60 Female (4.81/Db) − 4.34 1.108 Hicks (1992)

African American 18–32 Male (4.37/Db) − 3.93 1.113 Schutte et al.
(1984)
24–79 Female (4.85/Db) − 4.39 1.106 Ortiz et al. (1992)
Hispanic 20–40 Female (4.87/Db) − 4.41 1.105 Stolarczyk et al.
(1995)
White 17–19 Male (4.99/Db) − 4.55 1.098 Lohman (1986)
Female (5.05/Db) − 4.62 1.005 Lohman (1986)
20–80 Male (4.95/Db) − 4.50 1.1 Siri (1961)
Female (5.01/Db) − 4.57 1.098 Lohman (1986)
(4.57/Db) − 4.142 1.099 Brozek et al. (1963)

Athletes

Endurance 21 ± 2 Male (5.03/Db) − 4.59 1.097 Gibson et al. (2019)

21 ± 4 Female (4.95/Db) − 4.50 1.1 Siri 1961
Resistance 24 ± 4 Male (5.21/Db) − 4.78 1.089 Gibson et al. (2019)
35 ± 6 Female (4.97/Db) − 4.52 1.099 Gibson et al. (2019)

• Check and record the water temperature of the tank or pool before the test. The
temperature should range between 34 and 36°C (see Table 5.3 to determine the
density of water at the temperature recorded.
• Ask the individual to shower prior to entering the water. Once entering the water,
ask them to be as calm as possible so the water does not become rough which
could affect the test. Ask the individual to submerge themselves in the water and
rub down their body and hair to remove any air bubbles that are trapped on their
skin or swimsuit.
• Have the individual sit on chair or kneel on the platform. Additional weight may
need to be given to completely submerge the individual underwater when they
perform the test.

Table 5.3 Density of water at various temperatures.

Water Temperature Density Value

25°C 0.99707
26°C 0.99681
27°C 0.99654
28°C 0.99626
29°C 0.99597
30°C 0.99567
31°C 0.99537
32°C 0.99505
33°C 0.99471
34°C 0.99438
35°C 0.99404
36°C 0.99369
37°C 0.99333
66 Body Composition
• Ask them to take a few normal breaths and then exhale maximally while slowly
bending forward to submerge the body. Make sure that their head is completely
submerged as well. If any part of their body is not submerged tap them gently to
try to submerge it further. Once they have reached RV, they should remain as still
as possible for a count of 5 for an accurate measurement to be made.
• Record the highest measurement during the trail and signal them that the trail is
complete.
• Administer the test for a maximum of ten trials. Many individuals will achieve
consistent and maximal trials within 4–5 trials. Average the three highest trials.
• Prior to exiting the take, ask the individual to place the weight on the chair or
platform for measurement of the TW.
• Determine the true UWW by subtracting the TW from the gross UWW. This will
be the net UWW.

Tips for Minimizing Error During Hydrostatic Weighing

• Make sure all pre-test guidelines have been met.
• Make sure calibration for all equipment is completed properly.
• Precisely measure BV to ± 50 g, UWW to ± 100 g, and RV to ± 100 ml.
• Practise maximally exhaling all air to RV and remaining as still as possible.
• As the individual submerges, try to steady the scale, but when the measurement
is taken, do not touch the scale.
• When calculating Db, carry the value to at least 5 decimal places to reduce error.
• Select the proper population-specific conversion formula (see Table 5.1).

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Once the proper population-specific conversion formula has been used to determine
percentage body fat, calculation of fat-free mass and fat mass can be made.

• Fat mass = Body mass × percent body fat (in decimal)

• Fat-free mass = Body mass − fat mass

Additionally, percentage body fat can be utilized to determine the proper body fat
percentage category of body fat (see Table 5.4). Table 5.5 illustrates body composition
characteristics of different types of sporting athletes.

Air Displacement Plethysmography (ADP)

ADP is a second method to determine BV and Db. This technique uses air dis-
placement to estimate volume instead of water. This technique is relatively quick
(~7–10 minutes) and requires very little compliance by the individual, and minimal
technician skill, it is considered an alternative to hydrostatic weighing. The Bod Pod
is a device that utilizes ADP to estimate BV. The Bod Pod is an egg-shaped fiberglass
chamber that uses air displacement and pressure-volume (P-V) relationships to esti-
mate BV (see Figure 5.3).
The Bod Pod is a device that uses a dual-chamber system to estimate BV (Figure 5.4).
The individual will sit in the front chamber and the chamber behind the individual
 Body Composition 67
Table 5.4 Body fat percentage categories for males and females.

Very Lean Lean Average Over Fat Obese

Age (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Males

20–29 4–7 8–12 13–17 18–23 >23

30–39 7–11 12–16 17–20 21–25 >25
40–49 9–13 14–18 19–22 23–26 >26
50–59 11–15 16–20 21–23 24–28 >28
60–69 12–17 18–21 22–24 25–29 >29
70–79 14–16 17–21 22–24 25–29 >29

Females

20–29 11–15 16–18 19–22 23–28 >28

30–39 11–16 17–19 20–23 24–30 >30
40–49 12–17 18–21 22–25 26–32 >32
50–59 13–19 20–24 25–28 29–34 >34
60–69 14–20 21–25 26–29 30–35 >35
70–79 11–18 19–24 25–28 29–25 >35

is a reference chamber. Between the chambers is a large diaphragm that oscillates

during the test. The P-V relationship is used to calculate the volume for the front
chamber when it is empty and when the individual sits in the chair. BV is calculated
as the difference in the volume in the chamber with and without the individual inside
of the device.

Table 5.5 Body composition characteristics of athletes.

Sport Gender % Body Fat Technique Reference

Baseball – MLB M 14.9 + 6.4 SKF Coleman and Lasky (1992)

Basketball – NBA M 7.2 + 1.9 SKF Gonzalez et al. (2013)
Road Cyclist – Professional M 10.1 + 1.2 BIA Marra et al. (2016)
Distance Running – DI F 18.3 + 2.7 DEXA Fornetti et al. (1999)
Field Hockey – DI F 20.9 + 4.1 DEXA Fornetti et al. (1999)
Football – DI M 17.0 + 6.6 UWW Collins et al. (1999)
Football – DII M 11.9 + 3.4 SKF Mayhew et al. (1989)
Gymnastics F 19.1 + 2.2 DEXA Fornetti et al. (1999)
Hockey – Collegiate M 16.1 + 3.9 DEXA Chiarlitti et al. (2017)
Rowing – DI F 22.2 + 7.3 UWW Vescovi et al. (2002)
Soccer – DI F 21.8 + 2.7 DEXA Fornetti et al. (1999)
Soccer – Seniors M 11.6 + 3.7 BIA Spehnjak et al. (2021)
Softball – DI F 21.7 + 5.7 UWW Vescovi et al. (2002)
Swimming – DI M 15.1 + 3.8 UWW Prior et al. (2001)
Swimming – DI F 23.5 + 5.8 UWW Prior et al. (2001)
Track and Field – DI F 15.7 + 4.5 UWW Vescovi et al. (2002)
Volleyball – DI F 19.1 + 2.7 SKF Fry et al. (1991)
Weightlifting – US national M 20.4 + 1.9 SKF Fry et al. (1991)
Wrestling – DI M 7.3 + 0.7 SKF Kraemer et al. (1991)

SKF = skinfold; BIA = bioelectric impedance; UWW = underwater weighing; DEXA = dual energy X-ray
absorptiometry.
68 Body Composition

Figure 5.3 B
 od Pod GS-X. (Courtesy of COSMED, USA. From https://www.cosmed.com/
hires/Bodpod_GS-X_Brochure_A3_4pages_C05140-02-93_EN_print.pdf.)

The underlying principle for ADP is the relationship between pressure and volume.
At a constant temperature (isothermal condition), volume (V), and pressure (P) are
inversely related. According to Boyle’s law,

P1 /P2 = V2 /V1

where P1 and V1 represent one paired condition of P and V, and P2 and V2 represent
another paired condition.

• P1 and V1 represent when the Bod Pod is empty, and

• P2 and V2 represent when an individual is in the Bod Pod.

An assumption made is that the Bod Pod controls the isothermal effects of clothing,
hair, thoracic gas volume (TGV), and body surface area (BSA) while the individual
is seated in the chamber. When undergoing a test, individuals wear minimal cloth-
ing (i.e., swimsuit), and a swim cap to compress the hair. BSA is calculated from the
height and BM of the individual that is inputted into the computer. TGV is calculated
from the functional residual capacity (FRC) at mid-exhalation. TGV can be esti-
mated or measured directly during the test to account for isothermal conditions in
 Body Composition 69

Figure 5.4 B
 od Pod device schematic, including visualization of diaphragm perturbations
utilized to determine body volume of the participant in the measurement cham-
ber. (Courtesy of COSMED, USA. Schematic from http://www.cosmed.com/hires/
marketing_literature/product_news/Product_News_Air_Displacement_EN_
print.pdf.)

the lungs. Several studies have demonstrated that the estimation of TGV can be used
instead of measuring it during the test (McCrory et al., 1998; Demerath et al., 2002;
Henricksson et al., 2013; Miller 2016).

Air Displacement Plethysmography

Guidelines for ADP

Pre-test Guidelines
• Do not eat or engage in strenuous exercise at least 4 hours prior to testing.
• Avoid ingesting any gas-producing foods or beverages for at least 12 hours prior
to testing.
• Have the individual empty their bladder and bowel.
• Bring proper attire for the test (i.e., swimsuit).
70 Body Composition
• Follow manufacturer guidelines for calibration.
• Be careful when handling the calibration cylinder to make sure no dents or
damage are made as this can affect calibration of the Bod Pod®.

Testing Procedure Guidelines

• Instruct the individual to change into dry, form-fitting swimwear. Females
should wear either a one-piece bathing suit or sports bra and compression shorts.
Males should wear either a swimsuit (i.e., speedo) or compression shorts (without
padding).
• Prior to testing, measure the individual’s height to the nearest centimeter on a
stadiometer.
• Follow guidelines for inputting the individual’s information (name, date of birth,
ethnicity [either general population or African American only choices], and
height).
• Begin two-point calibration of the Bod Pod and measure BM using the scale that
is attached to the device.
• Once instructed by the device, ask the individual to sit inside of the front cham-
ber while wearing the swim cap. Make sure that no additional clothing is worn
besides the swimsuit and the swim cap.
• Remind them that the door will be magnetically sealed and airtight.
• Ask them to breathe normal.
• Once the door is closed, it will take approximately 30 seconds to complete
the first test.
• Follow the prompts on the computer screen, open the door fully, and then close
the door for the second measurement.
• If the two tests are off by 150 ml, repeat the test for a third time.
• Ask the individual to exit the Bod Pod.

Tips for Minimizing Error During ADP

• Make sure all pre-test guidelines have been met.
• Make sure calibration for all equipment is completed properly.
• Make sure the individual is wearing the proper clothing and swim cap during
the test.
• Avoid any movement while the test is ongoing.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Figure 5.5 is the printout that the Bod Pod creates when a test is ended. At the beginning
of the test, inputting the correct gender and ethnicity will select the proper database
for comparison of percent body fat. The population-specific conversion formula will
be selected based upon the ethnicity of the individual (general population or African
American). However, Brozek, Siri, Schutte (Black only), or Lohman (children or adoles-
cents) equations can be selected based upon the desire of the tester (Lohman, T.G. et al.,
1988). Similar results will be determined upon printout from the device (see Figure 5.5).
 Body Composition 71

Figure 5.5 E
 xample of a printout from the Bod Pod. (Courtesy of the UIC Human Performance
Laboratory.)
72 Body Composition
Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry
DEXA/DXA is becoming one of the most widely used devices to estimate body
composition (Figure 5.6). In addition, it is also considered a reference method for
body composition in research and clinical settings. This technique divides the
body into three compartments – bone mineral, fat (adipose and visceral adipose
tissue (VAT)), and fat-free mass. The test can compare whole-body and regional
(trunk and appendicular) levels of the different compartments. DEXA is safe and
time-efficient when comparing to UWW because it requires some compliance by
the individual but will require the tester to be well trained. A whole-body scan can
be completed within 5–7 minutes depending upon the type of DEXA (Bazzocchi
et al., 2016).
The technology of the DEXA is the reduction of X-rays with high and low pho-
ton energies measurable and dependent upon the thickness, density, and chemical
composition of the underlying tissues (Gibson et al. 2019). This reduction of X-ray
energies is called attenuation. Tissues have different attenuations based upon the dif-
ferences of density and chemical composition of the tissues. An assumption of these
X-ray ratios for the high and low energies is thought to be constant for all individuals
(Pietrobelli et al., 1996). The amount of radiation that is given off by the device is

Figure 5.6 D
 ual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) device, GE lunar prodigy series. (Photo
taken at the University of Illinois Chicago Integrative Physiology Laboratory,
Chicago, IL.)
 Body Composition 73
very minimal. An individual will receive more radiation while flying in a plane than
completing the test.
There are several different types of DEXA devices in the market (GE, Hologic,
and Norland) and each has its own proprietary software that makes it difficult to
assess the validity of the devices. This leads to issues upon standardization of the test.
Lohman et al. (2000) reviewed studies using DEXA and concluded DEXA estimates
body fat percentage within 1–3% of multi-compartment methods. Several studies
have concluded that DEXA is a better predictor than UWW (Friedl et al., 1992;
Prior et al., 1997; Wagner and Heyward, 2001). However, there have been studies
that reported that DEXA is not as accurate as UWW (Bergsma-Kadijk et al., 1996;
Millard-Stafford et al., 2001).

Guidelines for DEXA/DXA

Pre-test Guidelines
• Calibrate device to manufacturer standards using the calibration block provided
by manufacturer.
• Have the individual void his bladder and bowel and remove all jewelry.
• Measure the individual’s height and BM while wearing as minimal clothing as
possible. Make sure there is no metal in any undergarments.

Testing Procedure Guidelines

• Instruct the individual to lie suping (on his back) on the scanner bed.
• Some scanners will automatically make adjustment based upon body thickness.
• Make sure the individual holds his arms in a neutral position next to his body
during the scan.
• Consider using a Velcro strap on his knees to make sure of no movement.
• Have the individual lie as still as possible as he is being scanned.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

DEXA produces a printout that illustrates percent fat based upon entire body, body
segments (i.e., arms, legs, and trunk), and right and left sides of the body (Figure 5.7).
Additionally, bone density is determined based upon the scan of the whole body.

Field Testing
In field testing, techniques can be utilized that do not require expensive equipment
but still need proper training on the equipment. The coach has several different types
of equipment to select from including skinfolds, bioelectrical impedance analysis
(BIA), ultrasound, and other types of prediction equations. As with the laboratory
tests, the coach needs to understand the basic assumptions and principles as well as
sources of error for each method. Each technique has established standardized testing
protocols that need to be followed and should be practised reducing the potential for
error. All field tests have been validated to the reference tests to make sure the test can
reproduce similar results.
74 Body Composition

Figure 5.7 E
 xample of a printout-form DEXA device for body composition. (Courtesy of the
UIC Human Performance Laboratory.)

Anthropometry
Anthropometry refers to the measurement of the human body. It is one of the most
common techniques used to describe the individual in human performance. Height
and BM not only serve to describe the individual but also contributes to the overall
fitness assessment.
 Body Composition 75
Height and Body Mass
Height and BM are the most common techniques used in the research laboratory and the
strength and conditioning facility. When measuring height, the individual will remove
his shoes and stands against a wall. On the wall may be an attached tape measure or a
device called a stadiometer (see Figure 5.8). While the individual is standing fully erect,
an object or measuring device is lowered to the top of the head and the measurement
is read. Height should be measured to the nearest 0.5 cm (0.25 in). Calibration can be
conducted on each device using a tape measurement to confirm the measurement.
BM is measured using a calibrated electronic or certified balance scale (see Figure 5.9).
The individual should be wearing a T-shirt, shorts, and no shoes. Measurement
should be taken after the individual voids his bladder, and to ensure the lightest

Figure 5.8 Example of a stadiometer by SECA.

76 Body Composition

Figure 5.9 D
 ifferent skinfold callipers for the measurement of skinfolds. (Photos courtesy by
Kelley Altom, MS.)

measurement of the day, consider rising in the morning after using the restroom. All
measurements should be taken at similar times of the day to ensure consistency. Body
mass is reported to the nearest kg (0.1 lb).

Body Mass Index

The body mass index (BMI) is calculated by dividing BM in kilograms (kg) by height
in meters squared (m 2). BMI is used in epidemiological studies to stratify individuals
into obesity and assess disease risk. One issue associated with BMI is that it does not
differentiate based upon FFM and FM. As a result, this is not an appropriate tech-
nique used with athletic populations. Table 5.6 classifies the different BMI categories.

Standardized Procedures for Height and Body Mass

These measurements are very easy to measure.
 Body Composition 77
Table 5.6 Body mass index categories.

Category BMI (kg/m2)

Underweight < 18.5

Normal 18.5–24.9
Overweight 25.0–29.9
Obese (class I) 30.0–34.9
Obese (class II) 35.0–39.9
Extremely obese (class III) > 40.0

1 Prior to testing, ensure the individual has emptied his bladder.

2 Remove shoes and measure the individual in a T-shirt, a pair of shorts, and socks
only or as minimal clothing as possible.
3 When measuring the individual’s height, ensure his heels are against the wall and
he is standing as erect as possible.
4 When measuring BM, make sure the individual is standing in the middle of the
platform and have him not move while performing the measurement.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

The reader is referred to the National Center for Health Statistics for comparison
of height and BM based on age, gender, and ethnicity (In the United States: https://
www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_03/sr03-046-508.pdf, (Fryar et al., 2021), In the
UK: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/health-survey-
for-england/2019) (Lifestyles Team, NHS Digital, 2020)).

Skinfold Testing
Skinfold testing indirectly measures the thickness of subcutaneous adipose tissue.
Skinfold testing can be used to estimate total Db to calculate percentage body
fat. Skinfold prediction equations are developed using either a linear (population-
specific) or quadratic (generalized) regression models. As we noted earlier, there are
several different population-specific formulas for converting Db to percent body fat.
There are many different types of equations for estimating Db from skinfolds, cir-
cumferences, and bony diameters (Jackson and Pollock, 1985). Table 5.7 lists several
different skinfold prediction equations for different populations. Figure 5.9 illustrates
the different tools for estimation of body composition from field testing.

Standardized Procedures for Skinfold Measurements

Skinfold measurements take a great amount of time and practice to develop skills
to be a skilled tester. There are different standardized protocols that can be selected
from to produce reliable and accurate measurements.

1 All skinfold measurements should be taken on the right side of the body unless
there is an issue with the specific site being tested.
78 Body Composition
Table 5.7 Skinfold prediction equations.

Skinfold Sites Population Equation Reference

Σ7SKF Black or Hispanic Db (g ⋅ cc−1) = 1.0970 − 0.00046971 × Jackson et al.

women, 18–55 yr (Σ7SKF) + 0.00000056 × (Σ7SKF)2 (1980)
− 0.00012828 × (age)
Σ7SKF Black men or male Db (g ⋅ cc−1) = 1.1120 − 0.00043499 × Jackson and
athletes, 18–61 yr (Σ7SKF) + 0.00000055 × (Σ7SKF)2 − Pollock
0. 00028826 × (age) (1978)
Σ4SKF Female athletes, Db (g ⋅ cc−1) = 1.096095 − 0.0006952 × Jackson et al.
18–29 yr (Σ4SKF) + 0.0000011 (Σ4SKF)2 − (1980)
0.0000714 × (age)
Σ3SKF (female) White or anorexic Db (g ⋅ cc−1) = 1.0994921 − 0.0009929 × Jackson et al.
women, 18–55 yr (Σ3SKF) + 0.0000023 × (Σ3SKF)2 − (1980)
0.0001392 × (age)
Σ3SKF (male) White men, Db (g ⋅ cc−1) = 1.109380 − 0.0008267 × Jackson and
18–61 yr (Σ3SKF) + 0.0000016 × (Σ3SKF)2 − Pollock
0.0002574 × (age) (1978)
Σ3SKF (athlete) Black or white % BF = 8.997 + 0.2468 × (Σ3SKF) − Evans et al.
collegiate male and 6.343 × (gender) − 1.998 × (race) (2005)
female athletes,
18–34 yr
Σ2SKF (youth) Black or white boys % BF = 0.735 × (Σ2SKF) + 1.0 Slaughter et al.
and girls, 6–17 yr % BF = 0.610 × (Σ3SKF) + 5.1 (1988)

ΣSKF = sum of skinfolds (mm); Σ7SKF = (chest + abdomen + triceps + thigh + subscapular + suprailliac +
midaxillary); S4SKF = (triceps + anterior suprailliac + abdomen + thigh); SSKF (female) = (triceps +
suprailliac + thigh); S3SKF (male) = (chest + abdomen + thigh); S3SKF (athlete) = (abdomen + thigh +
triceps) (gender − male athletes = 1; female athletes = 0) (race − black athletes = 1; white athletes = 0).
(American College of Sports Medicine, 2021)

2 Carefully identify, measure, and mark the skinfold site.

3 Grasp the skinfold firmly between the thumb and index finger of your left hand.
Lift the fold 1 cm (0.4 in) above the site to measure.

a If the individual has very large skinfolds, a larger separation of fingers when
grasping the skinfold site may be necessary.

4 Keep the fold elevated while taking the measurement.

5 Place the jaws of the caliper perpendicular to the fold, approximately 1 cm (0.4 in)
below the thumb and index finger and halfway between the crest and the base of
the fold.

a Release the jaw of the caliper pressure slowly.

6 Hold the site in the jaws of the calipers for 2–3 seconds before taking the reading.
7 Open the jaws of the caliper to remove it from the site before closing the jaws of
the calipers.

Recommendations for Skinfold Testing

• When locating the anatomical landmarks, measuring the distance, and marking
the site with a marker be very accurate.
 Body Composition 79
• Read the dial on the caliper to the nearest 0.1 mm (Harpenden) 0.5 mm (Lange),
or 1 mm (plastic calipers) (see Figure 5.9).
• A minimum of two measurements at each site is required. If the values are greater
than 2 mm, complete a third measurement and average the two measurements
that are the closest.
• Rotate the skinfold measurements rather than repeating the same measurement.
• Make sure the individual’s skin is dry and free from body lotion.
• Do not conduct testing after exercise because it can cause an error due to extra
water within the muscles.
• Practise on more than 50 individuals to become very proficient in technique.
• Seek a mentor who you can compare your results with.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

The population-specific conversion formula will be selected based upon the ethnicity
of the individual (see Table 5.4).

Case Study
You are the strength and conditioning coach for a football club. The head coach has
asked you to test a player that has been on the injured for the past three months. The
coach has asked to estimate his current percentage body fat. You decide to use the
seven-site SKF test. Upon completion, you record the following information:

Player: 23-year-old male % BF SKF = 18.1%

Body mass: 72 kg (158.4 lb) % BF prior to injury = 13.2%
Height: 165.1 cm (65 in.) BMI = 26.4 kg/m2
∑ 7SKF: 132 mm Body Density − 1.07833 g ⋅ cc−1

Upon collection of the data and analysis of the SKFs, it was determined that the
player has increased his fat mass percentage as well as their normal BM. The athlete
will be referred to the team dietician to aide in reduction of BM and percent fat to get
back to their pervious BM prior to their injury.

Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis

BIA is a quick, non-invasive test that is used to evaluate body composition in the
field. This technique measures a low-level electrical current that is passed through the
body, and the impedance, or opposition to the flow of current is measured with an
analyzer (see Figure 5.10). TBW can be estimated from the impedance measurement
because the electrolytes in the body’s water are an excellent conductor of electrical
current. When TBW is high, the current flows more easily through the body, due
to less resistance. The opposite is demonstrated in individuals with higher levels of
adipose tissue, which is due to lower levels of water content in the tissue, the current
flows less easily due to more resistance. Fat-free mass can be predicted from TBW
estimates (an assumption is the body is made up of ~ 73% water). Individuals with
increased FFM and TBW will have less resistance to the current flowing through their
bodies than someone with lower FFM. BIA indirectly estimates FFM and TBW based
80 Body Composition

Figure 5.10 Bioelectric impedance analysis using the RJL Systems device.

upon the following assumptions made about the shape of the body and the relation-
ship of impedance to the length and volume of the conductor:

• The human body is shaped like a perfect cylinder with uniform length and
cross-sectional area.
• The impedance is directly related to the length of the conductor (height) and
inversely related to the cross-sectional area.
• Tissues act as conductors or insulators, and the flow of current through the body
will follow the path of least resistance.

There are different types of BIA testing devices on the market currently (see Figure
5.10). These include whole body, upper body (hand-to-hand), and lower body (foot-
to-foot). The upper and lower body devices have been made to be used in the home
and/or laboratory.

Pre-test Guidelines for BIA Testing

• Avoid eating or drinking within 4 hours of the test.
• No moderate or vigorous exercise within 12 hours of the test.
• Have the individual empty their bladder within 30 minutes of the test.
• Avoid alcohol consumption within 48 hours of the test.
• Do not take any diuretic medication, unless prescribed by a physician, or con-
sume any caffeine prior to the test.
• Consider postponing test during menstrual cycle that the individual may be
retaining water.

Standardized Procedures for Whole-Body BIA Testing

1 All measurements will be taken on the right side of the body, while the individual
is lying in supine on a non-conductive surface in a room with normal ambient
temperature (~25°C/~77°F).
 Body Composition 81
2 Clean the skin where the electrodes will be placed on the hand and foot with an
alcohol wipe.
3 Place the proximal electrode on the dorsal surface of the wrist so that the electrode
is between the ulna and radius and the second proximal electrode on the dorsal
surface of the ankle between the medial and lateral malleoli (see Figure 5.10).
4 Place the distal electrode on the dorsal surface of the hand and foot at the bases of
the second and third metacarpophalangeal joints (see Figure 5.10). There should
be at least 5 cm (~ 2 in) between the proximal and distal electrodes.
5 Attach the wires to the correct electrodes. Red leads will be attached to the wrist
and ankle while the black electrodes will be attached to the hand and foot.
6 The individual’s arms and legs should be abducted slightly, ~ 30°–45° angle from
the body. Make sure there is no contact between the arms and trunk and the
thighs cannot touch either as this can affect the test results.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Once results are determined from BIA, select the proper population-specific equation
to determine FFM (see Table 5.8).
If the individual is lean, use the equations marked < 20% (male) or < 30% (female).
If the individual is obese, use the equations marked ≥ 20% (male) or ≥ 30% (female).

Table 5.8 Bioelectric impedance analysis population-specific equations.

Population % BF Level Equation Reference

American Indian, < 20% BF FFM (kg) = 0.00066360 × (ht2) − Segal et al. (1988)
black, Hispanic, 0.02117 × (R) + 0.62854 × (BM) −
or white male, 0.12380 × (age) + 9.33285
17–62 yr
American Indian, > 20% BF FFM (kg) = 0.00088580 × (ht2) − Segal et al. (1988)
black, Hispanic, 0.02999 × (R) + 0.42688 × (BM) −
or white male, 0.07002 × (age) + 14.52435
17–62 yr
American Indian, < 30% BF FFM (kg) = 0.000646 × (ht2) − 0.014 × Segal et al. (1988)
black, Hispanic, (R) + 0.421 × (BM) + 10.4
or white female,
17–62 yr
American Indian, > 30% BF FFM (kg) = 0.00091186 × (ht2) − Segal et al. (1988)
black, Hispanic, 0.01466 × (R) + 0.299990 × (BM) −
or white female, 0.07012 × (age) + 9.37938
17–62 yr
White boys and N/A FFM (kg) = 0.62 × (ht2/R) + 0.25 × Lohman (1992)
girls, 8–15 yr (BM) + 0.10 (Xc) + 4.2
White boys and N/A FFM (kg) = 0.61 × (ht2/R) + 0.21 × Houtkooper et al.
girls, 10–19 yr (BM) + 1.31 (1992)
Female athletes, N/A FFM (kg) =0.282 × (ht) + 0.415 × Fornetti et al. (1999)
18–27 yr (BM) − 0.37 × (R) + 0.096 (Xc) −
9.734
Male athletes, N/A FFM (kg) = 0.186 × (ht2/R) + 0.701 × Oppliger et al. (1991)
19–40 yr (BM) + 1.949

%BF = percent body fat; FFM = fat-free mass (kg); ht = height (cm); BM = body mass (kg); R = resistance
(Ω); Xc = reactance (Ω); N/A = non-applicable.
82 Body Composition
If unsure, use both equations and average the values found for both equations to
estimate FFM.

Part 2: Practical Examples

Case Study 1: Skinfold Testing

Prior to the football (US soccer) season starting, the head coach has asked you to
complete skinfold testing on one of the forwards. During the off-season, she has
focused on weight loss and the coach wants to make sure that she has not sacrificed
a lot of fat-free muscle mass through dieting.
At the end of the season, the athlete’s BM was 69 kg and percent body fat was 24%
(16.6 kg FM; 52.4 kg FFM). Data collected are presented in Table 5.9.

Table 5.9 Skinfold site locations.

Site Direction of Fold Anatomic Reference Measurement

Chest Diagonal Axilla and nipple One-half the distance between

the anterior axillary line and
the nipple (men) or one-third
of the distance between the
anterior axillary line and the
nipple (women).
Triceps Vertical Acromion process of Posterior midline of the upper
scapula and olecranon arm, halfway between the
process of ulna acromion process and
olecranon process.
Subscapular Diagonal Inferior angle of scapula 1–2 cm below the inferior
angle of the scapula.
Midaxillary Horizontal Mid axilla intersects with a On the midaxillary line at the
horizontal line level with level of the xiphoid process of
the bottom edge of the the sternum.
xiphoid process
Suprailliac Oblique Iliac crest In line with the natural angle
of the iliac crest taken in
the anterior axillary line
immediately superior to
the crest.
Abdominal Horizontal Umbilicus 2 cm to the right of the
umbilicus.
Thigh Vertical Inguinal crease and patella On the anterior midline of the
thigh, midway between the
proximal border of the
patella and the inguinal
crease.
Biceps Vertical Biceps brachii On the anterior aspect of the
arm over the belly of the
biceps, 1 cm above the level
of the triceps site.
Calf Vertical Maximal calf circumference On the midline of the medial
border of the calf.

Source: Adapted from ACSM GETP 11ed. ISAK.

 Body Composition 83
Gender: F Body Mass: 65 kg Age: 22 years

Measurement Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

Triceps 15.5 15 14.5 15
Abdomen 22 20 21 21
Thigh 18 17.5 18.5 18

Sum of skinfolds: 55 mm

DB = 1.099421 − (0.0009929 × (55)) + (0.000023 × (55)2) − 0.0001392 × (22)

DB = 1.099421 − 0.0546095 + 0.0069575 − 0.0030624 = 1.0487
% Fat = ((4.57/1.0487) − 4.142 = 21.6% Fat
FW = 65 × (0.216) = 14.0 kg
FFW = 65 − 14.0 = 51.0 kg

Upon calculating the data, the athlete has lost 4 kg of BM which was made up of
2.6 kg of FM and lost 1.4 kg of FFM.

Laboratory Task: How Much Body Fat Do You Have?

Complete three different techniques to estimate body composition if you can.

Summary
Body composition is a valuable component of health and fitness. The techniques used
include anthropometry and specific tests for estimating body composition analysis
are used as descriptive measurements for coaches and trainers. Standards have been
established using reference methods to determine fat- and fat-free mass. Field testing
has been validated against the reference tests. Testing can be completed in the labo-
ratory and in the field based upon the test and equipment you have at your facility.
These techniques for assessing body composition range from very easy to very dif-
ficult and from least expensive to very expensive. When selecting the proper test,
select the proper population-specific equation when calculating percent body fat or
fat-free mass.
84 Body Composition
Body Composition - Skinfold Measurements and Calculation
Name:               Gender:             
Age:             
Body Mass (kg):           Height (cm):           

Skinfold Measurements (mm)

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Mean

Chest                            
Triceps                     
Subscapular                            
Midaxillary                            
Suprailliac                            
Abdominal                            
Thigh                            
Biceps                            
Calf                            

3-site skinfold for male

Sum of chest, abdomen, and thigh skinfolds:        mm

3-site skinfold for female

Sum of triceps, suprailliac, and thigh skinfolds:        mm

Use the gender- and population-specific equations to calculate DB.

DB =        kg ⋅ L −1

% Fat = ((4.57 / DB) − 4.142) × 100 =        %

(Use proper population specific formula, Table 5.1)

Fat weight (FW) = DBM × (% Fat / 100) =        × (       /

       /100) =        kg

Fat-free mass (FFM) = DBM − FW =        −        =        kg

 Body Composition 85
Name:               Gender:             
Age:             
Body Mass (kg):           Height (cm):           

Step 1: Residual Volume Determination

Vital Capacity (VC) (L): 1.         
2.         
3.         

Room temperature (°C):         

BTPS correction factor:         

VCBTPS = VC × BTPS =        ×        =        L

Estimated RV from measurement of Residual Volume

Male Residual Volume (RV) Calculation:

Male RV = 0.24 × VCBTPS        =       L

Female Residual Volume (RV) Calculation:

Female RV = 0.28 × VCBTPS        =       L

Estimated Residual Volume from regression equation

Male Residual Volume (RV) Calculation:

Male RV =

Female Residual Volume (RV) Calculation:

Female RV =

Step 2: Underwater Weighing

Underwater Weighing Trials (kg)
1.            6.         
2.            7.         
3.            8.         
4.            9.         
5.           10.         

Average the three highest trials (UWW):        kg

Dry body mass (DBM):        kg

Tare weight (TW):        kg

True underwater weight (TUWW) = UWW – TW

TUWW =        −        =        kg
86 Body Composition
Step 3: Body Density Equation

Water temperature (H 2O)        °C

Density H 2O (Table 5.3):       

Body Volume (BV) = ((((DBM – TUWW) / DH 2O) − RV) − 0.1) =        L

Body Density (DB) = DBM / BV =        /        =        kg ⋅ L −1

Step 4: Body Fat Calculation

% Fat = ((4.57 / DB) − 4.142) × 100 =        %

(Use proper population-specific formula, Table 5.1)

Fat weight (FW) = DBM × (% Fat/100) =        × (       /

       / 100) =        kg

Fat-free mass (FFM) = DBM – FW =        −        =        kg

References
American College of Sports Medicine. 2021. Health-related physical fitness testing and inter-
pretation. In: Ligouri, G. (ed). ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription.
Wouters Kluwer.
Bazzocchi, A., Ponti, F., Albisinni, U., Battista, G. & Guglielmi, G. 2016. DXA: Technical
aspects and applications. Eur J Radiol, 85, 1481–92.
Bergsma-Kadijk, J. A., Baumeister, B. & Deurenberg, P. 1996. Measurement of body fat in
young and elderly women: Comparison between a four-compartment model and widely
used reference methods. Br J Nutr, 75, 649–57.
Brozek, J., Grande, F., Anderson, J. T. & Keys, A. 1963. Densitometric analysis of body
composition: Revision of some quantitative assumptions. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 110, 113–40.
Chiarlitti, N. A., Delisle-Houde, P., Reid, R. E. D., Kennedy, C. & Andersen, R. E. 2017.
Importance of body composition in the National Hockey League combines physiological
assessments. J Strength Cond Res, 32, 3135–42.
Coleman, A. E. & Lasky, L. M. 1992. Assessing running speed and body composition in pro-
fessional baseball players. J Appl Sport Sci Res, 6, 207–13.
Collins, M. A., Millard-Stafford, M. L., Sparling, P. B., Snow, T. K., Rosskopf, L. B., Webb, S.
A. & Omer, J. 1999. Evaluation of the Bod Pod for assessing body fat in collegiate football
players. Med Sci Sports Exer, 31, 1350–6.
Cosmed, U. S. A. 2020. Bod Pod Gold Standard Body Composition Tracking System Operators
Manual-P/N 210-2400, REV-I. Concord, IL.
Crapo, R. O., Morris, A. H., Clayton, P. D. & Nixon, C. R. 1982. Lung volumes in healthy
nonsmoking adults. Bull Eur Physiolpathol Respir, 18, 419–25.
Deimel, J. F. & Dunlan, B. J. 2012. The female athlete triad. Clin Sports Med, 31, 247–54.
Demerath, E. W., Guo, S. S., Chumlea, W. C., Rowne, B., Roche, A. F. & Siervogel, R. M.
2002. Comparison of percent body fat estimates using air displacement plethysmogra-
phy and hydrodensitometry in adults and children. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord, 26,
389–96.
Evans, E. M., Rowe, D. A., Misic, M. M., Prior, B. M. & Arngrimsson, S. A. 2005. Skinfold
prediction equation for athletes developed using a four-component model. Med Sci Sports
Exerc, 37, 2006–11.
 Body Composition 87
Folscher, L., Grant, G. C., Fletcher, L. & Janse van Rensberg, D. C. 2015. Ultra-marathon
athletes at risk for the female athlete triad. Sports Med – Open, 1, 29.
Fornetti, W. C., Pivarnik, J. M., Foley, J. M. & Fiechtner, J. J. 1999. Reliability and validity of
body composition measures in female athletes. J Appl Physiol, 87, 1114–22.
Friedl, K. E., Deluca, J. P., Marchitelli, L. J. & Vogel, J. A. 1992. Reliability of body-fat esti-
mations from a four-compartment model by using density, body water, and bone mineral
measurements. Am J Clin Nutr, 55, 764–70.
Fry, A. C., Kraemer, W. J., Weseman, C. A., Conroy, B. P., Gordon, S. E., Hoffman, J. R. &
Maresh, C. M. 1991. The effects of an off-season strength and conditioning program on start-
ers and non-starters in women’s intercollegiate volleyball. J Appl Sport Sci Res, 5, 174–81.
Fryar, C. D., Carrol, M. D., Gu, Q., Afful, J. & Ogden, C. L. 2021. Anthropometric reference
data for children and adults: United States, 2015–2018. Natl Health Stat Rep, Vital Health
Stat, 3(46), 1–44.
Gibson, A. L., Wagner, D. R., & Heyward, V. H. 2019. Assessing body composition. In:
Gibson, A. L., Wagner, D. R., & Heyward, V. H (eds). Advanced Fitness Assessment and
Exercise Prescription, 8th ed. Champain, IL: Human Kinetics.
Gonzalez, A. M., Hoffman, J. R., Rogowski, J. P., Burgos, W., Manalo, E., Weise, K., Fragala,
M. S. & Stout, J. R. 2013. Performance changes in NBA basketball players vary in starters
vs. nonstarters over a competitive season. J Strength Cond Res, 27, 611–5.
Heikura, I. A., Burke, L. M., Bergland, D., Uusitalo, A. L. T., Mero, A. A. & Stellingwerff,
T. 2018a. Impact of energy availability, health, and sex on hemoglobin-mass responses fol-
lowing live-high-train-high altitude training in elite female and male distance athletes. Int J
Sports Physiol Perform, 13, 1090–6.
Heikura, I. A., Uusitalo, A. L. T., Stellingwerff, T., Bergland, D., Mero, A. A. & Burke, L. M.
2018b. Low energy availability is difficult. To assess but outcomes have large impact on bine
injury rates in elite distance athletes. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab, 28, 403–11.
Henricksson, P., Lof, M. & Forsum, E. 2013. Assessment and prediction of thoracic gas vol-
ume in pregnant women: An evaluation in relation to body composition assessment using
air displacement plethysmography. Br J Nutr, 109, 111–7.
Hicks, V. L. 1992. Validation of Near-Infrared Interactance and Skinfold Methods for
Estimating Body Composition of American Indian Women [dissertation]. Albuquerque,
NM: University of New Mexico.
Houtkooper, L. B., Going, S. B., Lohman, T. G., Roche, A. F. & Van Loan, M. 1992.
Bioelectrical impedance estimation of fat-free body mass in children and youth: A cross-
validation study. J Appl Physiol, 72, 366–73.
Jackson, A. S. & Pollock, M. L. 1978. Generalized equations for predicting body density of
men. Br J Nutr, 40, 497–504.
Jackson, A. S. & Pollock, M. L. 1985. Practical assessment of body composition. Phys
Sportsmed, 13, 76–90.
Jackson, A. S., Pollock, M. L. & Ward, A. 1980. Generalized equations for predicting body
density of women. Med Sci Sport Exerc, 12, 175–81.
Keay, N., Francis, G., Entwistle, I. & Hind, K. 2019. Clinical evaluation of education relating
to nutrition and skeletal loading in competitive male road cyclists at risk of relative energy
deficiency in sports (RED-s): 6-month randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open Sport Exerc
Med, 5, e000523.
Kraemer, W. J., Fry, A. C., Rubin, M. R., Triplett-Mcbride, T., Gordon, S. E., Koziris, P.,
Lynch, J. M., Volek, J., Meuffels, S., Newton, D. E. & Fleck, R. U. 2001. Physiological and
performance responses to tournament wrestling. Med Sci Sport Exer, 33, 1367–78.
Lifestyles Team, NHS Digital. 2020. Health survey for England 2019.
Logue, D. M., Madigan, S. M., Melin, A., Delahunt, E., Heinen, M., Mcdonnell, S. & Corish,
C. A. 2020. Low energy availability in athletes 2020: An updated narrative review of prev-
alence, risk, within-day energy balance, knowledge, and impact on sports performance.
Nutrients, 12, 835.
88 Body Composition
Lohman, T. G. 1986. Applicability of body composition techniques and constants for children
and youths. Exerc Sport Sci Rev, 14, 325–57.
Lohman, T. G. 1992. Advances in Body Composition Assessment. Current Issues in Exercise
Science Series. Monograph no. 3. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Lohman, T. G., Roche, A. F. & Martorell, R. 1988. Anthropometric Standardization
Reference Manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Lohman, T. G., Harris, M., Teixeira, P. J. & Weiss, L. 2000. Assessing body composition and
changes in body composition. Another look at dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Ann N Y
Acad Sci, 904, 45–54.
Marra, M., Da Prat, B., Monragnese, C., Caldara, A., Sammarco, R., Pasanisi, F. & Corsetti,
R. 2016. Segmental bioimpedance analysis in professional cyclists during a three week stage
race. Physiol Meas, 37, 1035–40.
Mayhew, J. L., Piper, F. C., Schwegler, T. M. & Ball, T. E. 1989. Contributions of speed, agil-
ity, and body. Composition to anaerobic power measurements in collegiate football players.
J Appl Sport Sci Res, 3, 101–6.
McCrory, M. A., Mole, P. A., Gomez, T. D., Dewey, K. G. & Bernauer, E. M. 1998. Body
composition by air-displacement plethysmography by using predicted and measured tho-
racic gas volumes. J Appl Physiol, 84, 1475–9.
Millard-Stafford, M. L., Collins, M. A., Evans, E. M., Snow, T. K., Cureton, K. J. & Rosskopf,
L. B. 2001. Use of air displacement plethysmography for estimating body fat in a four-com-
ponent model. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 33, 1311–7.
Miller, J. M. 2016. Measured versus predicted thoracic gas volume in college students. Med
Sportiva, XII, 2772–6.
Mitchell, H. H., Hamilton, T. S., Steggerda, F. R. & Bean, H. W. 1945. The chemical compo-
sition of the adult human body and its bearing on the biochemistry of growth. J Bio Chem,
158, 625–37.
Oppliger, R. A., Hielsen, D. H. & Vance, C. G. 1991. Wrestlers’ minimal weight: Anthropometry,
bioimpedance, and hydrostatic weighing compared. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 23, 247–53.
Ortiz, O., Russell, M., Daley, T. L., Baumgartner, R. N., Waki, M., Lichtman, S., Wang, J.,
Pierson, R. N. Jr & Heymsfield, S. B. 1992. Differences in skeletal muscle and bone mineral
density between black and white females and their relevance to estimates of body composi-
tion. Am J Clin Nutr, 55, 8–13.
Petersen, M.R. & Hodous, T.K. 1988. Lung volume reference values for blue collar workers
not exposed to occupational respiratory hazards. J Occup Med, 626–32.
Pietrobelli, A., Formica, C., Wang, Z. & Heymsfield, S. B. 1996. Dual-energy X-ray absorpti-
ometry body composition model: Review of physical concepts. Am J Physiol, 271, E941–51.
Prior, B. M., Cureton, K. J., Modlesky, C. M., Evans, E. M., Sloniger, M. A., Saunders, M. &
Lewis, R. D. 1997. In vivo validation of whole body composition estimates from dual-energy
X-ray absorptiometry. J Appl Physiol, 83, 623–30.
Prior, B. M., Modlesky, C. M., Evans, E. M., Sloniger, M. A. & Cureton, K. J. 2001.
Muscularity and the density of the fat-free mass in athletes. J Appl. Physiol, 90, 1523–31.
Schutte, J. E., Townsend, E. J., Hugg, J., Shoup, R. F., Malina, R. M. & Blomqvist, C. G.
1984. Density of lean body mass is greater in blacks than in whites. J Appl Physiol Respir
Environ Exerc Physiol, 56, 1647–9.
Segal, K. R., Van Loan, M., Fitzgerald, P. I., Hodgdon, J. A. & Van Itallie, T. B. 1988. Lean
body mass estimation by bioelectrical impedance analysis: A four-site cross-validation
study. Am J Clin Nutr, 47, 7–14.
Siri, W. E. 1961. Body composition from fluid space and density. In: Brozek, J. & Henschel, A. (eds).
Techniques for Measuring Body Composition. Natick, MA: National Academy of Sciences.
Slaughter, M. H., Lohman, T. G., Boileau, R. A., Horswill, C. A., Stillman, R. J., Van Loan,
M. D. & Bemben, D. A. 1988. Skinfold equations for estimating body fatness in children
and youth. Hum Biol, 60, 709–23.
 Body Composition 89
Spehnjak, M., Gusic, M., Milnar, S., Baic, M., Andrasic, S., Selimi, M., Macak, D., Madic, D.
M., Zilic Fiser, S., Sporis, G. & Trajkovic, N. 2021. Body composition in elite soccer players
from youth to senior squad. Int. J. Environ Res Public Health, 18, 4982.
Stolarczyk, L. M., Heyward, V. H., Goodman, J. A., Grant, D. J., Kessler, K. L., Kocina, P. S.
& Wilmerding, V. 1995. Predictive accuracy of bioimpedance equations in estimating fat-
free mass of Hispanic women. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 27, 1450–6.
Vescovi, J. D., Hildebrandt, L., Miller, W. C., Hammer, R. C. & Spiller, A. 2002. Evaluation
of the Bod Pod for estimating percentage fat in female collegiate athletes. J Strength Cond
Res, 16, 599–605.
Wagner, D. R. & Heyward, V. H. 2001. Validity of two-compartment models for estimating
body fat of black men. J Appl Physiol, 90, 649–56.
Williams, E. P., Mesidor, M., Winters, K., Dubbert, P. M. & Wyatt, S. B. 2015. Overweight
and obesity: Prevalence, consequences, and causes of a growing public health problem. Curr
Obes Rep, 4, 363–70.
Withers, R. T., Laforgia, J., & Heymsfield, S. B. 1999. Critical appraisal of the estimation of
body composition via two-, three-, and four-compartment models. Am H Hum Bill, 11,
175–85.
6 Muscular Strength
Paul Comfort and John McMahon

Part 1: Introduction

Why Is Strength Necessary?

Strength, or the ability to exert force against an object (Suchomel et al., 2016), has
been shown to be closely related to performance in numerous athletic tasks, such as
sprinting (Wisloff et al., 2004; Comfort et al., 2012a; Comfort et al., 2014), change of
direction (Hori et al., 2008; Nimphius et al., 2010) and jumping performance (Hori
et al., 2008; Comfort et al., 2014). However, correlations do not infer cause and effect
and therefore it is important to note that increases in lower body strength have been
shown to result in improved performance in athletic tasks (Seitz et al., 2014; Styles
et al., 2015; Comfort et al., 2019b). It is likely that the increases in sports performance
are due to increased maximal force production being associated with increased rapid
force production (e.g., force at specific time points [150, 200, and 250 ms]) (Comfort
et al., 2019b) and rate of force development (RFD) across specific epochs (e.g., 0–100
ms, 0–200 ms) (Aagaard et al., 2002; Andersen and Aagaard, 2006; Andersen et al.,
2010). An increase in force produced over a specific duration results in an increase
in impulse (impulse = force × time), and impulse determines acceleration. Therefore,
increased impulse results in greater acceleration and also a higher movement velocity.
Low strength levels have been shown to be a strong predictor of injury risk (Malone
et al., 2019), with strength training reducing sports injuries by >30% and overuse injuries
by ~50% (Lauersen et al., 2014). Interestingly, based on the results of their meta-analysis,
Lauersen et al. (2018) reported that when volume and intensity were appropriately pro-
gressed, injury risks were reduced. It is unsurprising that strength training reduces the
risk of musculoskeletal injuries as the associated tissue (e.g., muscles, tendons, and bones)
adaptations improve the ability of these structures to tolerate increased loads. In addi-
tion, increased strength has also been shown to improve rapid force production (Aagaard
et al., 2002; Andersen and Aagaard, 2006; Comfort et al., 2022), which may be required
in order to correct adverse sporting movement patterns especially when decelerating on
landing from a jump, during changes of direction, and in response to collisions.

Why Assess Strength?

It is important to periodically assess strength (e.g., repetition maximum testing
[RM]); both to determine the magnitude of change which has occurred in response
to training and competition and to enable appropriate loads to be selected for
DOI: 10.4324/9781003186762-6
 Muscular Strength 91
the subsequent training phase, as the load/intensity of resistance training has
been shown to be responsible for specific muscle fibre adaptations (Fry, 2004).
However, while RM testing makes determining the recommended training loads
for specific exercises easy, it provides no insight into how the force was applied. In
contrast, during isometric assessments, it is possible to determine not only maxi-
mal force production, but also how rapidly force can be produced, which may be
more sensitive to changes than maximal strength or force production, especially
during periods of intensive training and/or competition (Hornsby et al., 2017;
Suarez et al., 2019).

How Do Different Methods of Assessing Strength/Force Compare?

The terms strength and force tend to be used interchangeably; however, it is essential
to understand the differences between the two terms and how they can be assessed.
Strength is usually assessed during dynamic tasks, for example, when evaluating the
loads lifted during RM testing. In this case, however, ≤6RM should be classed as
strength, whereas higher repetition ranges, such as a 10RM should be considered
strength endurance. It is also worth noting that while predicting 1RM performance
from other RM performances is possible (e.g., predicting 1RM from 6RM perfor-
mance), there is greater error and variability as the number of repetitions increases
(Morales and Sobonya, 1996; Julio et al., 2012).
While force-time variables assessed during single joint isometric assessments,
such as the knee extension, are highly reliable, they do not relate well to per-
formance in athletic tasks (Blackburn and Morrissey, 1998). In contrast to
single-joint isometric assessments, force-time variables assessed during multi-
joint assessment, such as the isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP), demonstrate strong
to almost perfect correlations with dynamic strength measures (e.g., 1RM squat,
deadlift clean, and snatch) and measures of athletic performance (e.g., short sprint
and change of direction) (Comfort et al., 2019a) (Figure 6.1). The assessment of
maximal force and rapid force production characteristics (e.g., force at specific
time points [100 ms, 150 ms, 200 ms, and 250 ms], RFD and impulse over specific
epochs [0–100 ms, 0–200 ms]) are usually assessed during isometric assessments,
with the time-constrained variables (Figure 6.2) more sensitive to acute changes
(e.g., reductions when fatigued) than peak force (Hornsby et al., 2017; Suarez
et al., 2019).

Part 2: Why Perform Isometric Strength Assessments

As already mentioned, multi-joint isometric assessments, such as the IMTP and
isometric squat can provide additional insight regarding how quickly force can be
produced, either in terms of force at specific time points (e.g., force at 100-, 150-,
200- and 250 ms) or RFD and impulse across specific epochs (e.g., 0-150 ms, 0-250
ms), which may are sensitive to changes than peak force, especially during periods
of intensive training and/or competition (Hornsby et al., 2017; Suarez et al., 2019).
Additionally, as athletic tasks are time-constrained, time-related force-time variables
may be more indicative of how changes in force production characteristics, as a result
of training and competition may affect performance in athletic tasks.
92 Muscular Strength
Dynamic Strength Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull Peak Force Sports Performance

r = 0.98 r = 0.75
1RM Power Snatch Shot Put Distance

r = 0.74–0.97
1RM Power Clean r = –0.50 25 m Split Time Track
Cycling
r = 0.83–0.93
1RM Snatch
r = –0.55 250 m Split Time Track
r = 0.84 Upright Cycling
1RM Clean & Jerk
Trunk
r = –0.57
r = 0.62–0.97 5 m Sprint Time
1RM Back Squat
r = –0.69
20 m Sprint Time
r = 0.88
1RM Deadlift (kg)
r = –0.57–0.79
140–150° 505 COD Time
125–140° r = 0.59–0.82 Countermovement
Jump Height

Force Plate r = 0.51–0.87

Squat Jump Height

Figure 6.1 R
 elationships between isometric mid-thigh (IMTP) pull peak force and perfor-
mance in other tasks. (Adapted from Comfort et al., 2019a].)

How Do Different Assessment Methods Compare?

While there are clear similarities in the IMTP and isometric squat in terms of the key
principles of isometric assessments, including sampling frequency (recommendations
1000 Hz) (Dos’Santos et al., 2016), contraction duration (5 seconds), cueing (push
as fast and hard as possible), and maintenance of an upright trunk (5–10° forward
lean) with hip angles of 125–150° (Brady et al., 2018b; Haff, 2019; Comfort et al.,
2019a), there are clear differences. One key difference between tests is the commonly

3500

3000

2500
Peak Force
200 ms
Force (N)

2000

1500 Onset of force

production 100 ms
1000

500

0
1 2 3 4
Time (s)

Figure 6.2 I llustration of identification of force at 100 ms and 200 ms, which can be used to
calculate mean RFD across specific epochs.
 Muscular Strength 93
used knee joint angles with greater knee flexion in the isometric squat compared to
the IMTP. The recommendations for the IMTP knee angles are 125–145° (Comfort
et al., 2019a), while the commonly reported range for the isometric squat is 90–120°
(Brady et al., 2018b; Haff, 2019), which may explain some of the differences in force-
time characteristics between the two tests. In general, the peak force is higher during
the isometric squat, whereas rapid force production (i.e., force at specific time points,
RFD) tends to be higher during the IMTP (Nuzzo et al., 2008; Brady et al., 2018a;
Brady et al., 2018b).
Additionally, there are distinct differences in how the force-time data is analysed
between studies, as well as between multi-joint isometric tests. One of these impor-
tant differences, especially in relation to time-related variables, is the identification of
the onset of force production, including manual identification, arbitrary thresholds
(e.g., 20 N, 40 N), relative thresholds (e.g., 5% body mass), and relative thresholds
taking into account system (athlete and force plate) noise and force fluctuation using
5 standard deviations of body mass during a period of quiet standing (Dos’Santos
et al., 2017a; Brady et al., 2018a). In addition, there are numerous differences in the
methods used to calculate RFD, including peak and mean RFD, RFD across specific
epochs (e.g., 0–100 ms, 0–200 ms, and 100–200 ms), and the use of moving average
windows, with Haff et al. (2015) recommending the use of RFD across pre-determined
epochs, rather than peak RFD. Standardization of the onset threshold and the proce-
dures for calculating RFD are essential for longitudinal evaluation of force produc-
tion, or when attempting to compare performances between groups/studies.

Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull

Athletes should complete a standard generalized warm-up of body weight squats and
lunges and the dynamic mid-thigh pull at submaximal loads. This should be followed
by submaximal trials of the IMTP, e.g., 3–5 second effort at ~50% maximal effort,
~75% maximal effort, ~90% maximal effort, separated by a 60-second rest, which can
be considered as part of the familiarization process (Comfort et al., 2019a). During this
time, the athlete should be secured to the bar using lifting straps and athletic tape to
ensure that grip strength is not a limiting factor (Haff et al., 1997; Haff et al., 2005).
Prior to initiation of IMTP trials the bar height should be adjusted to ensure the
correct body position that replicates the start of the second pull position during the
clean. The bar height should then be adjusted up or down to allow the athlete to
obtain the optimal knee (125–145°) and hip (140–150°) angles (Beckham et al., 2012;
Beckham et al., 2018; Dos’Santos et al., 2017b) (Figure 6.1). The body position should
be very similar to the second pull of the clean and the clean grip mid-thigh pull exer-
cise (DeWeese et al., 2013): upright torso, slight flexion in the knee resulting in clear
dorsiflexion, shoulder girdle retracted and depressed, shoulders slightly behind the
vertical plane of the bar, feet centred under the bar approximately hip-width apart,
knees in front of the bar, and the bar in contact with the thighs (close to the inguinal
crease dependent on limb lengths) (Figure 6.3) (Comfort et al., 2019a).
While the use of a “self-selected” body position, which represents the start of the
second pull of the clean, is likely beneficial to efficiency of testing, it is not recom-
mended without ensuring that the hip and knee joint angles fall within the ranges
recommended earlier, due to the influence of body positioning on force generation
(Beckham et al., 2012; Beckham et al., 2018; Dos’Santos et al., 2017b). The bar height
94 Muscular Strength

  

 xample posture for the IMTP (upright trunk = 5–10° forward lean, resulting in
Figure 6.3 E
a hip angle of 140–150°; dorsiflexed ankle; knee angle of 125–140°; representing
the start of the second pull of a clean).

used and joint angles obtained should be recorded so that repeated measurements
can be standardized and therefore replicate the individuals’ body position between
sessions, ensuring that differing results in subsequent testing are not the result of
changed body position (Beckham et al., 2018; Dos’Santos et al., 2017b). Sufficient
pre-tension to achieve the correct body position and remove “slack” from the body,
but without any more pre-tension than is necessary to get the “quiet standing” nec-
essary for a stable force baseline (Maffiuletti et al., 2016). The baseline force during
the period of quiet standing should represent body mass with minimal fluctuation,
with trials where a change in force >50 N occurs during this period of quiet stand-
ing rejected (Dos’Santos et al., 2017a). This should be explained to each athlete and
they should be encouraged to stay as still as possible during this period to accurately
determine body weight and onset threshold (e.g., an increase in force >5 standard
deviations of the force during the period of quiet standing) (Comfort et al., 2019a).
Standardized instructions should be given to the athlete, such as “push your feet
into the ground as fast and as hard as possible,” to ensure that both maximal RFD
and PF are obtained (Bemben et al., 1990; Halperin et al., 2016). It is essential
 Muscular Strength 95

Figure 6.4 Standardized IMTP Testing Procedure. (Adapted from Comfort et al., 2019a].)

that athletes understand that the focus is to drive the feet directly into the force plat-
form and not attempt to pull the bar with the arms or rise up onto their toes (Comfort
et al., 2019a). A countdown of “3, 2, 1, PUSH!” gives the athlete sufficient warning
to be ready to give maximum effort and should provide at least one second of quiet
standing prior to the onset of the pull (Figure 6.4). Cueing to “push” rather than
“pull” helps emphasize the fact that the athletes should be pushing with their legs
and not pulling with their arms, attempting to drive their feet into the force plates.
A minimum of two trials should be collected, provided that each of those trials
has no errors by the athlete (e.g., countermovement, excessive pre-tension, leaning
on the bar prior to the pull). If PF increases between trials, additional trials should
be performed until the PF values of the trials are separated by <250 N (Haff et al.,
1997; Haff et al., 2005).
Visual inspection of the force-time curves during testing can easily be used to
determine if the trials are acceptable, or if additional trials should be performed. In
addition to the trials being within 250 N between attempts, trials should be repeated
if there is not a stable weighing period (clear fluctuation in the force-time data) or
a clear countermovement prior to the initiation of the pull (Figure 6.5), as this will
interfere with accurate identification of the initiation of the pull (19), or if the PF
occurs at the end of the trial.

Data Analysis
Figure 6.5 illustrates an acceptable force-time curve, with >1 second of quiet stand-
ing, which represents the athlete’s body mass, with no countermovement (decrease
in force prior to an increase in force), which permits the use of the threshold of an
increase in force which is >5 standard deviations above the force during the period
96 Muscular Strength

Figure 6.5 A
 cceptable force-time data, including at least one second of quiet standing that
represents body weight, no countermovement and peak force occurring within
two seconds of the start of force production.

of quiet standing. Additionally, the peak force also occurs in <2 seconds of the onset
of the pull. It is important to note, however, that if calculating RFD, this should not
be the change in force/change in time between the onset and peak force (Figure 6.6),
as this dramatically alters the slope of the mean RFD curve, compared to the actual
slope of the curve if calculated RFD as the mean across specific epochs (Figure 6.2).
If using force-plate-specific software, which does not permit the use of the thresh-
old identified earlier, but instead uses an arbitrary threshold (e.g., 20 N), it is essential
to make sure that the residual noise and the force during the period of quiet standing
do not exceed this threshold, as this will result in early identification of the start of
the pull. In such instances, it may be possible to alter the arbitrary thresholds used;

Figure 6.6 Illustration of why mean RFD should not be calculated from the onset of force
production to the peak force, as the mean RFD slope is not representative of the
slope of the force-time curve.
 Muscular Strength 97
however, this should be standardized between testing sessions to ensure that any
time-specific variables are comparable for longitudinal comparisons.

Data Interpretation for Multi-Joint Isometric Assessments

Ideally, isometric force data should be reported as a net force, rather than gross force,
as gross force includes the athletes’ mass, which benefits heavier athletes. It is worth
considering both absolute and relative (ratio scaled) force production, with relative per-
formances permitting appropriate comparisons between athletes of different statures
(Comfort and Pearson, 2014; Suchomel et al., 2018) and between sexes (Nimphius,
2018; Nimphius, 2019). To calculate relative force, simply divide the absolute perfor-
mance by body mass, whether assessing peak force or force at specific time points:

Absolute Force
Relative Strength =
Body Mass
It is suggested that relative net force and force at specific time points are evaluated, to
determine the athletes’ maximum force-generating capacity and how much of their
maximum force they can express rapidly. To achieve this expressing force at 150-,
200- and 250 ms as a percentage of peak force may be advantageous (Comfort et al.,
2019b). If peak force is considered good or excellent (Table 6.1), but only a low per-
centage of peak force can be generated across the aforementioned time points, then
it would be pertinent to emphasize more ballistic and plyometric styles of training,
whereas if a high percentage of peak force can be generated at 150-, 200-, and 250 ms,
greater emphasis should be placed on increasing maximal force production.

Laboratory Task
Collect some IMTP data, following the protocols described earlier and then deter-
mine how you would categorize your performance, based on the values in Table 6.1.

Isometric Squat
Some practitioners, researchers, and athletes have preferences regarding the use/per-
formance of the IMTP and isometric squat; however, when posture is comparable,
there is little difference in the outputs obtained from the two tests. In general, the

Table 6.1 Recommendations for interpretation

of relative peak force categories.

Interpretation Relative Peak Force

Excellent >50.0 N/kg

Good 40.0–49.9 N/kg
Average 30.0–39.9 N/kg
Below Average <30 N/kg

* These data should be considered as descriptive and not

normative. It would be worth determining the norma-
tive data for your particular sport and level of
competition
98 Muscular Strength
isometric squat results in slightly higher forces, whereas the IMTP results in slightly
higher RFD and force at specific time points. Numerous postures have been used
for isometric squat testing, with knee flexion varying notably across studies, rang-
ing from 90–125° (Drake et al., 2017; Brady et al., 2018b; Haff, 2019; Drake et al.,
2019a), while an upright trunk is always reported and should always be adopted.
Differences in posture affect the resultant force-time characteristics and therefore
should be standardized between testing sessions and carefully considered when com-
paring data to that presented in published studies, or normative data.
As with the IMTP, a general warm-up should be performed, followed by submax-
imal trials of the isometric squat, e.g., 3–5-second effort at ~50% maximal effort,
~75% maximal effort, ~90% maximal effort, separated by a 60-second rest. During
these trials, it is essential to watch the athlete to determine if posture is appropri-
ate and maintained throughout. Subsequently, the force-time data should be visually
inspected to identify any technical errors that occur, such as an initial countermove-
ment, or peak force occurring at the end of the trial.
Figure 6.7 summarizes the sequence of isometric squat testing. The knee joint angle
should be measured using a goniometer and standardized between testing sessions. It
is worth noting that RFD values during such testing have been reported not to meet
an acceptable level, although the highest force is achieved during this procedure.
An alternative “explosive” isometric squat procedure (Figure 6.8) has been rec-
ommended by Drake et al. (2019b), which has been shown to substantially improve
the reliability of RFD compared to the traditional procedure described earlier. The
key differences are the duration of the maximal effort (e.g., traditional = 5 seconds
vs. explosive = 1 second) and the coaching cue (e.g., traditional = “push as HARD
and fast as possible” vs. explosive = “push as FAST and hard as possible”). While the
“explosive” isometric squat procedure results in much more reliable RFD, peak force

Figure 6.7 Standardized traditional isometric squat testing procedure.

 Muscular Strength 99

Figure 6.8 Standardized “explosive” isometric squat testing procedure.

is much lower when compared with the traditional protocol. As such, for isometric
squat testing, if peak force and RFD are to be monitored, it would be advisable to
perform three trials of the explosive isometric squat followed by three trials of the
traditional isometric squat.

Laboratory Task
Collect data using the traditional and “explosive” versions of the isometric squat and
see how the relative peak force, force at specific time points, and RFD values com-
pare, using Table 6.2.

Part 3: Dynamic Assessments

Dynamic assessments of strength are great for determining appropriate loads for
specific exercises, and can be included within training sessions, as appropriate. For
example, if evaluating the progressing from a general strength phase of training, where
the athletes have been performing multiple sets of 5–6 repetitions (usually with 1–2

Table 6.2 Comparison of force-time characteristics between

methods of isometric squat testing.

Variable Traditional “Explosive”

Relative Peak Force

Force at 150 ms
Force at 200 ms
Force at 250 ms
RFD 0–150 ms
RFD 0–200 ms
RFD 0–250 ms
RFD = rate of force development
100 Muscular Strength
repetitions in reserve for each set), a 5RM or 3RM could be performed during key exer-
cises towards the start of a training session at the end of a meso-cycle. It is also worth
noting that while predicting 1RM performance from other RM performances is possi-
ble (e.g., predicting 1RM from 6RM performance), there is greater error and variability
as the number of repetitions increases (Morales and Sobonya, 1996; Julio et al., 2012).
Where possible, 1RM assessments are advised due to the very high reliability (Grgic
et al., 2020) even in inexperienced lifters (Comfort and McMahon, 2015) and youth
athletes (Faigenbaum et al., 2012), with measurement error and smallest detectable
differences of only ~5% (Comfort and McMahon, 2015). In comparison, prediction
from other RM ranges or from load velocity profiles tend to result in errors of >10%
(Morales and Sobonya, 1996; Julio et al., 2012; Banyard et al., 2017; Sayers et al.,
2018; Fernandes et al., 2021).

General Repetition Maximum Testing Protocols

The general principles and protocols for 5 RM testing are the same irrespective of
exercise, including an exercise specific warm-up, which must be non-fatiguing, fol-
lowed by RM attempts. After the initial RM attempt, the load should be increased
by 2.5–5.0% depending on the athletes’ perceived effort during the previous attempt.
The magnitude of the increase in load can also be informed by the observed velocity
and technique during the final repetition. A rest period of 3–5 minutes should be pro-
vided between attempts to minimize any cumulative fatigue due to lactic acid accu-
mulation and phosphor-creatine depletion (Figure 6.9). The 5RM should be achieved,

Figure 6.9 Example flow diagram of 5 repetitions’ maximum testing.

 Muscular Strength 101
ideally, within 3 attempts, to minimize the level of fatigue. If the 5RM is not achieved
within 3 attempts, it would be advisable to repeat the attempts, starting at a higher
load, after 48–72 hours. Specific guidance for bench press, back squat, and power
clean is provided later.
Similar to the 5RM general principles and protocols for 1RM testing being the
same irrespective of exercise, including an exercise-specific warm-up, which must
be non-fatiguing (for power-based exercises, the warm-up repetitions should ideally
be performed in a cluster set format), followed by RM attempts. After the initial
1RM attempt, the load should be increased by 2.5–5.0% depending on the athletes’
perceived effort during the previous attempt. The magnitude of the increase in load
can also be informed by the observed velocity and technique during the previous
attempt (Note: If technique is not safe, testing should be terminated). A rest period
of 3–5 minutes should be provided between attempts to minimize any cumulative
fatigue due to lactic acid accumulation and phosphor-creatine depletion (Figure 6.9).
The 5RM should be achieved, ideally, within 5 attempts, to minimize the level of
fatigue. If the 1RM is not achieved within 5 attempts, it would be advisable to repeat
the attempts, starting at a higher load, after 48–72 hours. Specific guidance for bench
press, back squat, and power clean are provided later.
Set-up of equipment and performance of the test must be carefully considered for
both safety and to ensure that procedures are standardized and changes in perfor-
mance are a result of adaptations not change in procedures.

Bench Press
The bench should be set so that the bar is resting on supports close to arm’s length,
ideally with safety pins set at the bottom position, just below where the bar would
touch the chest when a full inhalation has been completed, and also that the safety
pins will take the weight of the barbell if the athlete exhales just in case failure occurs.
A spotter (or multiple spotters [one behind the athlete and one at either end of the
barbell] if the athlete is strong) should be used to assist the athlete in lifting the bar
off the rack and moving into the “start” position, and then to assist in replacing the
bar back on to the rack after the repetition(s) have been completed. The spotter(s) are
also there in case the athlete fails the lift, to assist with safely returning the barbell to
the rack. The spotters should not touch barbell while the athlete is performing the lift
unless the athlete indicates that they require assistance. If there are multiple spotters,
the spotters at either end of the barbell should communicate effectively, if required,
to lift the bar, to ensure that it is lifted symmetrically.
The athlete should set up on the bench so that their feet are in contact with the
floor, buttocks, and shoulder blades in contact with the bench, with no excessive arch
in the lower back (unlike the bench press style adopted by powerlifters, where the
arch in the back is exaggerated) and the barbell positioned on the rack above their
eyes. Grip width should be standardized so that the outside part of the hands are ~1.5 ×
biacromial width (Green and Comfort, 2007). When the athlete and spotter lift the
barbell off the rack, the barbell should be repositioned above the athlete’s chest, with
the athlete’s arms fully extended. The spotter should keep contact with the bar until
the athlete indicates that they have control.
Once warmed up and the maximal attempts commence, the athlete should initiate
the descent phase of the lift in a controlled manner, aiming for the bar to touch the
102 Muscular Strength
bottom of the sternum, resulting in ~45° angle between the humerus and the trunk.
There should be a brief pause when the bar reached the sternum, ensuring that the
bar does not bounce off of the chest, followed by a forceful, yet controlled, extension
of the arms until the barbell returns back to the starting position. Once the desired
number of repetitions is completed (e.g., 1 repetition during the 1RM, or 5 repetitions
during the 5RM), the spotter should assist with guiding the barbell back to the rack.

Back Squat
Ideally, the back squat should be performed in a power rack/squat rack, with the
safety bars set just below (~3–4 cm) the desired squat depth (ideally so that the thighs
are parallel with the floor and the inguinal crease of the hip reaches the same height
as the top of the knee), in case the athlete fails the lift, or loses control on the descent
phase. The athlete should also be instructed on how to safely drop/lower the weight
onto the safety bars during a failed attempt. If squat stands are being used, as a power
rack/squat rack is unavailable, the athlete should be familiar with the technique of
safely dropping the weight during a failed attempt. If the athlete is not familiar with
or competent at safely dropping the weight and only squat stands are available, it is
advisable not to perform a maximal squat test until appropriate equipment is availa-
ble, or the athlete is competent.
The bar should be positioned on the rack at a height which permits the athlete to
lift the barbell out of the rack without plantar flexing. The athlete should position the
barbell on the trapezius, in a high bar position, taking a grip ~1.5 × biacromial width,
if shoulder flexibility permits, as this aids with the maintenance of an extended rather
than flexed thoracic spine. The athlete’s feet should both be positioned under the
barbell (not adopting a lunge position), and the knees and hips should be extended
so that the bar is lifted from the rack, followed by 2 small steps backwards, to clear
the hooks on the rack. The athlete does not need to be a great distance from the rack,
as the barbell should move in a vertical path and therefore should not be at risk of
catching on the hooks of the rack.
The athlete should adopt a natural foot position, usually hip to shoulder width
apart, with the feet in a naturally orientated position, usually externally rotated
15–30° (Comfort et al., 2018). This position along with squat depth (ideally so that
the thighs are parallel with the floor and the inguinal crease of the hip reaches the
same height as the top of the knee; however, if working with weightlifters’ full depth
would be a better option) should be standardized between testing sessions to ensure
a consistent range of motion and therefore displacement of the barbell. The athlete
should initiate the descent phase of the lift in a controlled manner (performing the
Valsalva manoeuvre if a 1RM attempt) until the desired depth is reached, at which
point they should forcefully and simultaneously extend the hips and knees while
maintaining spinal alignment, until full extension is achieved. The athlete should
then walk forward and plate the barbell safely back on the rack.

Power Clean
It is essential that the athlete performs the power clean with good technique, as deter-
mined by an appropriately qualified strength and conditioning coach. A detailed
description of correct power clean technique is beyond the scope of this chapter,
 Muscular Strength 103
although key points will be highlighted: for more detail on correct power clean tech-
nique and coaching progressions, see Verhoeff et al. (2020). In the start position,
the athlete’s hips should be slightly higher than the knees with the shoulders in front
of the barbell while maintaining a neutral spine. The bar should initially be lifting
in a controlled manner during the first pull phase, via extension of the knees, while
maintaining a neutral spine. Once the transition phase commences, there should be
a clear acceleration of the barbell, as the athlete’s knees move over the toes and the
trunk moves into an upright position, which should fluidly progress into the second
pull phase, where there is a rapid extension of hips, knees, and ankles, and the bar-
bell reaches its peak vertical velocity. Once full extension is achieved, the athlete
should rapidly flex the hips and knees to drop into a shallow front squat position
(the knees should achieve no more than 90° flexion), with the elbows high and the
barbell received on the anterior deltoids, while ensuring that there is no flexion in
the spine. From this point, the athletes should extend knees and hips until they
reach a standing position, where, once stable, they should drop the barbell onto the
lifting platform.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

It is worth considering both absolute and relative (ratio scaled) performances, with
relative performances permitting appropriate comparisons between athletes of differ-
ent statures (Comfort and Pearson, 2014; Suchomel et al., 2018) and between sexes
(Nimphius, 2018; Nimphius, 2019). To calculate relative performance, simply divide
the absolute performance by body mass:

Absolute Strength
Relative Strength =
Body Mass

It is best not to consider maximal strength in isolation, but also in comparison

to performances in other tasks, such as short sprint and jump performance. For
example, if an athlete demonstrates a good relative back squat performance (Table 6.3),
but a low countermovement jump height and a substandard 20 m sprint time, it
is likely that rapid force production rather than maximal force production should
be emphasized during the next phase of training, along with some refinement in
sprint and jump technique. In contrast, if the athlete demonstrates an excellent
countermovement jump height and 20 m sprint time, but has below average relative

Table 6.3 Recommended relative strength categories.

Interpretation Bench Press Back Squat Power Clean

Excellent >1.5 kg/kg >2.0 kg/kg >1.5 kg/kg

Good 1.2–1.5 kg/kg 1–7–2.0 kg/kg 1.2–1.5 kg/kg
Average 0.8–1.2 kg/kg 1.4–1.7 kg/kg 0.8–1.2 kg/kg
Below Average <0.8 kg/kg <1.4 kg/kg <0.8 kg/kg

* These data should be considered as descriptive and not normative. It would be worth
determining the normative data for your particular sport and level of competition
104 Muscular Strength
back squat strength, it is likely that they are technically proficient at jumping and
sprinting and can express their strength rapidly, highlighting the need to increase
relative strength.

Laboratory Task
Compare your performances in some of these 1RM tasks to the data in Table 6.3
to identify areas where you may benefit from strength development. Also compare
your relative performances in the dynamic strength assessments to the performances
you achieved in the isometric assessments. Finally, as isometric force production is
commonly reported to be closely associated with maximal strength, perform some
correlations to see if the data from yourself and your peers demonstrate associations
similar to those presented in Figure 6.1.

Velocity-Based Predictions of 1 Repetition Maximum

While proponents of velocity-based methods commonly state that there are fluctua-
tions in 1RM performance across days which should be considered when prescribing
training loads, there is no empirical evidence to substantiate this concept or any quan-
tification of this magnitude. In fact, maximum strength and force production tends
to be quite stable, even during periods of high intensity and high-volume training
(Hornsby et al., 2017; Suarez et al., 2019). Banyard et al. (2017) also demonstrated
much higher reliability and much lower measurement error in 1RM performance
compared to velocity-based predictions from submaximal loads. While some authors
report low magnitudes of error through prediction equations when expressed as a
percentage error, these can be substantial. For example, Caven et al. (2020) a very
large to almost perfect correlation (r = 0.76–0.97) between 1RM bench press and
prediction from both multiple (eight loads) and two-point (two loads) load veloc-
ity predictions. However, while they reported an error range of 2.1–3.4 kg when
predicting 1RM bench press, this equates to an average error of nearly 10%, with
individuals demonstrating overestimations of ~12 kg, which could be as much as
25% error, although the specific percentage error rates were not provided. Similarly,
Fernandes et al. (2021) reported errors in predicting 1RM performance from load-
velocity profiles of 8.2–20.4% in the bench press, 8.6–19.9% in the bent-over-row
and 5.7–17.0% in the squat. Therefore, based on current load-velocity profiles, it may
be best to avoid predicting 1RM performances, as errors of 10–20% 1RM could
easily result in inappropriate loads being selected during training, which may either
result in loads that are too low to elicit the desired adaptations or expose the athlete
to unnecessary loads which may increase injury risk.

Summary
It is extremely important to accurately monitor changes in strength and force pro-
duction, in response to training, to evaluate the effectiveness of the previous phase
of training and inform subsequent phases of training. Consideration of measurement
error (see Chapter 4 for more on this) and the magnitude of change that highlights a
meaningful change are of utmost importance. In addition, such assessments are not
 Muscular Strength 105
required on a daily basis but rather at the start/end of specific phases of training. It
is also important not to consider these assessments in isolation, but in conjunction
with other assessments of the athlete’s physical capabilities as part of a holistic test-
ing battery, which should be used in conjunction with an appropriate needs analysis
of the athlete’s sport, to enable appropriate and informed programming priorities to
be made.

References
Aagaard, P., Simonsen, E. B., Andersen, J. L., Magnusson, P. & Dyhre-Poulsen, P. 2002.
Increased rate of force development and neural drive of human skeletal muscle following
resistance training. J Appl Physiol, 93, 1318–26.
Andersen, L. L. & Aagaard, P. 2006. Influence of maximal muscle strength and intrinsic
muscle contractile properties on contractile rate of force development. Eur J Appl Physiol,
96, 46–52.
Andersen, L. L., Andersen, J. L., Zebis, M. K. & Aagaard, P. 2010. Early and late rate of
force development: Differential adaptive responses to resistance training? Scand J Med Sci
Sports, 20, e162–9.
Banyard, H. G., Nosaka, K. & Haff, G. G. 2017. Reliability and validity of the Load–Velocity
relationship to predict the 1RM back squat. J Strength Cond Res, 31.
Beckham, G., Lamont, H., Sato, K., Ramsey, M., Haff, G. G. & Stone, M. 2012. Isometric
strength of powerlifters in key positions of the conventional deadlift. J Trainol, 1.
Beckham, G. K., Sato, K., Mizuguchi, S., Haff, G. G. & Stone, M. H. 2018. Effect of body
position on force production during the isometric mid-thigh pull. J Strength Cond Res,
32(1), 48–56.
Bemben, M. G., Clasey, J. L. & Massey, B. H. 1990. The effect of the rate of muscle contraction
on the force-time curve parameters of male and female subjects. Res Q Exerc Sport, 61, 96–9.
Blackburn, J. R. & Morrissey, M. C. 1998. The relationship between open and closed kinetic
chain strength of the lower limb and jumping performance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 27,
430–5.
Brady, C. J., Harrison, A. J. & Comyns, T. M. 2018a. A review of the reliability of biome-
chanical variables produced during the isometric mid-thigh pull and isometric squat and the
reporting of normative data. Sports Biomech, 1–25.
Brady, C. J., Harrison, A. J., Flanagan, E. P., Haff, G. G. & Comyns, T. M. 2018b. A com-
parison of the isometric midthigh pull and isometric squat: Intraday reliability, usefulness,
and the magnitude of difference between tests. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 13, 844–52.
Caven, E. J. G., Bryan, T. J. E., Dingley, A. F., Drury, B., Garcia-Ramos, A., Perez-Castilla,
A., Arede, J. & Fernandes, J. F. T. 2020. Group versus individualised minimum velocity
thresholds in the prediction of maximal strength in trained female athletes. Int J Environ
Res Public Health, 17.
Comfort, P. & McMahon, J. J. 2015. Reliability of maximal back squat and power clean per-
formances in inexperienced athletes. J Strength Cond Res, 29, 3089–96.
Comfort, P., Bullock, N. & Pearson, S. J. 2012a. A comparison of maximal squat strength and
5-, 10-, and 20-meter sprint times, in athletes and recreationally trained men. J Strength
Cond Res, 26, 937–40.
Comfort, P., Dos’Santos, T., Beckham, G. K., Stone, M. H., Guppy, S. N. & Haff, G. G.
2019a. Standardization and methodological considerations for the isometric mid-thigh pull.
Strength Cond J, 41, 57–79.
Comfort, P., Dos’Santos, T., Jones, P. A., McMahon, J. J., Suchomel, T. J., Bazyler, C. & Stone,
M. H. 2019b. Normalization of early isometric force production as a percentage of peak force
during multijoint isometric assessment. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 15, 478–82.
106 Muscular Strength
Comfort, P., Haigh, A. & Matthews, M. J. 2012b. Are changes in maximal squat strength
during preseason training reflected in changes in sprint performance in Rugby league play-
ers? J Strength Cond Res, 26, 772–6.
Comfort, P., Jones, P. A., Thomas, C., Dos’Santos, T., McMahon, J. J. & Suchomel, T. J.
2022. Changes in early and maximal isometric force production in response to moderate-
and high-load strength and power training. J Strength Cond Res, 36, 593–9.
Comfort, P., McMahon, J. J. & Suchomel, T. J. 2018. Optimizing squat technique—Revisited.
Strength Cond J, 40, 68–74.
Comfort, P. & Pearson, S. J. 2014. Scaling–which methods best predict performance? J
Strength Cond Res, 28, 1565–72.
Comfort, P., Stewart, A., Bloom, L. & Clarkson, B. 2014. Relationships between strength,
sprint, and jump performance in well-trained youth soccer players. J Strength Cond Res,
28, 173–7.
DeWeese, B. H., Serrano, A. J., Scruggs, S. K. & Burton, J. D. 2013. The midthigh pull: Proper
application and progressions of a weightlifting movement derivative. Strength Cond J, 35,
54–8.
Dos’Santos, T., Jones, P. A., Comfort, P. & Thomas, C. 2017a. Effect of different onset thresh-
olds on isometric mid-thigh pull force-time variables. J Strength Cond Res, 31, 3467–73.
Dos’Santos, T., Jones, P. A., Kelly, J., McMahon, J. J., Comfort, P. & Thomas, C. 2016. Effect
of sampling frequency on isometric midthigh-pull kinetics. Int J Sports Physiol Perform,
11, 255–60.
Dos’Santos, T., Thomas, C., Jones, P. A., McMahon, J. J. & Comfort, P. 2017b. The effect of
hip joint angle on isometric mid-thigh pull kinetics. J Strength Cond Res, Publish 31(10),
2748–57.
Drake, D., Kennedy, R. & Wallace, E. 2017. The validity and responsiveness of isometric
lower body multi-joint tests of muscular strength: A systematic review. Sports Med –
Open, 3, 23.
Drake, D., Kennedy, R. A. & Wallace, E. S. 2019a. Measuring what matters in isometric multi-
joint rate of force development. J Sports Sci, 37, 2667–75.
Drake, D., Kennedy, R. A. & Wallace, E. S. 2019b. Multi-joint rate of force development
testing protocol affects reliability and the smallest detectible difference. J Sports Sci, 37,
1570–81.
Faigenbaum, A. D., Mcfarland, J. E., Herman, R. E., Naclerio, F., Ratamess, N. A., Kang, J.
& Myer, G. D. 2012. Reliability of the one-repetition-maximum power clean test in adoles-
cent athletes. J Strength Cond Res, 26, 432–7.
Fernandes, J. F. T., Dingley, A. F., Garcia-Ramos, A., Perez-Castilla, A., Tufano, J. J. & Twist,
C. 2021. Prediction of one repetition maximum using reference minimum velocity threshold
values in young and middle-aged resistance-trained males. Behav Sci (Basel, Switzerland),
11, 71.
Fry, A. C. 2004. The role of resistance exercise intensity on muscle fibre adaptations. Sports
Med, 34, 663–79.
Green, C. M. & Comfort, P. 2007. The affect of grip width on bench press performance and
risk of injury. Strength Cond J, 29, 10–4.
Grgic, J., Lazinica, B., Schoenfeld, B. J. & Pedisic, Z. 2020. Test-retest reliability of the one-rep-
etition maximum (1RM) strength assessment: A systematic review. Sports Med Open, 6, 31.
Haff, G. G., Stone, M., O’bryant, H. S., Harman, E., Dinan, C., Johnson, R. & Han, K.-
H. 1997. Force-time dependent characteristics of dynamic and isometric muscle actions. J
Strength Cond Res, 11, 269–72.
Haff, G. G. 2019. Strength – isometric and dynamic testing. In: Comfort, P., Jones, P. A. &
McMahon, J. J. (eds). Performance Assessment in Strength and Conditioning. New York,
NY: Routledge.
 Muscular Strength 107
Haff, G. G., Carlock, J. M., Hartman, M. J., Kilgore, J. L., Kawamori, N., Jackson, J. R.,
Morris, R. T., Sands, W. A. & Stone, M. H. 2005. Force-time curve characteristics of
dynamic and isometric muscle actions of elite women Olympic weightlifters. J Strength
Cond Res, 19, 741–8.
Haff, G. G., Ruben, R. P., Lider, J., Twine, C. & Cormie, P. 2015. A comparison of methods
for determining the rate of force development during isometric mid-thigh clean pulls. J
Strength Cond Res, 29, 386–95.
Halperin, I., Williams, K. J., Martin, D. T. & Chapman, D. W. 2016. The effects of attentional
focusing instructions on force production during the isometric midthigh pull. J Strength
Cond Res, 30, 919–23.
Hori, N., Newton, R. U., Andrews, W. A., Kawamori, N., Mcguigan, M. R. & Nosaka, K.
2008. Does performance of hang power clean differentiate performance of jumping, sprint-
ing, and changing of direction? J Strength Cond Res, 22, 412–8.
Hornsby, W., Gentles, J., Macdonald, C., Mizuguchi, S., Ramsey, M. & Stone, M. 2017.
Maximum strength, rate of force development, jump height, and peak power alterations in
weightlifters across five months of training. Sports, 5, 78.
Julio, U. F., Panissa, V. L. G. & Franchini, E. 2012. Prediction of one repetition maximum
from the maximum number of repetitions with submaximal loads in recreationally strength-
trained men. Sci Sports, 27, e69–76.
Lauersen, J. B., Andersen, T. E. & Andersen, L. B. 2018. Strength training as superior, dose-
dependent and safe prevention of acute and overuse sports injuries: A systematic review,
qualitative analysis and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med, 52, 1557–65.
Lauersen, J. B., Bertelsen, D. M. & Andersen, L. B. 2014. The effectiveness of exercise inter-
ventions to prevent sports injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised
controlled trials. Br J Sports Med, 48, 871–7.
Maffiuletti, N. A., Aagaard, P., Blazevich, A. J., Folland, J., Tillin, N. & Duchateau, J. 2016.
Rate of force development: Physiological and methodological considerations. Eur J Appl
Physiol, 116, 1091–116.
Malone, S., Hughes, B., Doran, D. A., Collins, K. & Gabbett, T. J. 2019. Can the work-
load-injury relationship be moderated by improved strength, speed and repeated-sprint
qualities? J Sci Med Sport, 22, 29–34.
Morales, J. & Sobonya, S. 1996. Use of submaximal repetition tests for predicting 1-RM
strength in class athletes. J Strength Cond Res, 10, 186–9.
Nimphius, S. 2018. Re-evaluating what we “know” about female athletes in biomechanics
research: Across the continuum from capacity to skill. ISBS Proc Arch, 36, 1059.
Nimphius, S. 2019. Exercise and sport science failing by design in understanding female ath-
letes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 14, 1157–8.
Nimphius, S., Mcguigan, M. R. & Newton, R. U. 2010. Relationship between strength,
power, speed, and change of direction performance of female softball players. J Strength
Cond Res, 24, 885–95.
Nuzzo, J. L., Mcbride, J. M., Cormie, P. & Mccaulley, G. O. 2008. Relationship between
countermovement jump performance and multijoint isometric and dynamic tests of strength.
J Strength Cond Res, 22, 699–707.
Sayers, M. G. L., Schlaeppi, M., Hitz, M. & Lorenzetti, S. 2018. The impact of test loads on
the accuracy of 1RM prediction using the load-velocity relationship. BMC Sports Sci Med
Rehabil, 10, 9.
Seitz, L. B., Reyes, A., Tran, T. T., De Villarreal, E. S. & Haff, G. G. 2014. Increases in
lower-body strength transfer positively to sprint performance: A systematic review with
meta-analysis. Sports Med, 44, 1693–702.
Styles, W. J., Matthews, M. J. & Comfort, P. 2015. Effects of strength training on squat and
sprint performance in soccer players. J Strength Cond Res, 30, 1534–9.
108 Muscular Strength
Suarez, D. G., Mizuguchi, S., Hornsby, W. G., Cunanan, A. J., Marsh, D. J. & Stone, M. H.
2019. Phase-specific changes in rate of force development and muscle morphology through-
out a block periodized training cycle in weightlifters. Sports, 7, 129.
Suchomel, T. J., Nimphius, S. & Stone, M. H. 2016. The importance of muscular strength in
athletic performance. Sports Med, 46, 1419–49.
Suchomel, T. J., Nimphius, S. & Stone, M. H. 2018. Scaling isometric mid-thigh pull max-
imum strength in division in athletes: Are we meeting the assumptions? Sports Biomech,
1–15.
Verhoeff, W. J., Millar, S. K., Oldham, A. R. H. & Cronin, J. 2020. Coaching the power
clean: A constraints-led approach. Strength Cond J, 42, 16–25.
Wisloff, U., Castagna, C., Helgerud, J., Jones, R. & Hoff, J. 2004. Strong correlation of max-
imal squat strength with sprint performance and vertical jump height in elite soccer players.
Br J Sports Med, 38, 285–8.
7 Muscular Power
John McMahon and Paul Comfort

Part 1: Background

Introduction
Power has been a cause of confusion within the scientific literature (Winter et al.,
2016). This is partly because of power being used as a qualitative term to describe per-
formance within sports or athletic tasks rather than as a true definition of mechanical
power (Knudson, 2009). Consequently, several peer-reviewed articles about power
have been published to promote a universal understanding of what power means
from a mechanical point of view, particularly among the strength and conditioning
community (Knudson, 2009; Winter et al., 2016), although the term is still com-
monly used incorrectly. In brief, power is defined as the rate of performing mechan-
ical work. Mechanical work describes the distance over which force is applied. It is
calculated as force multiplied by displacement. Displacement can be thought of as
the distance and direction travelled between two points, with ascending vertical (and
forward horizontal) displacement often prescribed a positive number and descending
vertical (and backward horizontal) displacement often prescribed a negative number.
It is important to note that we choose our two points of interest when calculating
displacement. In the descent phase of a squat, for example, point A could be our cen-
tre of mass (COM) position when standing upright and point B could be our lowest
COM position in the squat and this would be prescribed a negative value, such as
–0.5 m. Mechanical work is greater if either a larger force has been applied over the
same displacement or the same force has been applied over a larger displacement.
In either of these two scenarios, power would be greater if the mechanical work
was performed in a shorter time. Power can also be calculated as force multiplied
by velocity, due to velocity equalling displacement divided by time (see equations
later). The Système International (SI) unit for power is Watt (W). Despite force, dis-
placement and velocity being “vector quantities” (i.e., having both a magnitude and
direction), both mechanical work and power are “scalar quantities” (i.e., having a
magnitude, but no direction) (Winter et al., 2016), although their numeric values are
usually assigned a direction in line with the aforementioned convention in order to
facilitate data interpretation. The two primary equations for calculating power are
shown here:

Power = work ÷ time (7.1)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003186762-7
110 Muscular Power
Thus:

Power = ( force × displacement ) ÷ time

Thus:

Power = force × ( displacement ÷ time )

Thus:

Power = force × velocity (7.2)

Why Measure Power?

Strength and conditioning researchers and practitioners might be interested in meas-
uring power because it describes the ability to generate a high output (work) in a
short time which has been highlighted as a performance-determining factor for many
high-level athletes (Baker and Nance, 1999; Cormie et al., 2011; Haff and Nimphius,
2012). This is because the time available to most athletes for producing force, and
therefore velocity and power, when they are performing their sport, is limited. Thus,
in sports, whereby the requirement for attaining a high velocity in the associated
underpinning athletic actions but over a short time is paramount, the ability to pro-
duce high power outputs, and therefore assess this ability, is useful. However, because
a greater power output is attained by producing either (1) a larger amount of work
over the same time, (2) the same amount of work over a shorter time, or (3) a larger
amount of work over a shorter time (the ideal scenario), it can be more illuminating
for the strength and conditioning coach to deconstruct power output into its com-
posite parts (including the involved force and displacement and the phases [where
applicable] within the test for which power is calculated).

Part 2: Assessing Power

Assessments of power output within the field of strength and conditioning generally
involves a vertical jump test. Thus, this primary “power assessment” type alone will
be discussed in detail within this section, although the readers should be aware that
power can be assessed during many other tasks, such as cycling [typically on an
ergometer] and weightlifting derivatives.

Vertical Jump Tests

Firstly, vertical jump height is not a measure of power, despite it often being sug-
gested to describe leg power during a variety of jump tests. The most common vertical
jump test conducted with athletes is the countermovement jump. While it is true that
power can be measured during vertical jump tests, and power will usually be greatest
for unloaded (i.e., just bodyweight) versus externally loaded vertical jumps, a higher
jump is not always a consequence of higher power output. This can be explained
due to jump height being underpinned by a greater mechanical work but not the
 Muscular Power 111
rate with which it is produced. Thus, it is true to say that when a higher jump has
been achieved, that greater mechanical work relative to body mass must have been
done during the propulsion (i.e., concentric) phase (i.e., when extending hips, knees,
and ankles from the lowest COM position during the jump through to the instant
of leaving the ground). However, the power output is only guaranteed to have been
greater if the higher jump was achieved with the same or a shorter propulsion phase
time (refer back to Equation 7.1). See examples of this notion in Part 3, as part of case
studies 1 and 2. The reason for moderate-to-large correlations between both peak
and mean propulsion power and countermovement jump height (r = 0.54–0.90) is
suggested to be due the large correlations between the velocity at peak power (during
the propulsion phase) and countermovement jump height (Linthorne, 2021). In other
words, relationships between propulsion power and countermovement jump height
are artificially inflated due to the almost perfect relation (r = 0.83–0.94) between the
corresponding propulsion velocity at peak power and countermovement jump height
(Linthorne, 2021). To facilitate visualization for the reader, the point within which
propulsion peak power occurs during the countermovement jump is shown in Figure 7.1.
The reason that propulsion velocity at peak power and countermovement jump height
are so highly correlated is due to the velocity at take-off, which will be greater if the
mean propulsion velocity and therefore the propulsion velocity at peak power are
greater, dictating vertical jump height (Mcbride et al., 2010; Kirby et al., 2011). The
reason that velocity at take-off dictates vertical jump height can be explained by both

Figure 7.1 A
 n illustration of where peak power occurs during the countermovement jump.
The portion of the power-time curve underneath the braces associated with the
downward and upward arrows denotes the countermovement (negative power val-
ues) and propulsion (positive power values) phases, respectively.
112 Muscular Power
the equation for one-dimensional motion and the conservation of mechanical energy
principle (Linthorne, 2001). Both approaches result in the same simplified formula
for calculating jump height from take-off velocity shown here:

v2
=h (7.3)
2g

Where v is vertical take-off velocity, g is gravitational acceleration and h is jump

height.
Power can be directly measured if vertical jump tests are performed on a force
plate system, which is becoming increasingly common in sport owing to affordable,
but valid, systems being widely available (Peterson Silveira et al., 2016; Lake et al.,
2018). Even though equations exist that enable the prediction of power from jump
height and body mass (Güçlüöver and Gülü, 2020), which may be pertinent when a
force plate is not used to assess vertical jump performance, their efficacy in respect
to categorizing and ranking athletes’ power output has been challenged (Ache-Dias
et al., 2016) and if used, used with caution. Additionally, linear position transduc-
ers have also been used as a standalone device to measure power applied to either a
portion of the body (usually the hips to reflect the approximate whole-body COM
location) or a barbell. However, it has been reported that these methods cannot be
used interchangeably for measuring power output during bodyweight only and exter-
nally loaded vertical jumps (Mundy et al., 2016). As described in Chapter 4, the
strength and conditioning coach may wish to determine the concurrent validity of
power assessment devices themselves, especially if they are using a system which has
not been validated in a peer-reviewed study.

Force Plates
Force plates measure the ground reaction force [when placed on the ground, other-
wise this may be referred to as the normal reaction force] which is the mirror image
(equal in magnitude but opposite in direction) of the force that the athlete imparts
onto them during a given task. The ground reaction force represents the forces applied
from the force plate back to the athlete’s whole-body COM. Thus, it does not inform
us of which joints, segments, or muscles are predominantly responsibly for producing
the involved force(s). In the case of the vertical jump, specifically the countermove-
ment jump, the vertical component of the ground reaction force is usually collected
at 1000 Hz (Owen et al., 2014) for individual repetitions over a 5-second period
(thus leading to 5000 individual samples of force per trial). A representative ground
reaction force-time series for the countermovement jump is presented in Figure 7.2.
To be able to calculate power accurately from the recorded ground reaction force,
there are several steps that the strength and conditioning coach (the assumed test con-
ductor) is responsible for. Firstly, the force plate must firstly be placed on firm and level
ground, zeroed before the athlete steps onto it, and set to a minimum of 1000 Hz,
if possible (but ideally no less than 500 Hz). Then, the athlete must remain still and
upright for at least one second prior to performing the jump (Owen et al., 2014), but
while the data are being recorded, to allow post-measurement of body weight and the
initial COM position to be set to zero, respectively. It is advised that the athletes place
their hands on their hips prior to the jump trial being recorded via the force plate and
 Muscular Power 113

Figure 7.2 A representative countermovement jump force-time curve collected via a force plate.

keep them there throughout the entire trial. This is to standardise the test to limit both
within- and between-athlete variation in arm swing technique (Markovic et al., 2004)
and therefore isolate the lower body contribution to the jump. Remember, the ground
reaction force-time series will not inform us of which joints, segments, or muscles pro-
duced the force, so constraining the upper limb contribution to the task will help us bet-
ter hone in on this principally lower body activity. Finally, it is essential that all athletes
are verbally instructed on how to perform the vertical jump test in the same manner
(Sánchez-Sixto et al., in press). For most vertical jump tests, the athletes will likely be
cued to jump as fast (meaning to leave the ground quickly) and high as possible, rather
than just to focus on maximising jump height, which should elicit a larger power output
(see subsequent sections for a detailed discussion of this).
The strength and conditioning coach is unlikely to be responsible for analysing
the ground reaction force data obtained for each vertical jump trial. Instead, com-
mercial force plate software is likely to be utilized for this purpose, meaning there
is a reliance on the provider for ensuring accuracy in the power measurement. An
explanation of the typical process of calculating power from the vertical jump ground
reaction force-time series is provided here, but the author encourages the strength
and conditioning coach to request the data analysis methods employed by their com-
mercial force plate software provider, as they tend to yield slightly different results
(Merrigan et al., 2022).
When jumping vertically, the athletes must overcome their bodyweight, and so the
resultant force (commonly referred to as the net force) acting on the athletes’ COM
is required when exploring the influence of applied force on COM motion, which is
needed to calculate power (Linthorne, 2001). The net force acting on the athletes’
114 Muscular Power
COM is calculated by subtracting their bodyweight (usually calculated as the mean
force over at least a one-second period where the athlete remained upright and still)
from the entire vertical ground reaction force-time series. Based on known associa-
tions between mechanical variables, that are governed by Newton’s laws of motion,
it is possible to obtain other kinetic and kinematic variables, including power, from
the original (or filtered) ground reaction force-time series. The underpinning math-
ematical process applied to the ground reaction force-time series is called numerical
integration and the overarching process is often referred to as forward dynamics.
The simplest way of calculating power is to apply Equation 7.2, but do to so, it is
a requirement to first calculate the COM velocity. For the velocity-time series for a
vertical jump trial to be obtained, the acceleration-time series must first be calcu-
lated. This is achieved by dividing the net ground reaction force-time series by the
athlete’s body mass (with body mass usually calculated by dividing body weight by an
assumed constant gravitational acceleration of 9.81 m/s2) on a sample-by-sample basis
(for every 0.001 s sample when the sample rate is set to 1000 Hz). The acceleration-
time series is then numerically integrated with respect to time using the trapezoid
rule to give the velocity-time series. The power-time series for the vertical jump can
then be calculated by multiplying the ground reaction force by velocity on a sample-
by-sample basis.
Equation 7.1 for calculating power can also be applied to force plate assessments
of vertical jumping but further steps are required. Specifically, to calculate work, the
displacement-time series is first obtained by numerically integrating the velocity-time
series, again using the trapezoid rule. This is often referred to as numerical double
integration of the ground reaction force-time series. Numerical double integration
is very reliant upon accurate body mass determination (Vanrenterghem et al., 2001)
which is another reason why it is very important for the athletes to remain motionless
for at least one second prior to performing the jump. Once the displacement-time
series has been calculated, the work done on the athlete’s COM can be calculated
by multiplying ground reaction force by displacement on a sample-by-sample basis.
It is important to note that power is usually reported as the mean or peak value
over a specific vertical jump phase of interest. Usually, power (whether mean or peak)
is reported solely for the propulsion phase (i.e., when extending hips, knees, and
ankles from the lowest COM position during the jump through to the instant of leav-
ing the ground). The power attained in the propulsion phase will be larger than in any
other phase of the jump because this is the phase within which the highest velocity is
obtained (Linthorne, 2021). The peak propulsion power represents the single highest
instantaneous power value obtained within this phase, whereas the mean propulsion
power represents the average power applied over the entirety of this phase. However,
the average power is somewhat influenced by the thresholds utilized by the software
provider to identify the onset and end of the propulsion phase (Merrigan et al., 2022).
Finally, it is typical for strength and conditioning coaches to wish to report the mean
and/or peak propulsion power values relative to each athlete’s body mass which is
achieved by simply dividing each power variant by body mass (either themselves or
this will be done by the software used). Sometimes, power may be the only variable
reported following a vertical jump test on a force plate or perhaps it will be reported
alongside the vertical jump height. In either case, this provides a narrow view of the
vertical jump performance and makes it impossible to know how the power was
achieved by athlete and/or how it changed since the last time they were tested. To
 Muscular Power 115
better understand power, it would be prudent for the strength and conditioning coach
to deconstruct power output into its composite parts, as mentioned earlier and which
is discussed as part of the practical examples provided in Part 3.

Part 3: Practical Examples

Case Study 1: Baseline Power Testing

Two senior male professional rugby league players (both forwards) performed three
maximal effort countermovement jumps as part of their club’s early pre-season test-
ing programme using a portable dual force plate system. Athlete 1 had a body mass
of 112 kg and athlete 2 had a body mass of 95 kg.
Both peak and mean propulsion power were automatically calculated by the com-
mercial software used and expressed both in absolute terms (W) and relative to each
athlete’s body mass (W/kg). The absolute and relative peak and mean propulsion
power values are presented in Table 7.1 along with some other countermovement
jump variables that were also calculated from the ground reaction force-time series
(all recorded as the average of the three countermovement jump trials). The position
average and SD values for each metric are also presented (Table 7.1).
The first thing to note is that absolute peak propulsion power is larger for ath-
lete 1 but the relative peak propulsion power is larger for athlete 2, as is the mean
propulsion power when expressed both in absolute and relative terms (Table 7.1).
These differences highlight that the precise power “variant” selected can potentially
alter the strength and conditioning coach’s test interpretation and lead to different
training recommendations. With the additional variables presented in Table 7.1, the
strength and conditioning coach can determine how the power outputs were achieved
by each athlete. For example, athlete 2 achieved a higher absolute mean propulsion
power despite performing less propulsion work (comprised of a higher mean pro-
pulsion force applied over a lower propulsion displacement) due to their propulsion
time being much lower. The lower propulsion time is likely due in part to the lower
propulsion displacement (McMahon et al., 2022a). The jump height was larger for

Table 7.1 Select countermovement jump variables derived from a force plate for two senior
male professional rugby league players (both forwards) and the position average (Avg.) and
standard deviation (SD) values.

Absolute Peak Absolute Mean Absolute Mean Propulsion Propulsion

Power (W) Power (W) Force (N) Displacement (m) Time (s)

Athlete 1 6080 2932 2019 0.50 0.319

Athlete 2 5276 3150 2114 0.36 0.216
Position Avg. 5201 2925 2012 0.43 0.266
Position SD 707 417 202 0.06 0.036

Relative Peak Relative Mean Relative Mean Propulsion Jump

Power (W/kg) Power (W/kg) Force (N/kg) Work (J) Height (m)

Athlete 1 54.4 26.2 18.1 385 0.35

Athlete 2 55.7 33.3 22.3 350 0.37
Position Avg. 50.3 28.3 19.5 347 0.34
Position SD 6.8 4.0 2.0 11 0.04
116 Muscular Power
athlete 2 despite their propulsion work being lower due to them being lighter. Athlete
2’s lighter body mass also likely contributed to them being able to perform the coun-
termovement jump with a much shorter propulsion time, as illustrated by the steeper
power-time series gradient in Figure 7.3. These results highlight the benefit of report-
ing supplementary variables to power output in order to facilitate the strength and
conditioning coach’s understanding of how it was attained by each athlete.
In addition to comparing the athlete’s power data to the average (mean) obtained by
athletes from the same position group (i.e., forwards) within their squad, the data may

Figure 7.3 T
 he countermovement jump power-time curves (absolute power shown in top
graph and relative power shown in bottom graph) of two senior male professional
rugby league players (both forwards; athlete 1 = black line; athlete 2 = grey line).
 Muscular Power 117
also be compared to published normative data provided that a similar test protocol was
adhered to. In this case study example, the test protocol and data analyses procedures
were very similar to a published study in which percentiles for the countermovement
jump mean and peak propulsion power (relative to body mass) attained by professional
male rugby league players were reported (McMahon et al., 2022b). Based on this study,
athlete 1 would be placed in the 70–75th percentile for relative peak propulsion power
but the 20–25th percentile for relative mean propulsion power, whereas athlete 2 would
be placed in the 80–85th percentile for relative peak propulsion power and the 85–90th
percentile for relative mean propulsion power (McMahon et al., 2022b). Thus, power
development would likely not be a primary forthcoming training priority for athlete 2,
but possibly would be for athlete 1. It is important to note that other physical qualities
that are deemed to be important for the athletes’ position within their sport, such as
maximal strength (see Chapter 6), maximal short-distance speed (see Chapter 11), and
change of direction ability (see Chapter 12), should also be considered alongside their
power output for a more informed training programme.

Case Study 2: Monitoring Power Changes

A senior female professional soccer player performed three maximal effort counter-
movement jumps as part of her club’s early pre-season testing programme and then
again fifteen weeks later, after completing a strength followed by a power-focussed
training programme for the lower body. On both occasions, the athlete was tested
using a portable dual force plate system. The athlete’s body mass was 70 kg at the
start of the training programme (at baseline testing) and 63 kg at the end of the train-
ing programme (at post-testing).
Both peak and mean propulsion power were automatically calculated on each test
occasion by the commercial software used and expressed both in absolute terms
(W) and relative to the athlete’s body mass (W/kg). The absolute and relative peak
and mean propulsion power values are presented in Table 7.2 along with some other
countermovement jump variables that were also calculated from the ground reaction
force-time series both before and after the strength training programme was com-
pleted (all recorded as the average of the three countermovement jump trials).

Table 7.2 Select countermovement jump variables derived from a force plate for a senior
female professional soccer player before and after a fifteen-week-long power-focussed
training programme.

Absolute Peak Absolute Mean Absolute Mean Propulsion Propulsion

Power (W) Power (W) Force (N) Displacement (m) Time (s)

Pre-test 3069 1763 2019 0.46 0.300

Post-test 2712 1579 2114 0.39 0.263
Change (units) –357 –184 95 –0.07 –0.037
Change (%) –11.6 –10.4 4.7 –16.1 –12.3

Relative Peak Relative Mean Relative Mean Propulsion Jump

Power (W/kg) Power (W/kg) Force (N/kg) Work (J) Height (m)
Pre-test 43.8 25.2 28.8 217 0.31
Post-test 42.8 24.9 33.3 179 0.28
Change (units) –1.0 –0.3 4.5 –38 –0.03
Change (%) –2.4 –1.0 15.7 –17.5 –9.7
118 Muscular Power
The first thing to note is that power output (all variants) reduced following the
fifteen-week training programme. However, the absolute peak and mean propulsion
power seen much larger reductions that the relative values due to the athlete losing
7 kg of body mass. Additionally, the post-test reductions in relative peak (2.4%) and
mean (1%) propulsion power are so small (also see Figure 7.4) that they are likely
less than the measurement error (Mercer et al., 2021) and so may be interpreted

Figure 7.4 T
 he countermovement jump power-time curves (absolute power shown in top
graph and relative power shown in bottom graph) for a senior female professional
soccer player before (black line) and after (grey line) a 15-week-long power-
focussed training programme.
 Muscular Power 119
as not changing compared with the pre-test values. At face value, the strength and
conditioning coach may conclude that the fifteen-week training programme had no
effect on the athlete’s relative power output. Furthermore, the accompanying large
post-test reduction in jump height (a marker of reduced velocity) may be viewed as a
negative outcome of the training programme. But the additional variables reported
in Table 7.2 help contextualise the reasons for no change and a reduction in power
output and jump height, respectively. For example, in the post-test, the athlete per-
formed the propulsion phase of the jump with a larger relative mean force applied
over a shorter displacement and, therefore, a reduced time. Essentially, the athlete
had changed their jump strategy in the post-test, opting for a stiffer leg approach
(reduced peak ankle, knee, and hip flexion) with the resulting heightened force not
outweighing the reduced displacement and time during propulsion, which equalized
the pre-test power output (less work but produced in less time) but reduced jump
height (less work and net impulse [mean force × time]). Thus, it is not accurate to say
that the athlete maintained (power output) or reduced (jump height) their jump per-
formance following the training intervention, but rather it is more complex than that.
Also, these results highlight that jump height should not be used as a surrogate for
power. Should the athlete adopt the same jump strategy (i.e., propulsion displacement
and time) and maintain body mass after a further period of training, the only way in
which their power output and jump height will increase is if they are able to apply a
larger propulsion force.

Laboratory Task: How “Powerful” Are You?

As explained in the two case studies presented earlier, power output is very depend-
ent on jump strategy (i.e., how the athlete performs the jump with regards to COM
displacement and movement duration) and body mass, which is why it is important
to report more than just power, and, indeed, jump height, following a vertical jump
assessment performed on a force plate. The authors encourage you to experiment
with various jump strategies to further illustrate their influence on power output by
completing the laboratory task outlined later.

Task Instructions
Complete three maximal effort countermovement jumps to various depths on a force
plate, if possible. Specially, perform one countermovement jump to your preferred
depth, one shallower than preferred (i.e., less ankle, knee, and hip flexion during
countermovement phase of the jump [shallower squat]) and one to a deeper than
preferred (i.e., more ankle, knee, and hip flexion during countermovement phase of
the jump [deeper squat]). Acquire the force data per the manufacturer’s guidelines,
adhering to the recommended data collection steps described in Part 2, where possi-
ble. What do you notice about your propulsion power output, whether peak or mean?
According to previous work, it is anticipated that power output will be greatest for
the shallower (i.e., stiffer) and lowest for the deeper (i.e., more compliant) jump trials,
when compared with the preferred trial (McMahon et al., 2016).
If you do not have access to a force plate, the authors recommend that you complete
the same task outlined earlier but with an alternative device that is available to you
(e.g., phone application, jump mat, etc.). Instead of focussing on power this time, as
120 Muscular Power
these alternative devices likely do not provide power metrics, focus on jump height.
What do you notice about your jump height? According to previous work, it is antic-
ipated jump height will be greatest for the deeper (i.e., more compliant) and lowest
for the shallower (i.e., stiffer) jump trials, when compared with the preferred trial
(McMahon et al., 2016).
This laboratory task should help emphasize the importance of consistent verbal
cueing of athletes when conducting vertical jump tests as well as the limitations
of reporting more than just power output and jump height when conducting such
tests with athletes. This task can also be performed after a change in body mass has
occurred (e.g., after a period of physical training has taken place) and with the inclu-
sion of arm swing to facilitate the reader’s understanding of the interplay between
these factors and both power output and jump height.

Summary
It is undoubtedly important for most athletes to be able to generate high power out-
puts to be successful in their respective sport. How the strength and conditioning
coach assesses power should be considered carefully, however, with particular atten-
tion paid to test standardization and complimentary metrics. Understanding how a
certain power output was attained for different athletes and/or how it changed or
remained the same after a period of training or competition is essential to better
direct athletes’ training programmes.

References
Ache-Dias, J., Dal Pupo, J., Gheller, R. G., Külkamp, W. & Moro, A. R. P. 2016. Power out-
put prediction from jump height and body mass does not appropriately categorize or rank
athletes. J Strength Cond Res, 30, 818–24.
Baker, D. & Nance, S. 1999. The relation between strength and power in professional Rugby
league players. J Strength Cond Res, 13, 224–9.
Cormie, P., Mcguigan, M. R. & Newton, R. U. 2011. Developing maximal neuromuscular
power: Part 1–biological basis of maximal power production. Sports Med, 41, 17–38.
Güçlüöver, A. & Gülü, M. 2020. Developing a new muscle power prediction equation through
vertical jump power output in adolescent women. Medicine, 99, e20882.
Haff, G. G. & Nimphius, S. 2012. Training principles for power. Strength Cond J, 34, 2–12.
Kirby, T. J., Mcbride, J. M., Haines, T. L. & Dayne, A. M. 2011. Relative net vertical impulse
determines jumping performance. J Appl Biomech, 27, 207–14.
Knudson, D. V. 2009. Correcting the use of the term “Power” in the strength and conditioning
literature. J Strength Cond Res, 23, 1902–8.
Lake, J., Mundy, P., Comfort, P., McMahon, J. J., Suchomel, T. J. & Carden, P. 2018.
Concurrent validity of a portable force plate using vertical jump force-time characteristics.
J Appl Biomech, 34, 410–3.
Linthorne, N. P. 2001. Analysis of standing vertical jumps using a force platform. Am J Phys,
69, 1198–204.
Linthorne, N. P. 2021. The correlation between jump height and mechanical power in a coun-
termovement jump is artificially inflated. Sports Biomech, 20, 3–21.
Markovic, G., Dizdar, D., Jukic, I. & Cardinale, M. 2004. Reliability and factorial validity of
squat and countermovement jump tests. J Strength Cond Res, 18, 551–5.
 Muscular Power 121
Mcbride, J. M., Kirby, T. J., Haines, T. L. & Skinner, J. 2010. Relationship between relative
net vertical impulse and jump height in jump squats performed to various squat depths and
with various loads. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 5, 484–96.
McMahon, J. J., Jones, P. A. & Comfort, P. 2022a. Comparison of countermovement jump-
derived reactive strength index modified and underpinning force-time variables between
super league and championship rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res, 36, 226–31.
McMahon, J. J., Lake, J. P., Dos’ Santos, T., Jones, P., Thomasson, M. & Comfort, P. 2022b.
Countermovement jump standards in rugby league: What is a ‘good’ performance? J Strength
Cond Res, 36, 1691–8.
McMahon, J. J., Ripley, N. J. & Rej, S. J. 2016. Effect of modulating eccentric leg stiffness
on concentric force-velocity characteristics demonstrated in the countermovement jump.
J Sports Sci, 34, S19.
Mercer, R. A. J., Russell, J. L., Mcguigan, L. C., Coutts, A. J., Strack, D. S. & Mclean, B.
D. 2021. Finding the signal in the noise—Interday reliability and seasonal sensitivity of 84
countermovement jump variables in professional basketball players. J Strength Cond Res,
published ahead-of-print.
Merrigan, J. J., Stone, J. D., Galster, S. M. & Hagen, J. A. 2022. Analyzing force-time
curves: Comparison of commercially available automated software and custom MATLAB
analyses. J Strength Cond Res, 36(9), 2387–2402, published ahead-of-print. 10.1519/
JSC.0000000000004275.
Mundy, P. D., Lake, J. P., Carden, P. J. C., Smith, N. A. & Lauder, M. A. 2016. Agreement
between the force platform method and the combined method measurements of power out-
put during the loaded countermovement jump. Sports Biom, 15, 23–35.
Owen, N. J., Watkins, J., Kilduff, L. P., Bevan, H. R. & Bennett, M. A. 2014. Development
of a criterion method to determine peak mechanical power output in a countermovement
jump. J Strength Cond Res, 28, 1552–8.
Peterson Silveira, R., Stergiou, P., Carpes, F. P., Castro, F. A. D. S., Katz, L. & Stefanyshyn,
D. J. 2016. Validity of a portable force platform for assessing biomechanical parameters in
three different tasks. Sports Biom, 16, 177–86.
Sánchez-Sixto, A., McMahon, J. J. & Floría, P. In press. Verbal instructions affect reactive
strength index modified and time-series waveforms in basketball players. Sports Biom.
Vanrenterghem, J., De Clercq, D. & Cleven, P. V. 2001. Necessary precautions in measuring
correct vertical jumping height by means of force plate measurements. Ergonomics, 44,
814–8.
Winter, E. M., Abt, G., Brookes, F. B. C., Challis, J. H., Fowler, N. E., Knudson, D. V.,
Knuttgen, H. G., Kraemer, W. J., Lane, A. M., Mechelen, W. V., Morton, R. H., Newton,
R. U., Williams, C. & Yeadon, M. R. 2016. Misuse of “Power” and other mechanical terms
in sport and exercise science research. J Strength Cond Res, 30, 292–300.
8 Muscular Endurance
Paul Comfort and John McMahon

Part 1: Introduction
Muscular endurance tends to be assessed for a variety of reasons, with the most
obvious being to determine the work capacity of a muscle group (i.e., single joint
task) or series of muscles (i.e., multi-joint task). Muscular endurance protocols are
also sometimes used to predict maximal strength or to evaluate muscular char-
acteristics in individuals who may not be competent in performing exercises with
maximal or near maximal loads, and in some cases, where a maximal load test is
not feasible (e.g., plank and abdominal crunch). Due to the higher reliability and
lower measurement error associated with maximal strength testing, where possible,
the assessment of maximal strength would be preferential to the assessment of mus-
cular endurance. However, muscular endurance tests are commonly used in fitness
batteries for children and adolescents (Castro-Piñero et al., 2010; Lubans et al.,
2011), in health-related settings and research (Cantell et al., 2008; Bianco et al.,
2015) and in certain physically demanding occupations (e.g., police and military)
(Barringer et al., 2019; Lockie et al., 2020), as they are easy to perform on mass
with minimal equipment. However, appropriate familiarization with the tasks is
required as a learning effect and systematic bias has been noted in some studies
(Lubans et al., 2011).
Interestingly, while these tests are commonly viewed as having a lower risk of
injury than a one repetition maximum (1 RM), as fatigue ensues during a muscular
endurance test technique is likely to progressively deteriorate, and therefore should
be continually and closely monitored. If technique becomes an issue and the correct
posture (e.g., loss of neutral spine) or movement pattern is not being maintained (e.g.,
increased hip flexion and reduced knee flexion during a deadlift or squat) the task
should be terminated. Technique issues can also be observed during isometric assess-
ments, usually as a loss of spinal alignment due to fatigue of the abdominal muscles,
in which case the task should be stopped.
Interestingly, performing the maximum number of repetitions over a specific dura-
tion (e.g., the maximum number of repetitions in one minute) has been questioned as
an appropriate method of evaluating endurance, due to movement speed and there-
fore muscular power being a contributing factor (Quinney et al., 1984; Sparling et al.,
1997). As such, the efficacy and validity of any version of endurance tests which
includes a timed component should be questioned.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003186762-8
 Muscular Endurance 123
Part 2: Muscular Endurance Assessments

Push-Up Tests
Numerous different protocols have been employed for the push-up test, including
the 90° push-up (e.g., where the range of motion is determined by flexing the elbows
to 90° and returning to full extension) (McManis et al., 2000; Lubans et al., 2011;
Hashim et al., 2018) and the full push-up where the chest is lowered to a specific
height (e.g., a rolled-up towel, or a water bottle led flat; Lockie et al. (2020), or until
the chest touches the floor (Pate et al., 1993; Ojeda et al., 2020). The test has also
been modified to accommodate individuals who lack the strength to perform the
push-up supported on their hands and toes, by performing it on an incline with the
hands on a bench of a standardized height (e.g., 13 inches), or the bent knee push-up,
where the individual is supported on their hands and knees (commonly adopted
when testing females (Haugen et al., 2013)), reducing the moment arm and the load
through the upper body (Baumgartner et al., 2002; Wood and Baumgartner, 2004;
Hashim et al., 2018). While each of these tests appears to be reliable (McManis et al.,
2000; Baumgartner et al., 2002; Wood and Baumgartner, 2004; Lubans et al., 2011;
Hashim et al., 2018; Ojeda et al., 2020), they cannot be used interchangeably, due
to the differences in range of motion and load that the upper body is subjected to. As
such, comparison between published data can only be completed if the same protocol
has been used, and testing protocols are standardized for longitudinal monitoring of
athletic development, to ensure that appropriate conclusions are drawn.

Testing Protocol
The athlete should be positioned with only their toes and hands in contact with the floor,
with their hands slightly wider than shoulder width, resulting in ~45° angle between
the trunk and the humerus. They should then flex their elbows to lower their chest
to the floor and then return back to the start position with their arms fully extended
(Figure 8.1). To standardize the cadence of the repetition a metronome set at 40 beats
per minute can be used to ensure that one repetition is performed every 3 seconds
(Lubans et al., 2011). During the movement the athlete should keep their body in a
straight line, maintaining a neutral spinal posture, with a rigid torso and no movement
through the hips. If the individual is not strong enough to perform the push-up in this
manner, they should perform them on their knees (Figure 8.2). The total number of
repetitions completed with good techniques is the final score. Normative data for adults
are presented in Table 8.1, with data for adolescents in Table 8.2.

Pull-Up Test
This test should be implemented with caution in children and adolescents as for many
individuals, this is a strength test rather than endurance test (based on the low num-
ber of repetitions that many individuals can perform). In fact, Woods et al. (1992)
suggested that the pull-up test is not an appropriate or valid test of muscular endur-
ance in adolescents as many individuals are not strong enough to perform a single full
repetition. For example, Castro-Piñero et al. (2010) reported, in a systematic review,
124 Muscular Endurance

Figure 8.1 P
 ush-up test sequence, (a) represents the start and finish position of a repetition,
and (b) represents the mid-point of the repetition.

that 85% of girls and 60% of boys were not able to complete a single repetition dur-
ing the pull-up test. As such, some individuals opt for the 90° bent arm hang test (a
test of isometric endurance). However, it has been reported that in adolescents, 39%
of girls and 28% of boys cannot hold the isometric position, therefore questioning the
validity of this test in adolescents (Castro-Piñero et al., 2010). Some adults are also
not able to perform the test as an assessment of muscular endurance, with 81% of
female and 8% of male law enforcement personnel, unable to perform more than two
repetitions (Lockie et al., 2020). In contrast, in athletic adult populations, the pull-up
endurance test has been reported to be highly reliable (intraclass correlation coeffi-
cient [ICC] ≥ 0.90) when following a standardized testing protocol (Vanderburgh and
Edmonds, 1997; Sanchez-Moreno et al., 2016). For more information about reliabil-
ity statistics, including the ICC, see Chapter 4.

Testing Protocol
The standardized protocol should consist of the individual taking a shoulder-width
pronated grip on a pull-up bar. They should then hang with minimal movement
 Muscular Endurance 125

Figure 8.2 M
 odified push-up test sequence, (a) represents the start and finish position of a
repetition, and (b) represents the mid-point of the repetition.

of the body and the arms fully extended, from there they should flex the elbows
and pull the body up towards the bar (with no swinging or kicking of the legs, and
no “kipping” motion) until the chin is above the bar (larynx level with the bar).
The individual should then lower their body in a controlled manner until the arms
are fully extended and then pause for 2 seconds until the tester instructs them to

Table 8.1 Percentiles for push-up performance.

Percentile Repetitions

90–100 ≥59
80–89 51–58
40–79 50
30–39 43–49
20–29 38–42
10–19 31–37
0–9 ≤30

Data from Lockie et al. (2020).

Note: based on the maximum repetitions in 120 seconds.
126 Muscular Endurance
Table 8.2 Percentiles for 90° push-up performance for
adolescents.

Sex Female Male

Age 13 14 15 13 14 15

Percentile Repetitions

90 35 42 50 30 40 48
75 30 33 40 24 31 40
50 21 25 30 17 22 30
25 18 18 21 10 16 21
10 9 11 15 5 10 13

Males performed push-ups on hands and toes, while females

performed push-ups on hands and knees.
Data from Haugen et al. (2013).

perform the next repetition (Figure 8.3) in line with previous recommendations
(Vanderburgh and Edmonds, 1997; Sanchez-Moreno et al., 2016). The maximum
number of repetitions performed through a full range of motion should be taken
as the athlete’s score, with the final partial range of motion repetition excluded.
Normative data, including percentiles, is provided in Table 8.3, based on the find-
ings of Lockie et al. (2020).
Beckham et al. (2018) recently developed an equation to predict the maximum
number of repetitions that can be performed, based on the mean concentric velocity

Figure 8.3 Standardized protocol for the pull-up endurance test.

 Muscular Endurance 127
Table 8.3 Percentiles for pull-up performance.

Percentile Repetitions

90–100 ≥21
80–89 16–20
70–79 13–15
60–69 11–12
50–59 10
40–49 8–9
30–39 6–7
20–29 3–5
13–19 1–2
0–12 0

Data from Lockie et al. (2020).

of the first repetition of the pull-up, where x is the mean concentric velocity and y is
the maximum number of repetitions:

Female equation: y = −4.062 + 19.381x

Male equation: y = −6.913 + 25.938x

Prior to performing a maximal velocity pull-up, two warm-up sets of 5 repetitions

using 50% body mass, one set of 3 repetitions using 75% body mass, and one single
repetition at 100% body mass were performed on an assisted pull-up machine, with
90–120 seconds rest between sets. This was then followed by the one maximal veloc-
ity repetition, which is used to predict the maximum number of receptions (Beckham
et al., 2018). It is worth noting that the velocity was evaluated using the GymAware
PowerTool and that the mean concentric velocity may differ between devices if an
alternative velocity assessment device is used (Fernandes et al., 2021; Weakley et al.,
2021). In addition, if a linear position transducer is being used, it is essential that the
device is appropriately placed and attached to the athlete to ensure that the chord is
vertical, with minimal horizontal displacement throughout the exercise, to prevent
the associated velocity from being inflated.

Curl-Up Test
The cadence (20 repetitions per minute) curl-up test has been shown to be reliable
across ages and sexes (between session intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] ≥ 0.70)
(Plowman, 2013) and may be safer than the maximal effort timed curl-up tests (e.g.,
maximal repetitions performed in one minute), as technique is maintained better when
performed at a steady cadence (Sparling et al., 1997; Plowman, 2013). In addition, as
mentioned earlier, during a times test, muscular power is a contributing factor (Quinney
et al., 1984; Sparling et al., 1997), potentially limiting the validity of the test.

Testing Protocol
The standardized posture (for the cadence curl-up test) is to lie supine on the floor
with the calves resting on a box and the feet. The height of the box should permit
128 Muscular Endurance
the shins to be parallel to the floor and the knees flexed to 90°. Arms should be
folded across the chest and shoulders in contact with the floor at the start of each
repetition. The athlete should curl up and down in time with the beat of a metro-
nome set at 40 bpm, with the elbows touching mid-thigh at the mid-point of each
repetition (Figure 8.4). Performance is based on the maximal number of repetitions
performed through the full range of motion at the desired cadence. Sparling et al.
(1997) also reported that rectus femoris involvement is reduced when the feet are not
anchored, which may be a better approach to determining the muscular endurance of
the abdominal musculature.
In contrast, Sparling et al. (1997) evaluated curl-up test performance in college stu-
dents, with the test performed for a maximum of three minutes (or until a successful
repetition could not be completed) at a cadence of 25 repetitions per minute, to keep

Figure 8.4 C
 url-up test sequence, (a) represents the start and finish positions of a repetition,
(b) represents the mid-point of the repetition.
 Muscular Endurance 129
it time-efficient, also reporting high between session reliability (ICC = 0.92). While it
is recommended that the protocol described by Plowman (2013) is used, practitioners
should be mindful of the fact that numerous variations of the curl-up protocol are
used, which include different leg positions (e.g., feet on the floor at 90°) and different
cadences, including the maximal number of repetitions performed in a given time, all
of which affect the reliability and generalizability of the results. As such, when com-
paring athletes’ performances to published “normative” values or benchmarks, it is
essential that comparisons are made to data where the same protocol has been used.

Bench Press Muscular Endurance Test (aka. The NFL-225 Test)

Because of the strong association between maximal muscular strength and muscu-
lar endurance, repetitions to failure performed with an absolute load are commonly
used to predict 1RM performance, especially in the bench press (Mayhew et al., 1999;
Mayhew et al., 2002). Because performing bench press repetitions to failure with 225
lbs (102.3 kg) has been used extensively within the National Football League (NFL),
it is commonly referred to as the NFL-225 test (Mayhew et al., 2002). Interestingly,
Mayhew et al. (1999) reported a coefficient of determination (r2) of 92%, although
they noted a higher standard error of the estimate (SEE) when predicting 1RM per-
formance, based on repetitions to failure when athletes could complete ≥10 repetitions
(SEE = 17.1 lb) compared to when <10 repetitions (SEE = 11.1 lb) could be performed,
with similar trends presented by Brechue and Mayhew (2009) and Mann et al. (2012).
The prediction equations of Mayhew et al. (1999, 2002) are provided here:

1RM ( lbs ) = 226.7 + 7.1( repetitions at 225 lbs )

Or

1RM ( kg ) = 102.3 + 3.23 ( repetitions at 102.3 kg )

Hetzler et al. (2010) adapted the equations to take anthropometric data into account;
however, this still resulted in similar predictive ability (r2 = 0.87–0.90; 87–90%) for
1RM performance. Mann et al. (2014) also reported high reliability (ICC >0.98) and
low variability (CV% <9.0) for the NFL-225 test. However, they also reported a high
smallest worthwhile difference of >21.8–25.7%, which likely increases in stronger
athletes who can perform a higher number of repetitions (Mayhew et al., 1999;
Mayhew et al., 2002; Brechue and Mayhew, 2009; Mann et al., 2014). However, if
not predicting 1RM performance, the smallest worthwhile change was three repeti-
tions which may lead to inappropriate load selection (Mann et al., 2014).

Testing Protocol
With an absolute load of 225 lbs/102.3 kg, a minimum level of strength in the bench
press is essential prior to attempting the NFL-225 test. To perform the test, athletes
should warm up by performing the bench press, using progressively increasing loads,
while the repetitions decrease, to ensure that the neuromuscular system is appropri-
ately prepared for the test, but not in a state of fatigue. To perform the bench press,
the athlete should lie on a bench, with their feet on the floor and their buttocks and
130 Muscular Endurance

Figure 8.5 Standardized sequence for the NFL-225 test.

shoulders in contact with the bench. The bar should be grasped with a grip slightly
wider (15–35 cm) than shoulder width (Mayhew et al., 2002), the bar should start
above the shoulders and be lowered in a controlled manner until it touches the ster-
num, followed by a controlled press back to full extension of the elbows, with the bar
moving in a slight arc. Once the warm-up is completed, the athletes should perform
as many repetitions as possible without pausing at the top of the movement. Once the
athlete can no longer complete a full repetition, the test is complete (Figure 8.5). If,
during the final repetition, the full range of motion cannot be completed, this repeti-
tion should not be included.

Summary
Try performing some (i.e., those that you have the ability to perform competently and
safely) of the muscular endurance tests and compare your performance to some of the
published “norms,” either within this chapter or from some of the published research
and see how you fair against different populations.
Also consider performing a 1RM bench press and the NFL-225 test (for those who
can) across your class and then evaluate the association between maximal strength
and muscular endurance. In most cases, increases in strength are associated with an
increase in endurance and vice versa.

References
Barringer, N. D., Mckinnon, C. J., O’brien, N. C. & Kardouni, J. R. 2019. Relationship of
strength and conditioning metrics to success on the army ranger physical assessment test. J
Strength Cond Res, 33(4), 958–64.
Baumgartner, T. A., Oh, S., Chung, H. & Hales, D. 2002. Objectivity, reliability, and validity
for a revised push-up test protocol. Meas Phys Edu Exerc Sci, 6, 225–42.
Beckham, G. K., Olmeda, J. J., Flores, A. J., Echeverry, J. A., Campos, A. F. & Kim, S. B.
2018. Relationship between maximum pull-up repetitions and first repetition mean concen-
tric velocity. J Strength Cond Res, 32(7), 1831–37.
Bianco, A., Jemni, M., Thomas, E., Patti, A., Paoli, A., Roque, J. R., Palma, A., Mammina,
C. & Tabacchi, G. 2015. A systematic review to determine reliability and usefulness of the
field-based test batteries for the assessment of physical fitness in adolescents – The ASSO
project. Int J Occup Med Environ Health, 28, 445–78.
 Muscular Endurance 131
Brechue, W. F. & Mayhew, J. L. 2009. Upper-body work capacity and 1RM prediction are
unaltered by increasing muscular strength in college football players. J Strength Cond Res,
23(9), 2477–86.
Cantell, M., Crawford, S. G. & Doyle-Baker, P. K. 2008. Physical fitness and health indices
in children, adolescents and adults with high or low motor competence. Hum Mov Sci, 27,
344–62.
Castro-Piñero, J., Artero, E. G., España-Romero, V., Ortega, F. B., Sjöström, M., Suni, J. &
Ruiz, J. R. 2010. Criterion-related validity of field-based fitness tests in youth: A systematic
review. Br J Sports Med, 44, 934.
Fernandes, J. F. T., Lamb, K. L., Clark, C. C. T., Moran, J., Drury, B., Garcia-Ramos, A. &
Twist, C. 2021. Comparison of the FitroDyne and GymAware rotary encoders for quan-
tifying peak and mean velocity during traditional multijointed exercises. J Strength Cond
Res, 35, 1760–5.
Hashim, A., Ariffin, A., Hashim, A. T. & Yusof, A. B. 2018. Reliability and validity of the 90°
push-ups test protocol. Int J Sci Res Manag, 6, PE-2018-01-05.
Haugen, T., Høigaard, R. & Seiler, S. 2013. Normative data of BMI and physical fitness in a
Norwegian sample of early adolescents. Scand J Public Health2, 42, 67–73.
Hetzler, R. K., Schroeder, B. L., Wages, J. J., Stickley, C. D. & Kimura, I. F. 2010.
Anthropometry increases 1 repetition maximum predictive ability of NFL-225 test for divi-
sion IA college football players. J Strength Cond Res, 24(6), 1429–39.
Lockie, R. G., Dawes, J. J., Orr, R. M. & Dulla, J. M. 2020. Recruit fitness standards from a
large law enforcement agency: Between-class comparisons, percentile rankings, and impli-
cations for physical training. J Strength Cond Res, 34(4), 934–41.
Lubans, D. R., Morgan, P., Callister, R., Plotnikoff, R. C., Eather, N., Riley, N. & Smith, C.
J. 2011. Test–retest reliability of a battery of field-based health-related fitness measures for
adolescents. J Sports Sci, 29, 685–93.
Mann, J. B., Stoner, J. D. & Mayhew, J. L. 2012. NFL-225 test to predict 1RM bench press in
NCAA division I football players. J Strength Cond Res, 26(10), 2623–31.
Mann, J. B., Ivey, P. J., Brechue, W. F. & Mayhew, J. L. 2014. Reliability and smallest worth-
while difference of the NFL-225 test in NCAA division I football players. J Strength Cond
Res, 28(5), 1427–32.
Mayhew, J. L., Ware, J. S., Bemben, M. G., Wilt, B., Ward, T. E., Farris, B., Juraszek, J. O.
E. & Slovak, J. P. 1999. The NFL-225 test as a measure of bench press strength in college
football players. J Strength Cond Res, 13(2), 130–34.
Mayhew, J. L., Ware, J. S., Cannon, K., Corbett, S., Chapman, P. P., Bemben, M. G., Ward, T.
E., Farris, B., Juraszek, J. & Slovak, J. P. 2002. Validation of the NFL-225 test for predict-
ing 1-RM bench press performance in college football players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness,
42(3), 304–8.
McManis, B. G., Baumgartner, T. A. & Wuest, D. A. 2000. Objectivity and reliability of the
90° push-up test. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci, 4, 57–67.
Ojeda, Á. H., Maliqueo, S. G. & Barahona-Fuentes, G. 2020. Validity and reliability of the
muscular fitness test to evaluate body strength-resistance. Apunts Sports Med, 55, 128–36.
Pate, R. R., Burgess, M. L., Woods, J. A., Ross, J. G. & Baumgartner, T. 1993. Validity of field
tests of upper body muscular strength. Res Q Exerc Sport, 64, 17–24.
Plowman, S. A. 2013. Muscular strength, endurance, and flexibility assessments. In: Plowman,
S. A. & Meredith, M. D. (eds). Fitnessgram/Activitygram Reference Guide. 4th ed. Dallas,
Texas: The Cooper Institute.
Quinney, H. A., Smith, D. J. & Wenger, H. A. 1984. A field test for the assessment of abdom-
inal muscular endurance in professional ice hockey players. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 6,
30–3.
Sanchez-Moreno, M., Parejo-Blanco, F., Diaz-Cueli, D. & Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J. 2016.
Determinant factors of pull-up performance in trained athletes. J Sports Medicine Phys
Fitness, 56, 825–33.
132 Muscular Endurance
Sparling, P. B., Millard-Stafford, M. & Snow, T. K. 1997. Development of a cadence curl-up
test for college students. Res Q Exerc Sport, 68, 309–16.
Vanderburgh, P. M. & Edmonds, T. 1997. The effect of experimental alterations in excess
mass on pull-up performance in fit young men. J Strength Cond Res, 11(4), 203–33.
Weakley, J., Morrison, M., García-Ramos, A., Johnston, R., James, L. & Cole, M. H. 2021.
The validity and reliability of commercially available resistance training monitoring devices:
A systematic review. Sports Med, 51, 443–502.
Wood, H. M. & Baumgartner, T. A. 2004. Objectivity, reliability, and validity of the bent-
knee push-up for college-age women. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci, 8, 203–12.
Woods, J. A., Pate, R. R. & Burgess, M. L. 1992. Correlates to performance on field tests of
muscular strength. Pediatr Exerc Sci, 4, 302–11.
9 Anaerobic Capacity
Joshua Miller

Part 1: Introduction
The ability to regenerate adenosine triphosphate (ATP) is necessary, no matter how
long a sporting event lasts. Certain activities may take a few seconds to accom-
plish the goal or hours depending upon the type of activity that is being performed.
However, individuals will benefit from the regeneration of ATP through non-oxidative
pathways in training or competition (Hermansen, 1969). Upon the beginning of
movement, ATP is immediately catabolized to release energy for movement to occur.
Once ATP is broken down, regeneration of ATP must occur to continue the event.
The ability to regenerate ATP via non-oxidative pathways is called anaerobic metab-
olism. Anaerobic metabolism occurs in the cytoplasm of the cell and regenerates ATP
without oxygen (O2) being present. The human body has two anaerobic energy
systems – the phosphagen (ATP-PC) system and glycolysis. Medbø et al. (1988) suggest
that the energy derived from intramuscular phosphagen stores and anaerobic glycoly-
sis is limited. This limitation may suggest that the anaerobic systems have a maximal
capacity. Anaerobic capacity may be beneficial for athletes that participate in specific
events like 400- to 1500-m running, 200- to 400-m swimming, 1- to 4-kilometre (km)
cycling, and 2000-m rowing.

Energy Systems
It does not matter whether the sporting event or training protocol is one of power
or endurance, the energy demands are met through the degradation of ATP.
Unfortunately, there is a limited storage capacity of ATP within the muscle itself
(< few seconds). To continue the work necessary to accomplish the play or repeti-
tions, ATP must be regenerated via aerobic or anaerobic pathways.
The ATP-PCr system is the simplest of the energy systems. The body stores a small
amount of ATP directly; the cells contain another high-energy phosphate molecule
that stores energy called phosphocreatine (may also be called creatine phosphate,
PCr). This pathway involves the donation of the inorganic phosphate (Pi) from PCr
to adenosine diphosphate (ADP) to reform ATP via the enzyme creatine kinase (CK).
The amount of PCr stored allows for approximately 3 seconds to 15 seconds of exer-
cise (Brooks et al., 2004). The second anaerobic energy system in the regeneration
of ATP utilizes the breakdown of glucose or glycogen stored in the muscle. This
pathway is a little more complex than the ATP-PCr system and it is called glycoly-
sis. Metabolism of glucose anaerobically results in 10–11 enzymatic steps that will

DOI: 10.4324/9781003186762-9
134 Anaerobic Capacity
result in the regeneration of 2 or 3 ATP based upon the starting molecule of glucose
or glycogen, respectively, and the production of lactic acid. The glycolytic pathway
is the predominant energy system for supramaximal exercise lasting from 6 second
to 1 minute, and then the major contributor is the aerobic energy system for the
regeneration of ATP (Medbø and Tabata, 1989; Withers et al., 1991). All energy
systems work together during exercise so that no one energy system works alone. The
contributions of the energy systems are based upon the intensity and duration of the
training protocol or sporting event.

Fatigue and Lactate

During supramaximal efforts, a lack of O2 availability causes there to be an increase
in lactate production via glycolysis. Blood lactate (BLa-) concentration represents the
lactate produced in the muscle, transportation of the lactate from the muscles to the
blood, and removal of the lactate from the blood (Gollnick and Hermansen, 1973).
During supramaximal exercise, BLa- can be measured at the end of exercise to see
intensity of the exercise completed (Chwalbinska-Moneta et al., 1989). It was once
believed that the accumulation of BLa- caused muscle fatigue; however, that belief
has been debunked (Bangsbo and Juel, 2006; Lamb and Stephenson, 2006). It is
now believed that supramaximal exercise may inhibit both contractile and energy-
producing processes (Osborne and Minahan, 2013).

Measurement of Anaerobic Capacity

Indirect measurements have been developed to reflect the ATP production during
anaerobic activities. These techniques can be in the measurement of the oxygen
deficit, BLa- concentrations after exercise, and the total amount of work completed
during a short-bout of exercise. The best test for measurement of total work com-
pleted during short bouts of exercise is the Wingate Anaerobic test (WAnT) (Inbar
et al., 1976; Weber et al., 2006; Green & Dawson, 1993). The total work completed,
and the mean power output achieved during the WAnT has been used to predict
anaerobic capacity (Zupan et al., 2009). Accumulated O2 deficit has been used for
the past several decades to quantify anaerobic ATP production during supramaximal
exercise to exhaustion (Karlsson and Saltin, 1970). This test incorporates a laboratory-
based test that measures the VO2-power output relationship. The VO2-power output
relationship appears to be linear within a range of different exercise intensity (Medbø
et al., 1988). Once the VO2-power output relationship has been determined, the O2
demand for supramaximal exercise can be extrapolated via linear regression model-
ling. The accumulated O2 deficit represents the total energy required to fuel the supra-
maximal exercise bout and is the product of O2 demand and exercise duration. The
accumulated O2 deficit can be calculated as the difference between the accumulated
O2 demand and the total VO2 . The accumulated O2 deficit is measured in O2 equiv-
alents and represents the energy that is created from anaerobic intramuscular phos-
phagens (ATP and PCr) as well as ATP from glycolysis. The maximal accumulated
O2 deficit (MAOD) is the maximal value the accumulated O2 deficit reaches during
supramaximal exercise (Medbø et al., 1988) and can be determined via the MAOD
test (Medbø et al., 1988).
The laboratory section will take the coach through determining anaerobic capacity
via the MAOD, WAnT, and the Margaria-Kalamen step test.
 Anaerobic Capacity 135
Part 2: Maximal Accumulated Oxygen Deficit (MAOD)
The MAOD test is considered the gold standard test to determine anaerobic capacity
(Noordhof et al., 2010); Tabata et al., 1997). However, Bangsbo (1992, 1996, 1998)
is strongly opposed to its validity. With the controversy, the MAOD still remains the
best measure for anaerobic capacity. The MAOD test can be performed via a treadmill
or cycle ergometer. No matter the mode of the test, two main assumptions are made:

• The mechanical efficiency of supramaximal work is identical to that for submax-

imal work.
• The O2 or energy demand for supramaximal exercise can be determined by
extrapolation of the VO2-power output relationship determined from VO2 meas-
ured during several submaximal exercise bouts (Osborne and Minahan, 2013).

In the literature, the number, duration, and intensity of the submaximal exercise bouts
have varied for measurement of MAOD (Medbø et al., 1988; Medbø and Tabata, 1989,
1993). These bouts were at least 10 bouts with a duration of 10 minutes for the determina-
tion of the VO2-power output relationship. In the original study, Medbø et al. (1988) and
recently Faina et al. (1997) and Calbet et al. (1997) used one supramaximal bout of exer-
cise to determine the MAOD. Therefore, there is no universal protocol for the MAOD.

MAOD – Cycling

Testing Protocol
Determination of the VO2-power output relationship is required to calculate the
MAOD on the athlete. To do so, an athlete should complete a VO2max test in which
VO2 can be measured during different power outputs. The protocol should consist
of four to five submaximal VO2 values during a continuous step cycling protocol or
during the first stages of an incremental test to determine VO2max (see Chapter 10).
The testing protocol begins with a warm-up period. This should be a power output
that is not too taxing on the rider. Upon completion of the warm-up, the power out-
put will be increased to 80–90% of VO2max. Each stage will last 5 minutes, and power
output will be increased at a set value of 30–50 W depending upon the abilities of the
athlete. Throughout the testing, the athlete will be wearing a mouthpiece or mask for
VO2 analysis via the metabolic cart.
Upon completion of the test, the averaging of the final 2 minutes of each stage will
be calculated and plotted on a graph for inclusion of the VO2-power output relation-
ship (Figure 9.1). This portion of the test will be completed prior to MAOD testing to
determine peak VO2 and establish the power output achieved at VO2max.
A separate test should be completed to determine MAOD. This test will require
the athlete to complete the test that corresponds to a power output of 120% of the
power output achieved during the maximal test. A similar warm-up can be completed
prior to the start of the test. The athlete will be wearing the mouthpiece or mask as
they were during the maximal test. The test will begin with 0 W at a pedal cadence
of 85 to 90 revolutions ⋅ min−1 (rpm). The power output associated to 120% of peak
power output will be applied and VO2 will be measured throughout the test. Verbal
encouragement will be needed during the test. The test will be terminated when a
pedal cadence of 40 rpm can no longer be maintained. Immediately, upon completion
of the test, record the exact time of the test and allow for a cool-down to occur.
136 Anaerobic Capacity
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
VO2 (L.min-1)

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Power Output (W)

Figure 9.1 Plot of VO2-power output relationship with linear equation.

Data Analysis
Prior to determining MAOD, a couple of data points are needed to be determined.
Peak power output needs to be known from the maximal test, and determination of
the VO2-power output relationship needs to be determined (Table 9.1).

Step 1: The VO2 for each submaximal stage will be plotted against power output
to determine the linear relationship.

y = a + bx, where
y = oxygen demand in liters,
x = power output in watts,
b = slope of the regression line (0.0115) , and
a = y-intercept of regression line (0.5135).
So, y = 0.5135 + 0.115x

Thus, the oxygen demand for a power output equal to 120% of the power out-
put achieved at peak VO2 (450 W × 1.20 = 540 W) is 6.55 L ⋅ min−1.

Table 9.1 Values of the VO2-power output relationship (cycling).

Power Output (W) Time (min) Stage VO2 (L ⋅ min−1)

100 0–5 1 1.67

150 5–10 2 2.2
200 10–15 3 2.83
250 15–20 4 3.41
300 20–25 5 4.0
30 min rest period
350 0–5 6 4.5

Maximal power output is 450 W.

 Anaerobic Capacity 137
Table 9.2 O2 uptake values obtained during 120% of peak power output test.

Power Output (W) Time (min:s) VO2 (L ⋅ min−1) VO2 (L ⋅ s−1)

540 0–0:30 2.14 1.07

540 0:30–1:00 4.5 2.25
540 1:00–1:30 4.92 2.46
540 1:30–2:00 5.18 2.59
540 2:00–2:30 5.4 2.7

Step 2: Need to determine the MAOD: The total O2 demand (accumulated O2

demand) of the constant load test can be calculated by multiplying the O2
demand by the duration of the test.

O2 demand = 6.55 L ⋅ min−1

Duration of test = 2.5 minutes
So accumulated O2 demand = 6.55 L ⋅ min−1 × 2.5 min = 16.375 L

The total O2 consumption (accumulated O2 uptake) measured via the metabolic

cart during the test can be calculated by converting each VO2 value from L ⋅ min−1
to L ⋅ 30 s−1 (Table 9.2) and the sum of the values:

Accumulated O2 uptake = 11.07 L.

The accumulated O2 deficit is calculated by subtracting the accumulated O2

uptake from the accumulated O2 deficit:

16.375 − 11.07 = 5.31 LO2eq ⋅ kg −1

Then, subtract 9% of the accumulated O2 deficit to account for O2 stores:

5.31 × 9% = 4.83 LO2eq ⋅ kg −

Data Interpretation (Brief explanation of key variables, supported by an exam-

ple case study, with additional examples that the reader can work through. Also
include other tests and associated variables that may provide additional insight.)

Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT)

The Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) was initially designed for adolescents (Cumming,
1972) and then became popular for adults in the late 1970s (Bar-Or, 1978). The
WAnT has been used more than any other test for anaerobic capacity and supramax-
imal exercise (Ayalon et al., 1974). The WAnT was initially designed as a leg cycle
ergometer test, but it has been adapted for arm-crank ergometry to test upper body
anaerobic capacity. It fulfilled the need for a test to measure anaerobic power.
This anaerobic test can determine an athlete’s peak power output (PP), mean
anaerobic power (MAP), total work, and fatigue index (FI). Peak power is the highest
power output achieved over the first 5 seconds of the test; in comparison, MAP refers
to the average power during the entire 30 sec of the test. Total work is calculated
138 Anaerobic Capacity
as the product of the total number of pedal revolutions completed and the force or
resistance during the test. The FI measures the rate of power decrease from the point
of peak anaerobic power to the finish of the test. The FI can be used to estimate the
percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibres in the vastus lateralis (Bar-Or et al., 1980).

Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT)

Methodological Information
The test has been demonstrated to be a reliable test for peak (PP) and mean (MP)
power output. Reliability coefficients in a test-retest range from about 0.90 to 0.98
for peak and mean power output (Inbar et al., 1976; Evans and Quinney, 1981).

Testing Protocol
The Wingate test requires the athlete to pedal or arm-crank for 30 seconds at max-
imal speed against a constant resistance for males and females (Table 9.3) and
sport-specific athletes (Table 9.4). This resistance is predetermined percentage of the
individual’s body mass that would allow for a noticeable development of fatigue to
occur within the initial few seconds of the test.
Individuals will perform a warm-up on the cycle ergometer for approximately
5 minutes with approximately 0.5–1.0 kg of resistance. Prior to starting the warm-up,
the athlete’s seat height should be set with his knee bent approximately 10 degrees
at the bottom of the pedal stroke. During minutes 2–4, the athlete will increase the
pedal cadence above 100 rev ⋅ min−1 for 10 sec and then return to normal. Upon com-
pletion of the warm-up, the athlete will be reminded to increase his pedal cadence as
fast as possible (>120 rev ⋅ min−1) prior to the beginning of the test. Once the pedal
cadence is achieved, the resistance will be lowered, and the clock will begin counting
down from 30 seconds. At the end of the test, the resistance will be removed, and the
athlete should continue to pedal against 0.5–1.0 kg of resistance for a few minutes to
aid in recovery. Verbal encouragement may be needed during the test for a maximal
effort.

Table 9.3 The optimal load for the Wingate test in males and females.

Subjects Limb Force (kp/kg) Work (J/rev/kg) Reference

Adult males
Sedentary Legs 0.075 4.41 Ayalon et al. (1974)
Active and athletes Legs 0.098 5.76 Evans and Quinney (1981)
Phys. Ed. Students Legs 0.087 5.13 Dotan and Bar-Or (1983)
Soldiers Legs 0.094 5.53 Patton et al. (1985)
Phys. Ed. Students Arms 0.062 3.62 Dotan and Bar-Or (1983)

Adult females
Phys. Ed. Students Legs 0.085 5.04 Dotan and Bar-Or (1983)
Phys. Ed. Students Arms 0.048 2.82 Dotan and Bar-Or (1983)

Kp = kilopond; kg = kilogram; J/rev/kg = joules per revolution per kilogram.

 Anaerobic Capacity 139
Table 9.4 The optimal load for the Wingate test in male and female athletes.

Sport Force (kp/kg) Reference

Football – NCAA DI 0.083 Seiler et al. (1990)

Kickboxing – Elite Not listed Zabukovec and Tiidus (1995)
Runners – Middle Load based upon Force-Velocity test Granier et al. (1995)
Distance
Sprinters – Elite 4–7 kg Crielaard and Pirnary (1981)
Sprinters – Elite Load based upon Force-Velocity test Granier et al. (1995)
Soccer – Youth 0.075 Vanderford et al. (2004)
Soccer – US National 0.075 Mangine et al., 1990
Speed Skating – Elite (0.092 + 0.112 kp ⋅ kg–1 (BM) Smith and Roberts (1991)
Tennis – NCAA 0.075 Kraemer et al. (2003)
Hockey – NCAA DIII 0.086 (male), 0.075 (female) Janot et al. (2015)

kp = kilopond; kg = kilogram.

Data Analysis
During the 30 seconds of testing, the three performance variables are measured: PP,
MP, and FI.
Here is an example of data from a male who weighs 85 kg while performing the
Wingate test on a Monark cycle ergometer (Figure 9.2, Tables 9.5–9.7).
Peak power (PP) = Resistance (kg) × distance around flywheel (Monark = 6 m) ×
total # of revolutions in 5 seconds

= 6.4 kg of resistance × 6 m × 15 revolutions = 576 kgm ⋅ 5 sec −1

= 576 kgm ⋅ 5 sec −1 × 12 = 6912 kgm ⋅ min−1 /6.12 = 1129.4 W

Figure 9.2 Graphic representation of the Wingate test.

140 Anaerobic Capacity
Table 9.5 Time representation of the Wingate test.

Time (sec) Resistance Distance Revolutions Work (kg m ⋅ 5 sec−1)

0–5 6.4 6 15 576

5–10 6.4 6 12 460.8
10–15 6.4 6 10 384
15–20 6.4 6 9 345.6
20–25 6.4 6 9 345.6
25–30 6.4 6 8 307.2
Total 63 2419.2 kg m ⋅ 30 sec−1

Sec = seconds; kg m ⋅ 5 sec−1 = kilogram meters per 5 seconds; kg m ⋅ 30 sec−1 = kilogram

meters per 30 seconds.

Mean power (MAP) = Resistance (kg) × distance around flywheel (Monark = 6 m) ×

total # of revolutions

= 6.4 kg of resistance × 6 m × 63 revolutions = 2419.2 kgm ⋅ 30 sec −1

= 2419.2 kgm ⋅ 30 sec −1 × 2 = 4838.4 kgm ⋅ min−1 /6.12 = 790.6 W

Fatigue Index (FI) = ((Peak power output – minimum power output)/Peak power
output) × 100

(( ) )
= 576 kgm ⋅ 5 sec −1 − 307.2 kgm ⋅ 5 sec −1 /576 kgm ⋅ 5 sec −1 × 100 = 46.7

% fast-twitch = (Fatigue index − 19)/0.5

= ( 46.7 − 19) /0.5

= 55.4% fast -twitch muscle

Data Interpretation
Comparison of the athlete’s PP and MP can be made upon completion of the test.

Table 9.6 Examples of PP and MP for specific sport populations as well as male and female.

Sport Gender Peak Power Mean Power Reference

Basketball – NCAA DI F 663 + 98 498 + 51 LaMonte et al. (1999)

Bobsled – US National M 1005 + 90 796 + 60 Osbeck et al. (1996)
Football – NCAA DI M 1189 + 130 874 + 102 Seiler et al. (1990)
Football – NCAA DIII M 1894 + 140 1296 + 66 Hoffman et al. (2004)
Kickboxing – Elite M 1360 761 Zabukovec and Tiidus (1995)
Runners – Middle M 842 + 123 578 + 65 Granier et al. (1995)
Distance
Softball – Masters F Not listed 406 + 56 Terbizan et al. (1996)
Table 9.7 Category for peak and mean anaerobic power and fatigue index for men and women.

Peak Anaerobic Power Mean Anaerobic Power

Men (N = 52) Women (N = 50) Men Women Fatigue Index

Absolute Relative Absolute Relative Absolute Relative Absolute Relative Men Women
Category %ile (W) (W ⋅ kg−1) (W) (W ⋅ kg−1) (W) (W ⋅ kg−1) (W) (W ⋅ kg−1) (%) (%)

Well above average 95 867 11.1 602 9.3 677 8.6 483 7.5 21 20
Above average 90 822 10.9 560 9.0 662 8.2 470 7.3 23 25
85 807 10.6 530 8.9 631 8.1 437 7.1 27 25
75 768 10.4 518 8.6 504 8.0 414 6.9 30 28
Average 70 757 10.2 505 8.5 600 7.9 410 6.8 31 29
50 689 9.2 449 7.6 565 7.4 381 6.4 38 35
30 656 8.5 399 6.9 530 7.0 353 6.0 43 40
Below average 25 646 8.3 396 6.8 521 6.8 347 5.9 45 42
15 594 7.4 362 6.4 485 6.4 320 5.6 47 44
10 570 7.1 353 6.0 471 6.0 306 5.3 52 47
Well below average 5 530 6.6 329 5.7 453 5.6 287 5.1 55 48
Mean 700 9.2 455 7.6 563 7.3 381 6.4 38 35

Anaerobic Capacity
S.D. 95 1.4 81 1.2 67 0.9 56 0.7 10 8
Minimum 500 5.3 239 4.6 441 4.6 235 5.5 15 18
Maximum 927 11.9 623 10.6 711 9.1 529 8.1 58 49

Adapted from Maud and Schultz (1989).

141
142 Anaerobic Capacity
Margaria-Kalamen Step Test
One of the most common anaerobic step tests performed by athletes and in clinical
settings is the Margaria stair climb test (Margaria et al., 1966) and then modified by
Kalamen (Kalamen 1968). The current version of the test is designed to test anaerobic
power due to the extremely short duration (less than 5 sec) of the test. The energy system
that contributes to the test is the phosphagen (ATP-PC) system (Margaria et al., 1966).
The Margaria-Kalamen step test is considered very reliable and has a test-retest
reliability of r = 0.85 and a CV of < 4% (MacDougall et al., 1991). Safety is a key
factor for this test and should be taken into consideration for an individual who is less
experienced or shorter in height due to the difficulty of stepping three steps at a time.

Methodological Information
To perform this test, a running path of 6 m (19.7 ft) with at least 9 steps, each step is
between 174 and 175 cm (68.5 and 68.9 in.) in height (Skinner et al., 2014). It may
be beneficial to use an electronic switch mat, or photoelectric cell on steps three and
nine to ensure accurate timing (Hoffman 2006), but if you do not have these types of
equipment, a standard stopwatch can be used accurately (Skinner et al., 2014). The
goal is to have the athlete run up the stairs as fast as possible by taking three steps at
a time (Figure 9.3).

Testing Protocol
Prior to beginning the test, if electronic switches or photoelectric cells are unavaila-
ble, mark steps three and nine with tape or a cone. This will allow the coach with the
stopwatch to start and stop the timer. Measure the height and distance of the steps

Figure 9.3 Margaria-Kalamen Step test illustration.

 Anaerobic Capacity 143
from step three to nine and convert to meters. Once the athlete is properly warmed
up and understands the test procedures, have the athlete stand behind the start line
6 m before the steps. On “Go,” the athlete should run as fast as possible to the stairs
and take three steps at a time. The stopwatch will be started when the athlete steps
on step three and stopped when he/she steps on the ninth step. Mark the time at the
end of the test. Three trials will be completed and allow for at least 2–3 minutes for
recovery between trials.

Data Analysis
Upon completion of the test, power can be calculated from the following equation:

( ) ( )
Power kg ⋅ m ⋅ sec −1 = Body mass ( kg ) × distance ( m ) /time ( sec )

Where weight is the athlete’s body mass in kilograms, distance is the vertical height
between steps three and nine, and the time is the number of seconds it takes the ath-
lete to run up steps three and nine.
Power can be converted to watts by multiplying the answer by 9.807, which is the
equivalent to the normal acceleration due to gravity.

( )
Watts ( W ) = Power kg ⋅ m ⋅ sec −1 × 9.807

So, using the numbers from Figure 9.3 for vertical distance, an athlete who weighs
95 kg, and completes the test in 1.5 second power, is determined as follows:
Power (kg m sec−1) = (weight (kg) × distance (m))/time (sec)

= ((95 kg × 1.05 m) / 1.5 Sec−1

= 66.5 kg ⋅ m ⋅ sec−1 , convert to W,
= 66.5 kg ⋅ m ⋅ sec−1 × 9.807 = 652.2 W

Data Interpretation
Comparison to normative data can determine the athlete’s abilities (Table 9.8). This
normative data table is in watts.

Table 9.8 Normative values for the Margaria-Kalamen stair step sprint test.

15–20 y 20–30 y 30–40 y 40–50 y 50+ y

Category M F M F M F M F M F
Excellent 2197 1789 2059 1648 1648 1226 1226 961 961 736
Good 1840 1487 1722 1379 1379 1036 1036 810 809 604
Average 1839 1486 1721 1378 1378 1035 1035 809 809 603
Fair 1466 1182 1368 1094 1094 829 829 642 641 476
Poor 1108 902 1040 834 834 637 637 490 490 373

Kalamen (1968), Margaria et al. (1966).

144 Anaerobic Capacity
Name: ____________________

Body Mass (kg): ____________

Seconds Resistance × 6 × Revolutions = Work (kgmƒ5-sec–1)

0–5 × 6 × =
5–10 × 6 × =
10–15 × 6 × =
15–20 × 6 × =
20–25 × 6 × =
25–30 × 6 × =
0–30 × 6 × = kgmƒ30-sec–1

Resistance ( ____________ × kg of body mass) = ____________ kg

Use Table 9.× to determine % of body mass for the athlete.

Peak Power (PP) = Resistance (kg) × distance around flywheel (Monark = 6m) × total # of
revolutions in 5-sec
PP = ______________ kgmƒ5-sec–1 × 12 / 6.12 = ______________ watts

Mean power (MAP) = Resistance (kg) × distance around flywheel (Monark = 6m) × total # of
revolutions
MAP = ______________ kgmƒ30-sec–1 × 12 / 6.12 = ______________ watts

Minimum Power (MP) = Resistance (kg) × distance around flywheel (Monark = 6m) × lowest
total # of revolutions in 5-sec
MP = ______________ kgmƒ5-sec–1 × 12 / 6.12 = ______________ watts

Fatigue Index (FI) = ((PP output – MP output) / PP output) × 100

FI = (( _____________ – _____________ ) /_____________ ) × 100 = _____________%

Percent fast-twitch muscle (% FT) = (Fatigue index – 19) / 0.5

% FT = ( __________ – 19) / 0.5 = ___________________

Insert Table to graphically display Wingate test.

Evaluation / Comments:
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 9.4 Wingate test data sheet.

Laboratory Task: Are You Ready for Exercise?

Complete all three tests to determine anaerobic capacity and discuss methods to
increase an athlete’s anaerobic capacity for certain sports (Figures 9.4 and 9.5)

Summary
This chapter dealt with the assessment of anaerobic capacity and power in individ-
uals. The energy systems that are impacted primarily have been described and the
 Anaerobic Capacity 145
Name: _________________________ Gender: ________________

Body Mass (kg): _________________ Height (cm): ____________

Vertical Distance, between steps 3 and 9 (meters): ______________________

Time (sec): ______________ (Trial 1)

Time (sec): ______________ (Trial 2)

Time (sec): ______________ (Trial 3)

Calculate the power associated with the Margaria Kalamen test:

Power (kg m sec–1) = (Body mass (kg) × distance (m)) / time (sec)

Power (kg m sec–1) = ( __________ (kg) × __________ (m)) / __________ (sec) = __________ kg m sec–1

Convert power to watts:

Watts (w) = Power (kg m sec–1) × 9.807

Watts (w) = __________ (kg m sec–1) × 9.807 = _________ w

Evaluation / Comments:
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 9.5 Margaria-Kalamen step data sheet.

protocols should be followed to test the immediate and glycolytic energy systems.
Testing strategy for the anaerobic systems should last less than 10, 30, and 90 seconds
in order to maximally address the physiological characteristics maximally. The most
frequently used anaerobic tests have been described and reference values for athletes
have been included for comparison to the individual being tested.

References
Ayalon, A., Inbar, O. & Bar-Or, O. 1974. Relationships among measurements of explosive
strength and anaerobic power. In: Nelson, R. C. & Moorehouse, C. A. (eds). International
Series on Sports Sciences, Vol. I, Biomechanics IV, 527–32. Baltimore, MD: University Park
Press.
Bangsbo, J. 1992. Is the O2 deficit an accurate quantitative measure of the anaerobic energy
prdcution during intense exercise? J Appl Physiol, 73, 1207–9.
Bansgbo, J. 1996. Oxygen deficit: A measure of the anaerobic energy production intense exer-
cise? Can J Appl Physiol, 21, 350–63.
Bangsbo, J. 1998. Quantification of anaerobic energy production during intense exercise. Med
Sci Sports Exer, 30, 47–52.
Bangsbo, J. & Juel, C. 2006. Counterpoint: Lactic acid accumulation is an advantage/
disadvantage during muscle activity. J Appl Physiol, 100, 1412–3.
Bar-Or, O. 1978. A new anaerobic capacity test: Characteristics applications. Proceedings of
the 21st World Congress in Sports Medicine at Brasilia.
146 Anaerobic Capacity
Bar-Or, O., Dotan, R., Inbar, O., Rothstein, A., Karlsson, J. & Tesch, P. 1980. Anaerobic
capacity and muscle fiber type distribution in man. Int J Sports Med, 1, 82–5.
Brooks, G. A., Fahey, T. D. & Baldwin, K. M. 2004. Exercise Physiology: Human Bioenergetics
and Its Applicatio, 4th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Calbet, J. A., Chavarren, J. & Dorado, C. 1997. Fractional use of anaerobic capacity during a
30- and a 45-s Wingate test. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol, 76, 308–13.
Chwalbinska-Moneta, J., Robergs, R. A., Costill, D. C. & Fink, W. 1989. Threshold for mus-
cle lactate accumulation during progressive exercise. J Appl Physiol, 66, 2710–6.
Crielaard, J. & Pirnay, F. 1981. Anaerobic and aerobic power of top athletes. Euro J Appl
Phys, 47, 295–300.
Cumming, G. 1972. Correlation of athletic performance and aerobic power in 12- to 17-year-
old children with bone age, calf muscle, total body potassium, heart volume and two indi-
ces of anaerobic power. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Paediatric
Work Physiology, 109–34.
Dotan, R. & Bar-Or, O. 1983. Load optimization for the Wingate anaerobic test. Euro J Appl
Physiol, 51, 409–17.
Evans, J. A. & Quinney, H. A. 1981. Determination of resistance settings for anaerobic power
testing. Can J Appl Sport Sci, 6, 53–6.
Faina, M., Billat, V., Squadrone, R., De Anfelis, M., Koralsztein, J. P. & Dal Monte, A. 1997.
Anaerobic contribution to the time to exhaustion at the minimal exercise intensity at which
oxygen uptake occurs in elite cyclists, kayakists and swimmers. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup
Physiol, 76, 13–20.
Gollnick, P. D. & Hermansen, L. 1973. Biochemical adaptation to exercise: Anaerobic metab-
olism. Exer Sci Sports Rev, 1, 1–43.
Granier, P., Mercier, B., Mercier, J. & Anselme, F. 1995. Aerobic and anaerobic contribution
to Wingate test performance in sprint and middle-distance runners. Euro J Appl Physiol, 70,
58–65.
Green, S. & Dawson, B. 1993. Measurement of anaerobic capacities in humans. Definitions,
limitations and unsolved problems. Sports Med, 15, 312–27.
Hermansen, L. 1969. Anaerobic energy release. Med Sci Sports, 1, 32–8.
Hoffman, J. R., 2006. Norms for Fitness, Performance, and Health. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Hoffman, J. R., Cooper, J., Wendell, M., Im, J. & Kang, J. 2004. Effects of β-hydroxy
β-methylbutyrate on power performance and indices of muscle damage and stress during
high intensity training. J Strength Cond Res, 18, 747–52.
Inbar, O., Dotan, R. & Bar-Or, O. 1976. Aerobic and anaerobic component of a thirty-second
supramaximal cycling test. Med Scie Sports, 8, 51.
Janot, J. M., Beltz, N. M. & Dalleck, L. D. 2015. Multiple off-ice performance variables predict
on-ice skating performance in male and female division III ice hockey players. J Sports Sci
Med, 14, 522–9.
Kalamen, J. 1968. Measurement of Maximum Muscle Power in Man. Ohio: Ohio State
University.
Karlsson, L. & Saltin, B. 1970. Lactate, ATP, and CP in working muscles during exhaustive
exercise in man. J Appl Physiol, 29, 598–602.
Kraemer, W. J., Hakkinen, K., Triplett-McBride, T., Fry, A. C., Kozris, L. P., Ratamess, N. A.,
Bauer, J. E., Volek, J. S., McConnell, T., Newton, R. U., Gordon, S. E., Cummings, D., Hauth,
J., Pullo, F., Lynch, J. M., Mazzetti, S. A. & Knuttgen, H. G. 2003. Physiological changes
with periodized resistance training in women tennis players. Med Sci Sport Exer, 35, 157–68.
Lamb, G. D. & Stephenson, D. G. 2006. Point/Counterpoint: Lactic acid is an advantage/
disadvantage during muscle activity. J Appl Physiol, 100, 1410–2.
LaMonte, M. J., McKinney, M. C., Quinn, S. M., Bainbridge, C. N. & Eisenman, P. A. 1999.
Comparison of physical and physiological variables for female college basketball players.
J Strength Cond Res, 13, 264–70.
 Anaerobic Capacity 147
MacDougall, J. D., Wenger, H. A. & Green, H. J. (eds). 1991. The purpose of physiological
testing. In: Physiological Testing of the High-Performance Athlete, 1–6. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Mangine, R. E., Noyes, F. R., Mullen, M. P. & Baker, S. D. 1990. A physiological profile of
the elite soccer athlete. J Ortho Sports Phys Ther, 12, 147–52.
Margaria, R., Aghemo, P. & Rovelli, E. 1966. Measurement of muscular power (anaerobic) in
man. J Appl Physiol, 21, 1662–4.
Maud, P. J. & Schultz, B. B. 1989. Norms for the Wingate anaerobic test with comparison to
another similar test. Res Q Ex Sport, 60, 144–51.
Medbø, J. I. & Tabata, I. 1989. Relative importance of aerobic and anaerobic energy release
during short-lasting exhausting bicycle exercise. J Appl Physiol, 67, 1881–6.
Medbø, J. I. & Tabata, I. 1993. Anaerobic energy release in working muscle during 30 s to
3 min of exhausting bicycling. J Appl Physiol, 75, 1654–60.
Medbø, J. I., Mohn, A. C., Tabata, I., Bahr, R., Vaage, O. & Sejersted, O. M. 1988. Anaerobic
capacity determined by maximal accumulated O2 deficit. J Appl, 64, 50–60.
Noordhof, D. A., de Koning, J. J. & Foster, C. 2010. The maximal accumulated oxygen deficit
method a valid and reliable measure of anerobic capacity. Sports Med, 40, 285–302.
Osbeck, J., Maiorca, S. & Rundell, S. N. 1996. Validity of field testing to bobsled start per-
formance. J Strength Cond Res, 10, 239–45.
Osborne, M. A. & Minahan, C. L. 2013. Anaerobic capacity. In: Tanner, R.K. & Gore,
C.J. (eds). Physiological Tests for Elite Athletes, 2nd ed. 59–74. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Patton, J. F., Murphy, M. M. & Frederick, F. A. 1985. Maximal power outputs during the
Wingate anaerobic test. Int J Sports Med, 6, 82–5.
Seiler, S., Taylor, M., Diana, R., Layes, J., Newton, P. & Brown, B. 1990. Assessing anaerobic
power in collegiate football players. J Appl Sport Sci Res, 4, 9–15.
Skinner, T., Newton, R. U. & Haff, G. G. 2014. Neuromuscular strength, power, and strength
endurance. In: Coombes, J.S., & Skinner, T. (eds). ESSA’s Student Manual for Health,
Exercise, and Sport Assessment. 133–73, Chatswood: Elsevier.
Smith, D. J. & Roberts, D. 1991. Aerobic, anaerobic and isokinetic measures of elite Canadian
male and female speed skaters. J Appl Sport Sci Res, 5, 110–5.
Tabata, I., Irisawa, K., Kouzakia, M., Nishimura, K., Ogita, F. & Miyachi, M. 1997. Metabolic
profile of high intensity intermittent exercises. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 29, 390–5.
Terbizan, D. J., Walders, M., Seljevold, P. & Schweigert, D. J. 1996. Physiological characteris-
tics of masters women Fastpitch softball players. J Strength Cond Res, 10, 157–60.
Vanderford, M. L., Meyers, M. C., Skelly, W. A., Stewart, C. C. & Hamilton, K. L. 2004.
Physiological and sport-specific skill response of Olympic youth soccer athletes. J Strength
Cond Res, 18, 334–42.
Weber, C., Chia, M. & Inbar, O. 2006. Gender differences in anaerobic power of the arms
and legs – A scaling issue. Med Sci Sports Exer, 38, 129–37.
Withers, R., Sherman, W., Clark, D., Essekbach, P. C., Bolan, S. R., Mackay, M. H. &
Brinkman, M. 1991. Muscle metabolism during 30, 60, and 90s of maximal cycling on an
air-braked ergometer. Euro J Appl Physiol, 63, 354–62.
Zabukovec, R. & Tiidus, P. M. 1995. Physiological and anthropometric profile of elite kick-
boxers. J Strength Cond Res, 9, 240–2.
Zupan, M. F., Arata, A. W., Dawson, L. H., Wile, A. L., Payn, T. L. & Hannon, M. E.
2009. Wingate anaerobic test peak power and anaerobic capacity classifications for men
and women intercollegiate athletes. J Strength Cond Res, 23, 2598–604.
10 Aerobic Capacity Testing
Joshua Miller

Part 1: Introduction

Why Is Aerobic Capacity Necessary?

Depending upon the sport that is being played, cardiorespiratory fitness or aerobic
capacity may not be the most ideal component that is assessed, but aerobic capacity
is one of the most important components of fitness. Aerobic fitness is the ability to
perform dynamic exercise that involves large muscle groups performing moderate-
to-high intensity exercise for a prolonged time frame (ACSM, 2021). The energy that
drives these large muscle groups need to create enough energy or adenosine triphos-
phate (ATP) to drive the excitation-contraction coupling processes from the hydrol-
ysis of ATP. Due to the low concentration of stored ATP in the muscle, it must be
regenerated by metabolic reactions at similar rates of consumption. The generation of
ATP occurs via anaerobic and aerobic methods, with recovery between high-intensity
activity (e.g. anaerobic metabolism) dependent on aerobic capacity. The focus of this
chapter will be on the regeneration of ATP via aerobic mechanisms.
The rate at which aerobic metabolism can supply power is dependent upon the abil-
ity of the tissues to use oxygen (O2) in breaking down fats and carbohydrates and the
cardiopulmonary system to transport the O2 to the muscles for use. In the laboratory,
it may be difficult to isolate which system is the limiting factor, but measurement of
aerobic capacity allows for the systems to be measured as one unit rather than sepa-
rate ones.
Aerobic capacity should be considered an important part of testing athletes.
Measurement of an individual’s maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) is considered the
gold standard measure of functional capacity of the cardiorespiratory system. VO2max
is the maximal rate of oxygen uptake (VO2) during maximal exercise. This reflects
the cardiovascular system’s ability to pump blood to the body, the pulmonary sys-
tem’s ability to transfer oxygen (O2) from the environment to the blood, and the
blood’s ability to transfer O2 from the blood to the skeletal muscle for energy pro-
duction to occur during exercise. The Fick equation describes the basic relationship
between metabolism and cardiovascular function. Simply, the equation states that the
O2 consumed by the tissues is dependent upon the blood flow to the tissues and the
amount extracted from the blood by the tissues. This equation can be applied
to the whole body or to regional circulations. Oxygen consumption is the product
of blood flow and the difference in concentration of O2 in the blood between the
arterial and venous systems known as the (a-v)O2 difference. Whole body oxygen

DOI: 10.4324/9781003186762-10
 Aerobic Capacity Testing 149
consumption (VO2) is calculated as the product of the cardiac output (Q) and the (a-v)
O2 difference. The Fick equation:

VO2 = Q × ( a-v ) O2 difference

Or the Fick equation can be written as:

VO2 = [ HR × SV ] × ( a-v ) O2 difference.

Whereas HR is heart rate (the number of heart beats), and SV is stroke volume (vol-
ume of blood pumped per beat). This concept is one of the most important concepts
in exercise physiology.

Energy Production
During all sports, no matter the length of time to complete the event, the breakdown
(hydrolysis) of ATP or the prephosphorylation of adenosine diphosphate (ADP) is
necessary to continue performance in the event. Traditionally, in sports lasting only
seconds (i.e. weightlifting, sprinting, and throwing events), the phosphagen (ATP-PC)
system enables the athlete to propel them to possible victory. During events that may
last between 20 seconds and 2 minutes (i.e. events longer than 200 m, swimming
medley events, and others), glycolysis will continue ATP production. During events
that last longer than 2 minutes (i.e. marathon, cycling stage races, and others), oxida-
tive phosphorylation will make more ATP via glucose and fatty acid metabolism. In
all these events, all three energy systems are working together to allow the athlete to
generate ATP production. An example of this can be demonstrated in a 400-m run-
ning event. Spencer and Gastin (2001) reported that aerobic metabolism accounted
for approximately 43% of total energy production over the event.
The important difference between the ATP-PC system and oxidative phosphoryl-
ation is that the ATP-PC system rephosphorylates ADP via direct transfer of the
phosphate group while oxidative phosphorylation relies on the oxidation of reducing
equivalents in the electron-transport chain (ETC) of the mitochondria in the muscle.
This requires O2 to be present as an oxidizing agent when the energy transfer is being
completed.

Why Assess Aerobic Capacity?

The assessment of aerobic capacity or VO2max is the best objective laboratory meas-
urement of cardiorespiratory fitness. In the seminal work of A. V. Hill in the 1920s
(Hill et al., 1924; Hill and Lupton, 1923), the criterion measure of aerobic capacity
is the VO2max. As exercise intensity increases, oxygen (O2) consumption will increase
until the individual can no longer continue to perform (volitional fatigue and exercise
must stop). As an individual performs endurance training, more O2 can be delivered
and used by the active muscles. Depending upon the training status of the individual
undergoing training, an increase in VO2max of 15% to 20% improvement has been
demonstrated in untrained individual after completing 20 weeks of training. These
improvements allow individuals to perform similar endurance activities for greater
periods of time at a submaximal training intensity.
150 Aerobic Capacity Testing
The current view may want to determine the parameters which reflect the fraction
of maximal capacity that an athlete can use during prolonged exercise. This may
enhance the protocol selected to determine functional capacity. This may include
assessing critical power (CP) or critical velocity (CV), which is a direct measure-
ment of the ability to perform mechanical work. CP or velocity represents the highest
rate of energy turnover that can be maintained without drawing on the finite energy
reserves (W’) which would limit the ability to sustain high-energy work (Jones et al.,
2010). This means that CP/CV could be a true indicator of aerobic functional capac-
ity. In addition to the determination of VO2max, there are several other physiological
variables that can be measured during exercise that can be evaluated in athletes. This
includes the lactate threshold (LT) (Wasserman and Mcilroy, 1964; Farrell et al.,
1979; Tanaka et al., 1983), lactate turnpoint (LTP) (Davis and Gass, 1979; Davis
et al., 1983), or respiratory compensation point (RCP) (Whipp et al., 1989), and max-
imal lactate steady state (MLSS) (Billat et al., 2003; Beneke et al., 2011).

Lactate Threshold
While performing aerobic capacity, the misnomer of measuring only the aerobic com-
ponent is not correct. The test also incorporates measurement of the anaerobic system
as well. As previously stated, all three energy systems work together to benefit the
athlete performing their sport. As the test is being completed, the breakdown of free
fatty acids will begin to decrease based upon the intensity of exercise being performed.
As the intensity continues to increase, there will be a continual build-up of lactic acid.
With the build-up of lactic acid within the muscle, the lactate and disassociated hydro-
gen ions will diffuse into the extracellular fluid to the plasma from the muscles.
Understanding the point at which lactate production is greater than lactate, degrada-
tion is very important for coaches to train athletes to see training gains. In an untrained
individual, the LT can occur between 40 and 60% of VO2max. However, in elite endur-
ance athletes, the LT can occur between 70 and 85% of VO2max. Understanding where
the LT occurs and how to determine it is a secondary test to aerobic capacity.

How Do Different Methods of Laboratory and Field

Assessments of Aerobic Capacity Compare?
Assessment of aerobic capacity can be completed in the laboratory setting or in the field.
This testing can be completed as either maximal or submaximal depending upon the
setting that it is taking place. Traditionally, in the laboratory setting, the protocol that
is selected is a graded exercise test (GXT) which is typically considered a maximal test.
The protocol consists of the individual performing the testing to volitional fatigue on
a treadmill, cycle ergometer, or other device. The protocol selected could be the Bruce
protocol on a treadmill or a continuous increasing workload on a cycle ergometer. In the
laboratory setting, the use of a metabolic cart (Figure 10.1) monitors specific physiolog-
ical variables including VO2, volume of carbon dioxide (VCO2), respiratory exchange
ratio (RER), heart rate (HR), minute ventilation (V E), and many others. However, field
tests like the 12-minute run (Cooper 1968), 15-minute run (Balke, 1963), the Queens
College step test (Mcardle et al., 1972), Astrand step test (Marley and Linnerud, 1976),
or the YMCA cycle ergometer test (Golding 2000) either use an extrapolation method
based upon heart rate and power output or regression model to estimate VO2max.
 Aerobic Capacity Testing 151

Figure 10.1 Example of COSMED Quark CPET metabolic cart.

Part 2: Maximal Exercise Testing

Maximal exercise testing enables individuals to assess cardiorespiratory capacity.
When working with athletes, it is very important to select the best test possible that
will maximize the individuals’ training or type of sport; in addition, selecting the
protocol based upon age and health and fitness status. Traditional testing is con-
ducted on a treadmill or cycle ergometer. However, if working with athletes which
152 Aerobic Capacity Testing
are wheelchair bound or another issue that does not allow the individuals to use their
legs, arm-crank ergometry can be used.
The exercise-testing protocol can be continuous or discontinuous. A continuous
exercise test is performed without any rest between workload changes. Continuous
exercise tests may vary in total length of time during each stage and the increase
in workload from one stage to the next. Previous research has suggested that the
total length of time for the test is between 8 and 12 minutes to achieve VO2max
(Gibbons et al., 2002; Fletcher et al., 2013). However, the timing may be less due
to the less fit of an individual or longer if the individual is highly fit (Beltz et al.,
2016). Consideration may be made in severely unfit individuals, but that is beyond
the scope of this manual.
A continuous test is one of the most popular tests that are used in different testing
laboratories. The ramp protocol provides continuous and frequent increases in work
rate throughout the test so that VO2 increases linearly.

Criteria for VO2max

There have been several criteria that have been proposed for the determination
of VO2max. The main criterion is that VO2 attains a plateau despite an increase in
workload. This is highly debated presently. In addition, commonly used criteria
are the RER value greater than or equal to 1.10, a 5-minute post-exercise blood
lactate of greater than 8.0 mmol/L −1, HR within plus/minus (+/−) 10 beats ⋅ min−1
of age-predicted maximal heart rate (APMHR), and a rate of perceived exertion
(RPE) of 18 or higher (6–20 scale) on the Borg scale. The additional criteria are
supplementary to the main criterion of a plateau of VO2 , and do not indicate if
VO2max has been achieved. It is very common for elite athletes to achieve most if not
all these criteria.
Determining a plateau in VO2 has been highly debated by several researchers (Taylor
et al., 1955; Howley et al., 1995; Beltrami et al., 2012). Taylor et al. cited the plateau of
VO2 as VO2 of less than 2.1 ml ⋅ kg−1 ⋅ min−1 or less than 150 ml ⋅ min−1. Astrand (1961)
described it as a levelling of VO2 uptake. In another study, Astrand (1960) reported
the plateau to occur at VO2 of 80 ml/min−1. Issekutz et al. (1969) established a plateau
of less than 100 ml ⋅ min−1. Cumming and Friesen reported the plateau of VO2 as less
than 50 ml ⋅ min−1. Many researchers will use the criterion of VO2 plateau of less than
150 ml ⋅ min−1. However, if the criterion of a plateau in VO2 does not happen, consider
having the participant return to the lab for a follow-up test to determine if the VO2 that
was attained at peak exercise is repeatable on subsequent testing.

Graded Exercise Treadmill Test Protocol

Reason for Test

This test is used to determine VO2max, velocity at VO2max, LT, LTP/RCP, and economy
during running. Traditionally, this test can be a continuous or discontinuous protocol
depending upon how the test is selected. Prior to the test being started, a finger-tip
sample of blood is taken to determine resting La-. This technique of La- measurement
is taken following each stage during the test and pulmonary gas exchange and heart
rate data will be collected throughout as well.
 Aerobic Capacity Testing 153
Test Protocol
The test begins with an initial warm-up period of 10–15 minutes of jogging at a self-
selected pace. The treadmill grade will be set at 1.0% to stimulate the energetic cost of
outdoor running (Jones and Doust, 1996). Upon completion of the warm-up, the speed
for the first stage will be set at 11–15 km/hr−1 (6.8–9.3 mi/hr−1), depending upon the fit-
ness of the athlete. The speed will be increased 1 km/hr−1 (0.6 mi ⋅ hr−1) every 3 minutes.
At the end of each stage, the athlete should straddle the treadmill belt and place their
arms on the guardrails to support their body weight while the sample is being taken. The
athlete will resume running once the sample is taken (~10–15 seconds). The time for
the stage will start once the athlete is running again. The goal is for the athlete complete
as many stages as possible with an endpoint of volitional fatigue (i.e. HR within 5–10 b/
min−1 of maximum, blood La− > 4.0 mM). Upon completion of the test, the final speed
should be noted. This is the velocity at VO2max. Upon completion of the final stage of
the test, a period of active recovery (e.g. walking or light jogging on the treadmill) is of
approximately 15 minutes. To determine running economy, the treadmill speed will be
placed at the speed of 2 km ⋅ hr−1 (1.2 mi ⋅ /hr−1) below the maximal speed that was com-
pleted earlier in the test. The speed will be increased to velocity at VO2max. Once this is
achieved, the treadmill grade will be increased by 1.0% every minute until the runner
can no longer tolerate (may last 5–10 minutes). Pulmonary gas exchange and heart mon-
itoring will be continued throughout the test. Blood La− should be taken at the end of
the test and during recovery from the test during minutes 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 post-exercise.

Data Interpretation
Data from the initial portion of the treadmill test are used to determine LT, LTP/
RCP, and running economy. LT and LTP/RCP are determined by plotting La− values
against speed (Figure 10.2). Running economy can be expressed relative to body mass

Figure 10.2 A
 graphic representation of blood lactate collection during the different stages of
treadmill running. LT – lactate threshold; LTP/RCP – lactate turnpoint/respiratory
compensation point.
154 Aerobic Capacity Testing
Table 10.1 General classification of running economy expressed as the VO2 cost of running
a specific speed and the O2 cost of running a specific distance.

Classification VO2 at 16 km/hr−1 (ml/kg−1/min−1) O2 Cost of Running (ml/kg−1/min−1)

Excellent 44–47 170–180
Very good 47–50 180–190
Average 50–54 190–210
Poor 55–48 210–220

for each stage as the VO2 cost (during the last 60-seconds of the stage) of running a
particular speed or a specific distance (Table 10.1).
Determination of VO2max and velocity at VO2max is determined during the second
phase of the treadmill protocol. When determining VO2max from the data collected,
there is much variability when collecting VO2 breath-by-breath, so do not determine
VO2max from one breath (i.e. the highest one), use the highest 30-second average dur-
ing the final 20 seconds at the end of exercise and first 10 seconds of recovery. Once
determined, VO2max can be reported in absolute and relative (to body mass) terms
and compared to normative data for athletes (Table 10.2). The velocity at VO2max can
be determined by multiplying the measured relative VO2max by 60 and dividing the
product by the running economy (in ml/kg−1/min−1) determined from the first part of
the protocol.

Ramp Incremental Cycling Test Protocol

Reason for Test

The ramp incremental cycling test determines similar results as the treadmill test,
VO2max, exercise economy, ventilatory threshold (VT), and RCP. This protocol
requires the use of a cycle ergometer that can increase the workload continuously.
This test was initially developed by Whipp et al. (1981) and used an electronically
braked ergometer to determine aerobic function.

Test Protocol
The test begins with the athlete pedalling at a predetermined cadence with a work
rate set at 40–50 W to account for the mean response time to the internal O2 cost and
the internal resistance of the cycle ergometer (Boone and Bourgois, 2012). Selecting
the best pedal cadence is important as too low may increase the delta (Δ) VO2 /Δ work

Table 10.2 General classifications of VO2max relative to

body mass (ml/kg −1/min−1) at a variety of levels of
performance for male and female athletes.

Classification Male Female

World class 80–90 70–80

International 70–80 60–70
National 65–75 55–65
College-age individual 40–50 35–45
 Aerobic Capacity Testing 155
rate (Jones et al., 2004) as well as recruitment of type II muscle fibers (Beelen and
Sargent, 1993; Sargent, 1994). Pulmonary gas exchange and HR data are collected
throughout, and blood will be drawn at the end of each stage to determine La−. The
test will begin after the completion of the 5-minute warm-up period. The increase
in workload should be selected to complete the test within 10 minutes of volitional
fatigue. The test will be completed when the athlete can no longer maintain the same
pedal cadence and there is a drop in cadence of greater than 10 rev ⋅ min−1 despite
maximal effort. Verbal encouragement from the tester should be completed through-
out the test especially at the end of the test. A form of active recovery should be com-
pleted post exercise.

Data Interpretation
Data interpretation should be very similar to the treadmill protocol. VO2peak should
be determined as previously discussed in the treadmill protocol, do not take the high-
est data point, the data should be averaged across 15 seconds or 30 seconds and the
final average should be taken from the last 30 seconds of the test and first 15 seconds
of active recovery.
The VT is determined by examining the relationship between VCO2 and VO2
responses by Beaver et al. (1986) and Whipp et al. (1981). This relationship is called
the V-slope method (Figure 10.3).
Additional data that is collected via the metabolic cart includes minute ventilation
(V E), so a second analysis can be completed using the ventilatory equivalents of O2
(V E /VO2) and CO2 (V E /VCO2). The ventilatory equivalents are defined as the ratio of
the volume of air ventilated (V E) and the amount of O2 consumed or CO2 produced.
When utilizing these variables, the estimated LT is defined as the point where there is
a systematic increase in the V E /VO2 without a concomitant increase in the V E /VCO2 .
The RCP is defined as the point where there is a systematic rise in the V E /VCO2 with
an increasing V E /VO2 (Figure 10.4).

Figure 10.3 V-slope method for determination of ventilatory threshold.

156 Aerobic Capacity Testing

Figure 10.4 V
 entilatory equivalents for oxygen and carbon dioxide. This data is from a
healthy male athlete.

Field Testing
Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Levels 1 and 2.

Reason for Test

The Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test (IR) tests evaluate an athlete’s ability to repeat-
edly perform intense exercise (Bangsbo et al., 2008). The Yo-Yo IR level 1 test focuses
on the aerobic system, and the Yo-Yo IR level 2 focuses on the ability to recover
from repeated exercise bouts via the anaerobic system. Several sports like basketball
(Castagna et al., 2008; Vernillo et al., 2012), soccer (Mohr et al., 2003; Krustrup
et al., 2005), rugby (Atkins, 2006; Dobbin et al., 2018), and running (Iaia et al.,
2006) have extensively used the Yo-Yo IR to evaluate athletes.

Test Protocol
The test involves having the athlete running back and forth on a field that has a
defined start and finish line and turn lines or cones placed 20 m apart. This test can
be performed indoors or outdoors depending on choice based upon the small space
required for testing. An additional cone is placed 5 m behind the start and finish
lines. The Yo-Yo IR tests consist of 2 × 20-m shuttle runs at increasing speeds, inter-
spersed with a 10-second period of active recovery which is controlled by sounds
from a recording. The athlete will complete the 20-m shuttle run until he is unable to
maintain the speed, and distance covered the test will be ended. The Yo-Yo lR level 1
starts at a lower speed and with the increases being more moderate than the Yo-Yo IR
level 2 test. The Yo-Yo IR level 1 test lasts approximately 10–20 minutes, whereas the
 Aerobic Capacity Testing 157
level 2 test will be completed within 5–15 minutes. Upon completion of a warm-up,
the protocol will be set at four bouts at 10.0–13.0 km ⋅ hr-1 followed by seven bouts
at 13.5–14.0 km/hr−1 (Krustrup et al., 2003). The test will continue with increases
of 0.5 km ⋅ hr−1 after every eight bouts until the test is terminated when the athlete
cannot reach the finish lines two times in a row. The total distance covered prior to
the test being terminated is recorded as the result.

Data Interpretation
The total distance covered can be placed into a regression equation to estimate VO2max
(Bangsbo et al., 2008) (Equations for Yo-Yo IR test Levels 1 and 2). The Yo-Yo IR
test has been demonstrated to be a reliable measurement that can be used to examine
changes in performance over time (Bangsbo et al., 2008).

VO2max = 0.0084x + 36.4 ( Level 1)

VO2max = 0.0136x + 45.3 ( Level 2)

Where x is the total distance covered. However, changes in performance via the Yo-Yo
IR tests are considerably greater than changes in VO2max and may be more accurate
reflecting repeated ability during intense exercise (Bangsbo et al., 2008).

Additional Running Tests

Reason for the Test

The most used distance run tests involve distances of 1.0 or 1.5 mi (1,600 or 2,400 m)
to estimate VO2max. Distance runs are based upon the assumption that fitter athletes
will complete the distances in a shorter time compared to a less fit individual. Disch
et al. (1975) reported that distances greater than 1.0 mi (1600 m) evaluate the endur-
ance athlete better than the speed athlete. Endurance running performance can be
influenced by several factors including motivation, percent fat (Cureton et al., 1978),
running efficiency, LT (Costill and Fox, 1969), and body mass.
The correlations between running distance tests and VO2max vary considerably
(r2 = 0.29 − 0.97) depending upon the age, sex, and training status. Generally, the
longer the test distance, the higher the correlation with VO2max. Testing should be at
least 1.0 mi (1,600 m) or of a duration of 9 minutes.

Test Protocol for the 12-minute Run Test

When performing a running distance test, it may be best to use a 400 m track or flat
course with measured distances. So, the number of laps can be counted and multi-
plied by the distance. Markers should be placed to divide the course into quarters
or eighths of a mile so that it can quickly determine the exact distance covered in a
12-minute period. At the end of the test, calculate the total distance covered in meters
and use the appropriate equation to estimate the VO2max (Table 10.3).
158 Aerobic Capacity Testing
Table 10.3 Prediction equations for cardiorespiratory field tests.

Test Equation Source

1.0 mi steady- VO2max = 100.5 − 0.1636 (BM, kg) − 1.438 George et al. 1993
state jog (time, min) − 0.1928 (HR) + 8.344 (gender, 1,0)
1.5 mi run/walk VO2max = 88.02 − 0.1656 (BM, kg) − 2.76 (run time, George et al. 1993
(women) min)
1.5 mi run/walk VO2max = 91.736 − 0.1656 (BM, kg) − 2.76 (run time, George et al. 1993
(women) min)
1.5 mi run/walk VO2max = 100.16 + 7.30 (gender, 1,0) − 0.164 (BM, Larsen et al. 2002
kg) − 1.273 (time, min)
12-min run VO2max = 0.0268 (distance, m) − 11.3 Cooper 1968
15-min run VO2max = 0.0178 (distance, m) + 9.6 Balke 1963
1.0 mi walk VO2max = 132.853 − 0.0769 (BM, lb) − 0.3877 (age, yr) Kline et al. 1987
+ 6.315 (gender, 1,0) − 3.2469 (time, min) − 0.1565
(HR)

HR = heart rate; m = meters; BM = body mass; kg = kilograms; lb = pounds.

For gender substitute 1 for males and 0 for females.

Testing Protocol for the 1.0–1.5-mile Run/Walk Test

This test should be completed on a 400-m track or measured area. Consider using a
measuring wheel when not completing the test on a track. The test should be com-
pleted in the fastest time possible, and walking is allowed, but the object of the test
is to complete the test in the shortest period of time. Pacing is very important dur-
ing this test to attain the best possible outcome. Heart rate should be monitored
throughout as HR will be needed to be included in the equation to estimate VO2max.
Additionally, gender, body mass, and elapsed time should be recorded as well. Time
will need to be converted to minutes. So, divide the seconds by 60 to calculate min-
utes. An example would be that a time of 15:15 exercise time is converted to 15.25
(15/60 sec = 0.25 min) (Table 10.3).

Case Study: VO2max Testing

A 40-year-old man performed a maximal cycle ergometer test to determine his
VO2max that was requested by his coach. He has been an avid cyclist in prior years
but does not race at time of testing. He has no exercise-related symptoms and denies
any chronic medical conditions. He does not take any medications and is apparently
healthy. Prior to exercise, basic demographics were recorded (Table 10.4).
The participant began with 2 minutes of resting while on the cycle ergometer which
was followed by 2 minutes of unloaded cycling at 60 rpm. Once unloaded cycling
was completed, the workload was increased by 25 W/min−1 until volitional fatigue. A
metabolic cart collected VO2 , VCO2 , HR, and VE throughout the exercise protocol.
Once the test was terminated, 2 minutes of recovery was completed. Data is recorded
in Table 10.5. Anaerobic threshold is determined in Figure 10.4.
The test demonstrates a VO2max of 43.3 ml/kg −1/min−1 for this participant.
Additionally, his AT occurred at 2.49 L ⋅ min−1 (66.6% of VO2max) (Figure 10.5). This
study was well performed and would be considered maximal based upon the follow-
ing criteria: plateau of VO2 with increasing workload, HR within ± 10 b ⋅ min−1 of
 Aerobic Capacity Testing 159
Table 10.4 Men’s and women’s aerobic fitness classifications based upon age and relative VO2.

Men Age (years)

Category 13–19 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60+

Very Poor < 35.0 < 33.0 < 31.5 < 30.2 < 26.1 < 20.5
Poor 35.0–-38.3 33.0–36.4 31.5–35.4 30.2–33.5 26.1–30.9 20.5–26.0
Fair 38.4–45.1 36.5–42.4 35.5–40.9 33.6–38.9 31.0–35.7 26.1–32.2
Good 45.2–50.9 42.5–46.4 41.0–44.9 39.0–43.7 35.8–40.9 32.3–36.4
Excellent 51.0–55.9 46.5–52.5 45.0–49.4 43.8–48.0 41.0–45.3 36.5–44.2
Superior > 56.0 > 52.5 > 49.5 > 48.1 > 45.4 > 44.3
All values of VO2max are in ml ⋅ kg−1 ⋅ min−1 (Cooper, 1977)

Women Age (years)

Category 13-19 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60+

Very Poor < 25.0 < 23.6 < 22.8 < 21.0 < 20.2 < 17.5
Poor 25.0–30.9 23.6–28.9 22.8–26.9 21.0–24.4 20.2–22.7 17.5–20.1
Fair 31.0–34.9 29.0–32.9 27.0–31.4 24.5–28.9 22.8–26.9 20.2–24.4
Good 35.0–38.9 33.0–36.9 31.5–35.6 29.0–32.8 27.0–31.4 24.5–30.2
Excellent 39.0–41.9 37.0–40.9 35.7–40.0 32.9–36.9 31.5–35.7 30.3–31.4
Superior > 42.0 > 41.0 > 40.1 > 37.0 > 35.8 > 31.5

All values of VO2max are in ml ⋅ kg−1 ⋅ min−1 (Cooper, 1977)

Table 10.5 Data collection for a case study.

Time HR VE VO2 VCO2

(min) Workload (W) (bpm) (L/min) (L/min) (L/min) RER VE/VCO2 VE/VO2

1 Rest 53 10.4 0.33 0.31 0.93 34 32

2 Rest 64 11.3 0.44 0.37 0.84 31 26
3 Unloaded 77 19.9 0.76 0.67 0.88 30 26
4 Unloaded 82 21.0 0.78 0.70 0.89 30 27
5 25 86 22.6 0.83 0.77 0.93 29 27
6 50 90 23.8 1.02 0.88 0.86 27 23
7 75 101 31.8 1.29 1.17 0.91 27 25
8 100 106 35.7 1.55 1.40 0.90 26 23
9 125 115 39.2 1.76 1.59 0.90 25 22
10 150 120 44.9 1.94 1.86 0.96 24 23
11 175 132 56.4 2.30 2.31 1.01 24 25
12 200 138 59.2 2.46 2.52 1.03 23 24
13 225 146 61.8 2.74 2.83 1.04 22 23
14 250 152 74.0 3.09 3.30 1.07 22 24
15 275 162 80.9 3.36 3.67 1.09 22 24
16 300 168 94.3 3.59 4.17 1.16 23 26
17 325 172 108.8 3.74 4.59 1.23 24 29
18 Recovery 159 84.2 2.05 3.36 1.63 25 41
19 Recovery 131 57.9 1.30 2.01 1.54 29 45
160 Aerobic Capacity Testing

Figure 10.5 Anaerobic threshold determination using V-Slope method for case study.

age-predicted maximum HR, and RER > 1.15. Based upon Table 10.4, this partici-
pant aerobic fitness would be classified in the Excellent category.

Laboratory Task: How “Fit” Are You?

Complete a VO2max test and determine the different thresholds based upon the test.
If possible, complete a test on a treadmill and cycle ergometer and compare the tests.
Are the results similar or different and why? Review the results and compare results
to normative data.
 Aerobic Capacity Testing 161
Lab Results for Treadmill Test
Subject Name            Gender        Age (y)      
Height (cm)      Weight (kg)      BMI (kg/m 2)     
Room Temp (C)      PB (mmHg)      Humidity (&)     

Stage Time Speed (mph) Grade (%) VO2 (L ⋅ min−1) VCO2 (L ⋅ min−1) RER BLa-

Absolute VO2max (L ⋅ min−1)       Relative VO2max (ml ⋅ kg ⋅ min−1)      

Classification           
Graph to draw LT, VT, and RCP.

Evaluation/Comments:
162 Aerobic Capacity Testing
Lab Results for Cycle Ergometer Test
Subject Name            Gender        Age (y)      
Height (cm)      Weight (kg)      BMI (kg/m 2)     
Room Temp. (C)      PB (mmHg)      Humidity (&)     

Cadence
Stage Time (rpm) Resistance (W) VO2 (L ⋅ min−1) VCO2 (L ⋅ min−1) RER BLa-

Absolute VO2max (L ⋅ min−1)       Relative VO2max (ml ⋅ kg ⋅ min−1)      

Classification           
Graph to draw LT, VT, and RCP.

Evaluation/Comments:
 Aerobic Capacity Testing 163
Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 1
Name:            Gender:      
Sport:            Age (years):      
Body Mass (kg):       Height (cm):      

Speed Accumulated Completed

Level Speed Level Shuttles (2 × 20m) (km ⋅ hr−1) Distance (m) (Y/N)

1 5 1 10.0 40
2 9 1 12.0 80
3 11 1 13.0 120
4 11 2 13.5 160
5 12 1 13.5 200
6 12 2 13.5 240
7 12 3 13.5 280
8 13 1 14.0 320
9 13 2 14.0 360
10 13 3 14.0 400
11 13 4 14.0 440
12 14 1 14.0 480
13 14 2 14.0 520
14 14 3 14.5 560
15 14 4 14.5 600
16 14 5 14.5 640
17 14 6 14.5 680
18 14 7 14.5 720
19 14 8 14.5 760
20 15 1 15.0 800
21 15 2 15.0 840
22 15 3 15.0 880
23 15 4 15.0 920
24 15 5 15.0 960
25 15 6 15.0 1000
26 15 7 15.0 1040
27 15 8 15.0 1080
28 16 1 15.5 1120
29 16 2 15.5 1160
30 16 3 15.5 1200
31 16 4 15.5 1240
32 16 5 15.5 1280
33 16 6 15.5 1320
34 16 7 15.5 1360
35 16 8 15.5 1400
36 17 1 16.0 1440
(Continued)
164 Aerobic Capacity Testing

Speed Accumulated Completed

Level Speed Level Shuttles (2 × 20m) (km ⋅ hr−1) Distance (m) (Y/N)
37 17 2 16.0 1480
38 17 3 16.0 1520
39 17 4 16.0 1560
40 17 5 16.0 1600
41 17 6 16.0 1640
42 17 7 16.0 1680
43 17 8 16.0 1720
44 18 1 16.5 1760
45 18 2 16.5 1800
46 18 3 16.5 1840
47 18 4 16.5 1880
48 18 5 16.5 1920
49 18 6 16.5 1960
50 18 7 16.5 2000
51 18 8 16.5 2040
52 19 1 17.0 2080
53 19 2 17.0 2120
54 19 3 17.0 2160
55 19 4 17.0 2200
56 19 5 17.0 2240
57 19 6 17.0 2280
58 19 7 17.0 2320
59 19 8 17.0 2360
60 20 1 17.5 2400
61 20 2 17.5 2440
62 20 3 17.5 2480
63 20 4 17.5 2520
64 20 5 17.5 2560
65 20 6 17.5 2600
66 20 7 17.5 2640
67 21 8 17.5 2680
68 21 1 18.0 2720
69 21 2 18.0 2760
70 21 3 18.0 2800
71 21 4 18.0 2840
72 21 5 18.0 2880
73 21 6 18.0 2920
74 21 7 18.0 2960
75 21 8 18.0 3000
76 22 1 18.5 3040
77 22 2 18.5 3080
(Continued)
 Aerobic Capacity Testing 165

Speed Accumulated Completed

Level Speed Level Shuttles (2 × 20m) (km ⋅ hr−1) Distance (m) (Y/N)
78 22 3 18.5 3120
79 22 4 18.5 3160
80 22 5 18.5 3200
81 22 6 18.5 3240
82 22 7 18.5 3280
83 22 8 18.5 3320
84 23 1 19.0 3360
85 23 2 19.0 3400
86 23 3 19.0 3440
87 23 4 19.0 3480
88 23 5 19.0 3520
89 23 6 19.0 3560
90 23 7 19.0 3600
91 23 8 19.0 3640
Bangsbo et al. (2008)

Calculate VO2max = 0.0084x + 36.4

VO2max =           
Evaluation/Comments:
166 Aerobic Capacity Testing
Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 2
Name:            Gender:      
Sport:            Age (years):      
Body Mass (kg):       Height (cm):      

Accumulated Completed
Level Speed Level Shuttles (2 × 20 m) Speed (km ⋅ hr−1) Distance (m) (Y/N)

1 11 1 13.0 40
2 15 1 15.0 80
3 17 1 16.0 120
4 17 2 16.0 160
5 18 1 16.5 200
6 18 2 16.5 240
7 18 3 16.5 280
8 19 1 17.0 320
9 19 2 17.0 360
10 19 3 17.0 400
11 19 4 17.0 440
12 20 1 17.5 480
13 20 2 17.5 520
14 20 3 17.5 560
15 20 4 17.5 600
16 20 5 17.5 640
17 20 6 17.5 680
18 20 7 17.5 720
19 20 8 17.5 760
20 21 1 18.0 800
21 21 2 18.0 840
22 21 3 18.0 880
23 21 4 18.0 920
24 21 5 18.0 960
25 21 6 18.0 1000
26 21 7 18.0 1040
27 21 8 18.0 1080
28 22 1 18.5 1120
29 22 2 18.5 1160
30 22 3 18.5 1200
31 22 4 18.5 1240
32 22 5 18.5 1280
33 22 6 18.5 1320
34 22 7 18.5 1360
35 22 8 18.5 1400
36 23 1 19.0 1440
37 23 2 19.0 1480
38 23 3 19.0 1520
39 23 4 19.0 1560
40 23 5 19.0 1600
41 23 6 19.0 1640
42 23 7 19.0 1680
43 23 8 19.0 1720
44 24 1 19.5 1760
45 24 2 19.5 1800
46 24 3 19.5 1840
(Continued)
 Aerobic Capacity Testing 167

Accumulated Completed
Level Speed Level Shuttles (2 × 20 m) Speed (km ⋅ hr−1) Distance (m) (Y/N)
47 24 4 19.5 1880
48 24 5 19.5 1920
49 24 6 19.5 1960
50 24 7 19.5 2000
51 24 8 19.5 2040
52 25 1 20.0 2080
53 25 2 20.0 2120
54 25 3 20.0 2160
55 25 4 20.0 2200
56 25 5 20.0 2240
57 25 6 20.0 2280
58 25 7 20.0 2320
59 25 8 20.0 2360
60 26 1 20.5 2400
61 26 2 20.5 2440
62 26 3 20.5 2480
63 26 4 20.5 2520
64 26 5 20.5 2560
65 26 6 20.5 2600
66 26 7 20.5 2640
67 26 8 20.5 2680

(Bangsbo et al., 2008)

Calculate VO2max = 0.0136x + 45.3

VO2max =           
Evaluation/Comments:
168 Aerobic Capacity Testing
Aerobic Capacity Test - 1.5-mile run Data and Calculation
Name:            Gender:      
Sport:            Age (years):      
Body Mass (kg):       Height (cm):      
1.5-mile run time (minutes):           
Calculate the athlete’s estimated VO2max from the 1.5-mile run test.
Female athlete: VO2max = 88.02 − 0.1656 (BM, kg) − 2.76 ( run time, min)
VO2max =           
Male athlete = VO2max = 91.736 − 0.1656 (BM, kg) − 2.76 (run time, min)
VO2max =           
Classification of athlete’s estimated VO2max from the 1.5-mile run test (Table 10.3).
Classification:           
Evaluation/Comments:
 Aerobic Capacity Testing 169
Aerobic Capacity Test - 12-minunte run test Data Collection and Calculation
Name:            Gender:      
Sport:            Age (years):      
Body Mass (kg):       Height (cm):      
12-minute run distance (m):           
Calculate the athlete’s estimated VO2max from the 12-minute run test.
VO2max = 0.0268 (distance, m) − 11.3
VO2max =           
Classification of athlete’s estimated VO2max from the 12-minute run test (Table 10.3).
Classification:           
Evaluation/Comments:

Summary
The purpose of this chapter has been to present the reasons for methods, and the
types of testing to measure aerobic capacity in athletes. While measuring the aerobic
capacity of an athlete requires there to be an understanding that while measuring
maximal oxygen consumption, there is an anaerobic component to the testing which
may entail understanding all abilities of the athlete. Thus, the characteristics of per-
formance require an understanding of different concepts including the LT as well as
the integration of the anaerobic testing incorporated into the testing helps evaluate
the complete measurement of aerobic capacity.
The literature has demonstrated that maximal oxygen consumption may demon-
strate the functional capacity, but certainly does not demonstrate the abilities of the
athlete. Although a cyclist may have a VO2max of 84 ml/kg−1/min−1 does not mean
that they will be able to win the Tour de France. However, understanding what the
values that are measured gives a snapshot and can be incorporated into their training
program. In addition, establishing the proper testing protocol and criteria needs to be
set prior to testing and should be individualized for the athlete.

References
ACSM. 2021. ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 11th ed. Philadelphia,
PA: Wouters Kluwer.
Astrand, I. 1960. Aerobic work capacity in men and women with special reference to age. Acta
Physiol Scand, 49, 1–92.
Atkins, S. J. 2006. Performance of the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test by elite professional
and semiprofessional Rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res, 20, 222–5.
Balke, B. 1963. A simple field test for the assessment of physical fitness.. REP 63-6. [Report].
Civil Aeromedical Research Institute (U.S.), 1–8.
170 Aerobic Capacity Testing
Bangsbo, J., Iaia, F. M. & Krustrup, P. 2008. The Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test: A useful
tool for evaluation of physical performance in intermittent sports. Sports Med, 38, 37–51.
Beaver, W. L., Wasserman, K. & Whipp, B. J. 1986. A new method for detecting anerobic
threshold by gas exchange. J Appl Physiol, 60, 2020–7.
Beelen, A. & Sargent, A. J. 1993. Effect of prior exercise at different pedalling frequencies on
maximal power in humans. Euro J Appl Physiol, 66, 102–7.
Beltrami, F. G., Froyd, C., Mauger, A. R., Metcalfe, A. J., Marino, F. & Noakes, T. D. 2012.
Conventional testing methods produce submaximal values of maximum oxygen consump-
tion. Br J Sports Med, 46, 23–29.
Beltz, N. M., Gibson, A. L., Janot, J. M., Kravitz, L., Mermier, C. M., & Dalleck, L. C.
(2016). Graded Exercise Testing Protocols for the Determination of VO2max: Historical
Perspectives, Progress, and Future Considerations. J Sports Med (Hindawi Publ Corp), 2016,
3968393.
Beneke, R., Leithauser, R. M. & Ochentel, O. 2011. Blood lactate diagnostics in exercise test-
ing and training. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 6, 8–24.
Billat, V. L., Sirvent, P., Py, G., Horalsztein, J. P. & Mercier, J. 2003. The concept of maximal
lactate steady state: A bridge between biochemistry, physiology and sport science. Sports
Med, 33, 407–26.
Boone, J. & Bourgois, J. 2012. The oxygen uptake response to incremental ramp exercise:
Methodological and physiological issues. Sports Med, 42, 511–26.
Castagna, C., Imperllizzeri, F. M., Rampinini, E., D’ottavio, S. & Manzi, V. 2008. The Yo-Yo
intermittent recovery test in basketball players. J Sci Med Sport, 11, 202–8.
Cooper, K. H. 1968. A means of assessing maximal oxygen uptake. JAMA, 203, 201–4.
Costill, D. C. & Fox, E. L. 1969. Energetics of marathon running. Med Sci Sports, 1, 81–6.
Cumming, G. R. & Friesen, W. 1969. Bicycle ergometer measurement of maximal oxygen
uptake in children. Can J Pharmacol, 45, 937–46.
Cureton, K. J., Sparling, P. B., Evans, B. W., Johnson, S. M., Kong, U. D. & Purvis, J. W. 1978.
Effect of experimental alterations in excess weight on aerobic capacity and distance running
performance. Med Scie Sports, 10, 194–9.
Davis, H. A., Bassett, J., Hughes, P. & Gass, G. C. 1983. Anaerobic threshold and lactate
turnpoint. Euro J Appl Physiol, 50, 383–92.
Davis, H. A. & Gass, G. C. 1979. Blood lactate concentrations during incremental work
before and after maximum exercise. Br J Sports Med, 13, 165–9.
Disch, J., Frankiewicz, R. & Jackson, A. 1975. Construct validation of distance run tests. Res
Quart, 46, 169–76.
Dobbin, N., Moss, S. L., Highton, J. & Twist, C. 2018. An examination of a modified YO-YO
to measure intermittent running performance in Rugby players. Eur J Sport Sci, 18, 1068–76.
Farrell, P. A., Wilmore, J. H., Coyle, E. F., Billing, J. E. & Costill, D. L. 1979. Plasma lactate
accumulation and distance running performance. Med Sci Sports Exer, 11, 338–44.
Fletcher, G. F., Ades, P. A., Kligfield, P., Arena, R., Balady, G. J., Bittner, V. A., Coke, L. A.,
Fleg, J. L., Forman, D. E., Gerber, T. C., Gulati, M., Madan, K., Rhodes, J., Thompson, P.
D., Williams, M. A., & American Heart Association Exercise, Cardiac Rehabilitation, and
Prevention Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Nutrition, Physical
Activity and Metabolism, Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, and Council on
Epidemiology and Prevention (2013). Exercise standards for testing and training: a scientific
statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 128, 873–934.
George, J., Vehrs, P., Allsen, P., Fellingham, G. & Fisher, G. 1993. VO2 max estimation from a
submaximal 1-mile track jog for fit college-age individuals. Med Sci Sports Exer, 25, 401–6.
Gibbons, R. J., Balady, G. J., Bricker, J. T., Chaitman, B. R., Fletcher, G. F., Froelicher, V. F.,
Mark, D. B., McCallister, B. D., Mooss, A. N., O'Reilly, M. G., Winters, W. L., Gibbons,
R. J., Antman, E. M., Alpert, J. S., Faxon, D. P., Fuster, V., Gregoratos, G., Hiratzka,
L. F., Jacobs, A. K., Russell, R. O., … American College of Cardiology/American Heart
 Aerobic Capacity Testing 171
Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Committee to Update the 1997 Exercise
Testing Guidelines (2002). ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for exercise testing: summary
article. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task
Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1997 Exercise Testing Guidelines). J
Amer Coll Cardiol, 40, 1531–40.
Golding, L. 2000. The Y’s Way to Physical Fitness. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hill, A. V., Long, C. N. H. & Lupton, H. 1924. Muscular exercise, lactic acid and the supply
and utilization of oxygen. Proc Royal Soc B, 97, 84–138.
Hill, A. V. & Lupton, H. 1923. Muscular exercise, lactic acid and the supply and utilization
of oxygen. Quart J Med, 16, 135–71.
Howley, E. T., Bassett, D. R. & Welch, H. 1995. Criteria for maximal oxygen uptake: Review
and commentary. Med Sci Sport Exer, 27, 1292–301.
Iaia, F.M., Kolding, H., Gunnarsson, T., Wendell, Rostgaard, T. Nybo, L., Krustrup, P.,
& Bangsbo, J. 2006. Change to anaerobic training improves running economy and high
intensity exercise performance in endurance runners [abstract]. In: Hoppeler, H., Reilly, T.,
Tsolakidid, E., et al. (eds). 11th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science,
2006 Jul 5–8; Lusanne. Cologne: Sportverlag Strauss, 212–3.
Issekutz, B. Jr, Birkhead, N. C. & Rodahl, K. 1962. Use of respiratory quotients in assessment
of aerobic work capcity. J Appl Physiol, 17, 47–50.
Jones, A. M., Campbell, I. T. & Pringle, J. S. 2004. Influence of muscle fiber type and pedal
rate on the VO2-work rate slope during ramp exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol, 91, 238–45.
Jones, A. M., Vanhatalo, A., Burnley, M., Morton, R. H. & Poole, D. C. 2010. Critical power:
Implications for the determination of VO2max and exercise tolerance. Med Sci Sports Exer,
42, 1876–90.
Jones, A. M. & Doust, J. H. 1996. A 1% treadmill grade most accurately reflects the energetic
cost of outdoor running. J Sports Sci, 14, 321–7.
Kline, G. M., Porcori, J. P., Hintermeister, R., Freedson, P. S., Ward, A., Mccarron, R. F.,
Ross, J. & Rippe, J. M. 1987. Estimation of VO2 max from a one-mile track walk, gender,
age, and body weight. Med Sci Sports Exer, 19, 253–9.
Krustrup, P., Mohr, M., Amstrup, T., Rysgaard, T., Johansen, J., Steensberg, A., Pedersen, P.
K. & Bangsbo, J. 2003. The Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test: Physiological response, relia-
bility, and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 35, 697–705.
Krustrup, P., Mohr, M., Ellingsgaard, H. & Bangsbo, J. 2005. Physical demands during an
elite female game: Importance of training status. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 37, 1242–8.
Larsen, G. E., George, J. D., Alexander, J. L., Fellingham, G. W., Aldana, S. R. & Parcell, A.
C. 2002. Prediction of maximum oxygen consumption from walking, jogging, or running.
Res Quart Exer Sport, 73, 66–72.
Marley, W. & Linnerud, A. 1976. A three-year study of the astrand-rhyming step test. Res
Quart, 47, 211–7.
Mcardle, W. D., Katch, F. I., Pechar, G. S., Jacobson, L. & Ruck, S. 1972. Reliability and
interrelationships between maximal oxygen intake, physical working capacity and step-test
scores in college women. Med Sci Sports, 4, 182–6.
Mohr, M., Krustrup, P. & Bangsbo, J. 2003. Match performance of high standard soccer
players with special reference to development of fatigue. J Sport Sci, 21, 519–28.
Sargent, A. J. 1994. Human power output and muscle fatigue. Int J Sports Med, 15, 116–21.
Spencer, M. R. & Gastin, P. B. 2001. Energy system contribution during 200- to 1500-m
running in highly trained athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 33, 157–62.
Tanaka, K., Matsuura, Y., Kumagai, S., Matsuzaka, A., Hirakoba, K. & Asano, K. 1983.
Relationship of anaerobic threshold and onset of blood lactate accumulation with endur-
ance performance. Eur J Appl Physiol, 51–6.
Taylor, H. L., Buskirk, E. & Henschel, A. 1955. Maximal oxygen intake as an objective meas-
ure of cardio-respiratory performance. J Appl Physiol, 8, 73–80.
172 Aerobic Capacity Testing
Vernillo, G., Silvestri, A. & Torre, L. A. 2012. The Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test in junior
basketball players according to performance level and age group. J Strength Cond Res, 26,
2490–4.
Wasserman, K. & McIlroy, M. B. 1964. Detecting the threshold of anaerobic metabolism in
cardiac patients during exercise. Am J Cardiol, 14, 844–52.
Whipp, B. J., Davis, J. A., Torres, F. & Wasserman, K. 1981. A test to determine parameters
of aerobic function during exercise. J Appl Physiol, 50, 217–21.
Whipp, B. J., Davis, J. A. & Wasserman, K. 1989. Ventilatory control of the ‘isocapnic buffer-
ing’ region in rapidly-incremental exercise. Repair Physiol, 76, 357–67.
11 Speed
John McMahon and Paul Comfort

Part 1: Background

Introduction
Speed, particularly during running, is a fundamental component of most professional
sports. Thus, the assessment of an athlete’s maximal running speed (referred to hence-
forth as maximal sprint performance) is a common requirement of the strength and
conditioning coach. Maximal sprint performance is highly regarded as an important
determinant of performance in many sports, but the distance(s) over which maximal
sprint performance should be assessed will depend on the typical sprint distances cov-
ered during competitive sport play and preferably, position-specific sprint distances
should be considered. For example, all batters in cricket will run precisely 17.68 m
between the two wickets to accumulate runs. Thus, there would be little benefit in
assessing the maximal sprint performance of crickets much beyond this distance, with
linear 20-m sprint assessments often chosen for this cohort (Carr et al., 2015; Foden
et al., 2015; Carr et al., 2017). Also, sprinting does not occur singularly in a linear
direction during competition. Results of a recent study showed that curvilinear sprint-
ing can be reliably assessed but it is poorly related to linear sprinting (Fílter et al., 2020).
Thus, they may be considered independent of one another and so assessed separately if
deemed important to the sport. A standard curvilinear sprint test comprised of a 17-m
distance with a 9.15-m radius distance seems to be broadly applied in both men’s and
women’s soccer (Fílter et al., 2020; Filter et al., 2020; Kobal et al., 2021).
Fitness testing at the beginning of the pre-season training cycle is commonplace
in most sports and can inform how much the athletes’ fitness has been compro-
mised during the preceding off-season period and thus identify immediate pre-sea-
son training priorities. However, it has been suggested that it may be prudent to
exclude maximal-intensity fitness tests, such as maximal sprint testing, from the very
early pre-season training cycle to avoid unnecessary exposure to risk of injury after
a period of inactivity (clearly this will depend on what the athletes have been doing
during the off-season). Identifying an appropriate window of opportunity for assess-
ing maximal sprint performance further into the athletes’ training cycle may be pref-
erable but would be team- and context-dependent (Buchheit and Brown, 2020). Thus,
the strength and conditioning coach should exercise caution when deciding upon the
precise timing of any maximal sprint testing within their athletes’ season(s).
Speed is usually measured as distance divided by time, but it can also be meas-
ured as stride length multiplied by stride frequency, although this is not as frequently

DOI: 10.4324/9781003186762-11
174 Speed
done. The Système International (SI) unit for speed is metres per second (m/s). Speed
is a scalar quantity meaning that it is not prescribed a specific direction over which
it is measured. Velocity, which is sometimes used interchangeably with speed, is a
vector quantity which means that it has both a magnitude and a direction. Velocity
is calculated as displacement divided by time. The SI unit for velocity is also metres
per second (m/s). Thus, velocity can be thought of as speed in a specific direction but
when just one direction is included in a speed assessment, such as when a linear sprint
running test is completed, it will be identical in number to velocity. For example, if
an athlete sprints forwards over 20 m in 3 seconds, their speed and velocity will both
be 6.7 m/s (i.e., 20 [distance and displacement] divided by 3 [time] when rounded to
one decimal place). Therefore, to measure an athlete’s speed or velocity, a device that
can measure both distance (or displacement) and time, or just the latter if the sprint
distance is physically marked out by the tester, is usually required, or one that can
allow measurement of stride length and stride frequency.

Part 2: Assessing Speed

Fully automatic timing systems, such as those used at international athletics events,
are the gold standard equipment for measuring linear sprint speed (Haugen et al.,
2012; Haugen and Buchheit, 2016). These systems are, however, very expensive
and therefore inaccessible to most strength and conditioning coaches (Haugen and
Buchheit, 2016). Thus, several alternative devices of varying practicality and precision
have been proposed in the scientific literature such as stopwatches, electronic timing
gates (ETGs), lasers or radars, and high-speed videography (Haugen and Buchheit,
2016). As described in Chapter 4, the strength and conditioning coach may wish to
determine the concurrent validity of the sprint assessment device themselves if they
are using a system which has not been validated in a peer-reviewed study.

Stopwatch
The cheapest way to assess speed is to use a simple hand-held stopwatch in conjunction
with a specific test distance marked out clearly for the athlete(s). Although stopwatches
are not used in professional and elite sports as much as they used to be, they are still
included in speed assessments involving collegiate- and amateur-level athletes (Munshi
et al., 2022; Zaragoza et al., 2022). Results of a previous study highlighted that stop-
watch estimates of linear sprint times measured for a 40-yard dash were significantly
shorter (i.e., faster speed) than those obtained via electronic timing (Mann et al., 2015),
but were equally reliable. This study suggests that devices for quantifying sprint times
should not be used interchangeably but using a single device, including the stopwatch,
can yield reliable results and so track sprint performance changes over time.

Electronic Timing Gates

ETGs are commonly utilized as part of athlete fitness testing batteries (Earp and
Newton, 2012) in order to provide a record of sprint times over various known distances.
The majority of ETGs work via either one (single-photocell) or two (dual-photocell)
infrared beam(s) being emitted to a corresponding reflector positioned directly oppo-
site which reflects the beam(s) back to the photocell where it is detected (Yeadon
 Speed 175
et al., 1999). If multiple sets of ETGs are positioned at incremental distances along a
runway, then athletes’ average speed can be determined between any two beams due
to a hand-held computer logging the time period between successive beam interrup-
tions caused by the athlete passing through them (Yeadon et al., 1999). When calcu-
lating whole body (centre of mass) speed with ETGs, it is important to ensure that
they are set at a height which maximizes the chances of the beams being broken by
the same part of the athlete’s body, which appears to be best achieved when they are
set at approximately hip height (Yeadon et al., 1999). Although dual-photocell ETGs
have been shown to reduce the likelihood of an athlete’s arms or legs breaking the
beams when compared to single-photocell ETGs (Earp and Newton, 2012; Haugen
et al., 2014), the latter are still commonly used in both research and applied settings
(Carr et al., 2015, Dos’Santos et al., 2017), possibly due to them being cheaper to pur-
chase (Earp and Newton, 2012), and they have been validated against the industry
gold standard used at international athletics events (Haugen et al., 2012).
Athletes’ short sprint performances (typically over 5–40 m) are commonly assessed
via single-photocell ETGs to monitor changes in response to training and are regularly
reported within the literature across a range of sports (Carr et al., 2015; Dos’Santos
et al., 2017). Despite single-photocell ETGs being capable of yielding valid sprint times
(Haugen et al., 2012), it is also important that such sprint times attained by a given
population are reliable and the associated measurement error is determined to allow any
observed changes in sprint performance following specific training interventions to be
interpreted as meaningful (Haugen and Buchheit, 2016). This can be achieved by calcu-
lating the smallest detectible difference (SDD) which, by accounting for both test-retest
reliability and measurement error, provides a threshold for the minimum difference in a
test score that is reflective of a real change in performance (Beckerman et al., 2001). For
example, SDD values of 5.8%, 3.0%, and 2.7% have been reported for 5-, 10-, and
20 m sprint times, respectively, attained by male cricketers via single-photocell ETGs
(Carr et al., 2015). More recently, SDD values of 6.1%, 4.7%, and 3.3% for men’s
and 3.0%, 4.0%, and 6.8% for women’s maximal sprint times over 5-, 10-, and 20 m,
respectively, were reported (Ripley et al., 2020). These men and women were recrea-
tionally trained, rather than high-level athletes but nevertheless, the results of the study
illustrate that sprint times measured via single-photocell ETGs are sensitive enough to
detect reasonably small changes, even at the amateur level (Ripley et al., 2020).
To get the most accurate static-start (most common) sprint times possible from
ETGs, the strength and conditioning coach should get the athletes to begin behind
the first ETG (set at the zero [i.e., start] distance) to avoid athletes accidentally trig-
gering the first beam before commencing their maximal sprint effort. Authors of a
previous study suggest starting 0.3 m behind the first ETG, as this allows the athlete
to be close enough to the first ETG without accidentally triggering it whilst prevent-
ing it from becoming a flying sprint start (Altmann et al., 2015). The athletes should
adopt a two-point athletic (split-leg) stance and avoid rocking backwards or taking a
false step backwards before commencing the sprint test (Johnson et al., 2010). This is
because different sprint start techniques yield different sprint times and so they can-
not be used interchangeably (Duthie et al., 2006). Specifically, a false backward step,
a crouch, and a block start were shown to produce faster sprint performances than a
standing start (Salo and Bezodis, 2004; Duthie et al., 2006; Cronin et al., 2007; Frost
et al., 2008; Johnson et al., 2010; Frost and Cronin, 2011), but the latter is easier to
standardise and is more familiar among most athletes.
176 Speed
Lasers and Radars
Laser and radar devices work in a similar way to one another. Each of them is placed
directly behind the athlete being tested (usually around 3–10 m behind the sprint
start line) at approximately hip height, like the ETGs, to track their approximate cen-
tre of mass location (Baena-Raya et al., 2021; Ghigiarelli et al., 2022). These devices
usually sample instantaneous velocity (i.e., speed with direction) data at somewhere
between 50 and 100 Hz (Ashton and Jones, 2019; Baena-Raya et al., 2021), meaning
they provide a more complete speed profile of the athlete than the previously men-
tioned devices do. Specifically, radar and laser devices illustrate more precisely when
and how peak velocity (i.e., the acceleration profile) occurred within the tested sprint
distance. However, they have been suggested to be most useful for the assessment
of the mid-acceleration and maximum velocity phases of sprinting (i.e., at 10 m and
beyond) but not the initial acceleration phase (i.e., the initial 5 m or so) due to larger
biases compared with high-speed videography, which was considered to be the cri-
terion device (Bezodis et al., 2012). Another limitation of radar and laser devices is
that they are limited to linear speed assessments only, unlike ETGs which may also be
utilised for curvilinear sprint tests (Fílter et al., 2020; Kobal et al., 2021).

High-Speed Videography
In the absence of access to fully automatic timing systems (Haugen and Buchheit,
2016), high-speed videography may be considered the gold standard method for
measuring sprint speed (Bezodis et al., 2012; Healy et al., 2019). Although stan-
dalone high-speed video cameras (200 Hz) have been used in studies such as Bezodis
et al. (2012), most currently available smartphones include a high-speed video camera
capable of sampling at up to 240 Hz and have also been used successfully to quantify
linear sprint running performance (Romero-Franco et al., 2017). Thus, quantifying
linear sprint performance via the high-speed video incorporated into a smartphone
is likely to be the most widely accessible method for the strength and conditioning
coach. When using high-speed videography to quantify sprint times or speed, it is
important to follow the following general guidance. First, the camera (this term will
cover both standalone and phone-embedded cameras from this point on) needs to
be static. Thus, a tripod is often needed to keep the camera in a fixed position. The
camera needs to be positioned in the sagittal plane (side view) and at a distance that
allows a sufficient view of the athlete performing the sprint. The precise distance
will depend on how much of the sprint needs to be captured, but it also needs to
be close enough to the athlete for their approximate centre of mass position (or the
moment each foot contacts and leaves the ground, if aiming to quantify stride length
and stride frequency) to be identified. If there is a requirement to measure distances
(such as sprint distances or stride lengths) from the video footage, then a calibration
must be performed. This occurs in the post-processing stage via whichever software
is being used but will require a physical item of known dimensions (e.g., a plyometric
box or a calibration frame) to be placed where the athlete will perform the sprints
(i.e., along the same line of direction in which the athlete will run) and recorded by
the camera once it is placed in the required position for videoing. Once a single short
video of the physical item to be used for calibration purposes has been recorded,
it should be removed. So long as the camera remains in the same place during the
 Speed 177
sprint testing session, there is no need to record further videos of the physical item
to be used for calibration purposes. If the camera is moved, whether accidentally or
intentionally, a further video of the physical item to be used for calibration purposes
should be recorded so that each individual sprint video is able to be calibrated.

Part 3: Practical Examples

Task 1: Calculating Sprint Speed

Sprint times at 10-m intervals throughout the entire men’s 100-m sprint race were
extracted from multiple major athletic competitions (comprised of the Olympic Games
and World Championships) in a recent study (Healy et al., 2019). The sprint times
were measured either by high-speed videography or a laser device, or a combination
of the two (Healy et al., 2019). The mean sprint times, in 10-m increments, and the
mean sprint speeds (termed velocities in the study of Healy et al. (2019) but speeds here
due to equivalence), in 20-m increments, up to 80 m are presented in Table 11.1. Also
shown in Table 11.1, is the formula used to calculate the presented sprint speeds. Note
how the sprint speeds were calculated between incrementally larger pairs of distances
rather than always including the starting distance of zero (e.g., between 20 and 40 m
rather than 0 and 40 m). The approach shown in Table 11.1 and by Healy et al. (2019)
illustrates how average speed changes over more acute portions of the overall sprint
distance, allowing for a more comprehensive sprint profile of the athletes, which is
the benefit of being able to assess sprint performance over multiple sub-distances. For
example, if only the mean time taken to sprint from 0 to 80 m is provided, only the
average sprint speed across the whole of this distance can be calculated (e.g., 9.75 m/s).
This approach would not provide any indication of how speed changed over the course
of the sprint (i.e., acceleration) or what the approximate maximal sprint speed attained
by the athlete was and within which of the measured sub-distances it was achieved.
This information is likely to be of primary interest to strength and conditioning and
skills coaches who train track athletes, particularly sprinters.

Task 2: Calculating Sprint Acceleration

Because most team-sport athletes will not reach maximal sprint speeds during match
play, their maximal sprint speeds over shorter, more representative distances, are
more likely to be assessed. In a recent study conducted with male youth rugby players,

Table 11.1 Sprint times, split distances, and speeds of male 100-m sprinters.

Distance (m) Sprint Times (s) Distance (m) Sprint Speeds (m/s) Speed Calculation

10 1.752
20 2.817 0–20 9.39 = (20 − 0) ÷ (2.817 − 1.752)
30 3.710
40 4.665 20–40 10.82 = (40 − 20) ÷ (4.665 − 2.817)
50 5.467
60 6.441 40–60 11.26 = (60 − 40)/(6.441 − 4.665)
70 7.186
80 8.203 60–80 11.35 = (80 − 60)/(8.203 − 6.441)
178 Speed
Table 11.2 Sprint time, speed, and acceleration of male youth rugby players.

Distance Sprint Time Sprint Speed Sprint Acceleration

(m) (s) (m/s) (m/s2) Acceleration Calculation

10 1.69 5.92 3.50 = (5.92 − 0.00) ÷ (1.69 − 0.00)

20 2.98 7.75 1.42 = (7.75 − 5.92) ÷ (2.98 − 1.69)
30 4.19 8.26 0.42 = (8.26 − 7.75) ÷ (4.19 − 2.98)
40 5.41 8.20 −0.06 = (8.20 − 8.26) ÷ (5.41 − 4.19)
50 6.64 8.13 −0.05 = (8.13 − 8.20) ÷ (6.64 − 5.41)

for example, the 10-, 20-, 30-, 40- and 50-m sprint times, as measured by ETGs,
were reported (Zabaloy et al., 2021). The mean sprint times for the under 18-year-
old backs are presented in Table 11.2. From the sprint times, we have calculated the
sprint speeds, per the example shown in Task 1, and the sprint acceleration. Sprint
acceleration is calculated as a change in velocity (or speed, if running in one direc-
tion) divided by change time between any two increments that we chose, so in 10-m
increments along the 50-m sprint, in this example. We can see in Table 11.2 that
sprint speed increases up to 30 m but begins to decrease somewhere between the
30- and 40-m interval and continues to do so between the 40- and 50-m interval.
This reduction in sprint speed is reflected by the corresponding negative acceleration
values, which reflects that the athletes were decelerating over the last two sprint inter-
vals. These data indicate that under 18-year-old male rugby backs may, on average,
attain their maximal sprint speed somewhere around 30 m.

Task 3: Calculating Sprint Momentum

A factor to consider when either monitoring within-athlete changes in sprint speed in
response to training or competition, or comparing sprint speeds between athletes, is
body mass. In regard to the latter application, the 5-, 10-, 20-, 30-, and 40-m sprint
times, as measured by ETGs, were reported for international female rugby league
players, comprised of both the back and forward positional sub-groups (Jones et al.,
2016). The mean sprint times for each positional sub-group are presented in Table 11.3.
From the sprint times, we have calculated the sprint speeds, per the example shown in
Task 1. Like in the study by Zabaloy et al. (2021), sprint speed increased up to 30 m
but began to decrease somewhere between the 30- and 40-m interval, for each group.
The backs outperformed the forwards for sprint speed at every measured sprint dis-
tance. However, the mean body mass of the backs and forwards was 66 and 80.7 kg,
respectively (Jones et al., 2016), which is typically expected. Sprint momentum is
calculated by multiplying body mass by sprint speed and is thought to be important
for collision-sport athletes, such as rugby league players (Baker and Newton, 2008).
We calculated sprint momentum from the sprint speed data and showed the calcula-
tion for each sprint distance and positional sub-group in Table 11.3. As can be seen,
the sprint momentum is larger for the forwards at every measured sprint distance.
Thus, focussing on sprint times or speeds alone can provide a narrow perspective on a
collision-sport athlete’s sprint performance. Of course, sprint speed is still important
for forwards, but so is sprint momentum, thus reporting the two side-by-side will
arguably better inform the strength and conditioning coach of each athlete’s upcom-
ing training needs.
 Speed 179
Table 11.3 Sprint time, speed, and momentum of international female rugby league players
comprised of backs (top half) and forwards (bottom half).

Sprint Momentum Momentum

Distance (m) Sprint Time (s) Sprint Speed (m/s) (kg ⋅ m/s) Calculation

5 1.07 4.67 308 = 66 × 4.67

10 1.87 6.25 413 = 66 × 6.25
20 3.36 6.71 443 = 66 × 6.71
30 4.68 7.58 500 = 66 × 7.58
40 6.13 6.90 455 = 66 × 6.90

5 1.17 4.27 345 = 80.7 × 4.27

10 2.01 5.95 480 = 80.7 × 5.95
20 3.60 6.29 508 = 80.7 × 6.29
30 5.05 6.90 557 = 80.7 × 6.90
40 6.59 6.49 524 = 80.7 × 6.49

Summary
It is important for most athletes to be able to attain high sprint speeds over various,
match-specific, distances to reach the highest level within their sport. The device used
by the strength and conditioning coach to measure sprint speed will likely depend on
budget and/or availability but irrespective of the device used, they should dedicate suf-
ficient time to become familiar with how to better use it within its limits and develop
robust standardization procedures. Understanding how sprint speed was attained for
different athletes and/or how it changed or remained the same after a period of train-
ing or competition by also reporting sprint acceleration and sprint momentum will
likely be beneficial to the identification of upcoming training priorities.

References
Altmann, S., Hoffmann, M., Kurz, G., Neumann, R., Woll, A. & Haertel, S. 2015. Different
starting distances affect 5-m sprint times. J Strength Cond Res, 29, 2361–6.
Ashton, J. & Jones, P. A. 2019. The reliability of using a laser device to assess deceleration
ability. Sports (Basel), 7.
Baena-Raya, A., Soriano-Maldonado, A., Rodríguez-Pérez, M. A., García-De-Alcaraz, A.,
Ortega-Becerra, M., Jiménez-Reyes, P. & García-Ramos, A. 2021. The force-velocity pro-
file as determinant of spike and serve ball speed in top-level male volleyball players. PLOS
One, 16, e0249612.
Baker, D. G. & Newton, R. U. 2008. Comparison of lower body strength, power, accelera-
tion, speed, agility, and sprint momentum to describe and compare playing rank among
professional rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res, 22, 153–8.
Beckerman, H., Roebroeck, M. E., Lankhorst, G. J., Becher, J. G., Bezemer, P. D. & Verbeek,
A. L. M. 2001. Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness.
Qual Life Res, 10, 571–8.
Bezodis, N. E., Salo, A. I. & Trewartha, G. 2012. Measurement error in estimates of sprint
velocity from a laser displacement measurement device. Int J Sports Med, 33, 439–44.
Buchheit, M. & Brown, M. 2020. Pre-season fitness testing in elite soccer: Integrating the
30–15 intermittent fitness test into the weekly microcycle. Sport Perform Sci Rep, 111, 1–3.
Carr, C., McMahon, J. J. & Comfort, P. 2015. Relationships between jump and sprint perfor-
mance in first-class county cricketers. J Trainol, 4, 1–5.
180 Speed
Carr, C., McMahon, J. J. & Comfort, P. 2017. Changes in strength, power and speed across a
season in English county cricketers. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 12, 50–5.
Cronin, J. B., Green, J. P., Levin, G. T., Brughelli, M. E. & Frost, D. M. 2007. Effect of start-
ing stance on initial sprint performance. J Strength Cond Res, 21, 990–2.
Dos’Santos, T., Thomas, C., Jones, P. A. & Comfort, P. 2017. Mechanical determinants of
faster change of direction speed performance in male athletes. J Strength Cond Res, 31, 3,
696–705.
Duthie, G. M., Pyne, D. B., Ross, A. A., Livingstone, S. G. & Hooper, S. L. 2006. The reliability
of ten-meter sprint time using different starting techniques. J Strength Cond Res, 20, 251.
Earp, J. E. & Newton, R. U. 2012. Advances in electronic timing systems: Considerations for
selecting an appropriate timing system. J Strength Cond Res, 26, 1245–8.
Filter, A., Olivares-Jabalera, J., Santalla, A., Morente-Sánchez, J., Robles-Rodríguez, J.,
Requena, B. & Loturco, I. 2020. Curve sprinting in soccer: Kinematic and neuromuscular
analysis. Int J Sports Med, 41, 744–50.
Fílter, A., Olivares, J., Santalla, A., Nakamura, F. Y., Loturco, I. & Requena, B. 2020. New
curve sprint test for soccer players: Reliability and relationship with linear sprint. J Sports
Sci, 38, 1320–5.
Foden, M., Astley, S., Comfort, P., McMahon, J. J., Matthews, M. & Jones, P. A. 2015.
Relationships between speed, change of direction and jump performance with cricket spe-
cific speed tests in male academy cricketers. J Trainol, 4, 37–42.
Frost, D. M. & Cronin, J. B. 2011. Stepping back to improve sprint performance: A kinetic
analysis of the first step forwards. J Strength Cond Res, 25, 2721–8.
Frost, D. M., Cronin, J. B. & Levin, G. 2008. Stepping backward can improve sprint perfor-
mance over short distances. J Strength Cond Res, 22, 918–22.
Ghigiarelli, J. J., Ferrara, K. J., Poblete, K. M., Valle, C. F., Gonzalez, A. M. & Sell, K. M.
2022. Level of agreement, reliability, and minimal detectable change of the MusclelabTM
laser speed device on Force–Velocity–Power sprint profiles in division II. Collegiate Athletes.
Sports, 10, 57.
Haugen, T. & Buchheit, M. 2016. Sprint running performance monitoring: Methodological
and practical considerations. Sports Med, 46, 641–56.
Haugen, T. A., Tønnessen, E. & Seiler, S. K. 2012. The difference is in the start: Impact of
timing and start procedure on sprint running performance. J Strength Cond Res, 26, 473–9.
Haugen, T. A., Tønnessen, E., Svendsen, I. S. & Seiler, S. 2014. Sprint time differences between
single- and dual-beam timing systems. J Strength Cond Res, 28, 2376–9.
Healy, R., Kenny, I. C. & Harrison, A. J. 2019. Profiling elite male 100-m sprint performance:
The role of maximum velocity and relative acceleration. J Sport Health Sci.
Johnson, T. M., Brown, L. E., Coburn, J. W., Judelson, D. A., Khamoui, A. V., Tran, T. T. &
Uribe, B. P. 2010. Effect of four different starting stances on sprint time in collegiate volley-
ball players. J Strength Cond Res, 24, 2641–6.
Jones, B., Emmonds, S., Hind, K., Nicholson, G., Rutherford, Z. & Till, K. 2016. Physical
qualities of international female Rugby league players by playing position. J Strength Cond
Res, 30, 1333–40.
Kobal, R., Freitas, T. T., Fílter, A., Requena, B., Barroso, R., Rossetti, M., Jorge, R. M.,
Carvalho, L., Pereira, L. A. & Loturco, I. 2021. Curve sprint in elite female soccer players:
Relationship with linear sprint and jump performance. Int J Environ Res Public Health,
18, 2306.
Mann, J. B., Ivey, P. J., Brechue, W. F. & Mayhew, J. L. 2015. Validity and reliability of hand
and electronic timing for 40-yd sprint in college football players. J Strength Cond Res, 29,
1509–14.
Munshi, P., Khan, M. H., Arora, N. K., Nuhmani, S., Anwer, S., Li, H. & Alghadir, A. H.
2022. Effects of plyometric and whole-body vibration on physical performance in collegiate
basketball players: A crossover randomized trial. Sci Rep, 12, 1–9.
 Speed 181
Ripley, N., Comfort, P. & McMahon, J. J. 2020. Retention of adaptations to eccentric ham-
string strength and bicep femoris fascicle length from a 7-week sprint or Nordic training
intervention. J Strength Cond Res, 35, e221–2.
Romero-Franco, N., Jiménez-Reyes, P., Castaño-Zambudio, A., Capelo-Ramírez, F.,
Rodríguez-Juan, J. J., González-Hernández, J., Toscano-Bendala, F. J., Cuadrado-Peñafiel,
V. & Balsalobre-Fernández, C. 2017. Sprint performance and mechanical outputs com-
puted with an iPhone app: Comparison with existing reference methods. Eur J Sport Sci,
17, 386–92.
Salo, A. & Bezodis, I. 2004. Which starting style is faster in sprint running standing or crouch
start? Sports Biomech, 3, 43–54.
Yeadon, M. R., Kato, T. & Kerwin, D. G. 1999. Measuring running speed using photocells.
J Sports Sci, 17, 249–57.
Zabaloy, S., Giráldez, J., Gazzo, F., Villaseca-Vicuña, R. & González, J. G. 2021. In-season
assessment of sprint speed and sprint momentum in Rugby players according to the age
category and playing position. J Hum Kinet, 77, 274–86.
Zaragoza, J. A., Johson, Q. R., Lawson, D. J., Alfaro, E. L., Dawes, J. J. & Smith, D. B. 2022.
Relationships between lower-body power, sprint and change of direction speed among col-
legiate basketball players by sex. Int J Exerc Sci, 15, 974–84.
12 Change of Direction Performance
Paul Comfort and John McMahon

Part 1: Introduction
The ability to change direction efficiently and effectively is extremely important
in many team and court-based sports, due to the frequent alterations in movement
patterns, including decelerations and changes of direction (Brughelli et al., 2008;
Barber et al., 2016; Taylor et al., 2017). For example, in soccer, players reportedly
change direction every 4–6 seconds (Stolen et al., 2005), with an average of 727 ±
203 changes of direction per match, in the English Premier League (Bloomfield et al.,
2007). While many of the changes of direction may not be too demanding (e.g., ~600
<90°), more demanding changes of direction (e.g., 90–180°) are performed by each
athlete ~90 times per match (Bloomfield et al., 2007). Similarly, professional netball
players have been reported to change direction or activity pattern on average every
6 seconds (Davidson and Trewartha, 2008; Chandler et al., 2014).
Change of direction (CoD) and agility should not be confused or used interchange-
ably, as agility has been defined as “a rapid and accurate whole-body movement, with
change of velocity or direction, in response to a stimulus” (Sheppard and Young,
2006), with CoD being pre-planned and therefore not in response to a stimulus.
As such, the majority of tests which include “agility” in the title are simply tests of
CoD performance, with performance evaluated based on time to completion. While
an agility test may seem more specific to sporting scenarios and include a cognitive
component, there are limitations with such assessments, with the primary limitation
being that the stimuli used are not the movement of an opponent (how would this be
standardized for a test?), but commonly a flashing light, sound (e.g., whistle, or coach
shouting a direction), or an arrow on a screen. In addition, if an athlete demonstrates
poor performance during an agility task, it is difficult to determine if this was due to
a delay in the decision-making process (i.e., cognitive), or the physical capability to
perform the task, without assessing CoD performance in a similar task.
Nimphius et al. (2018) explain that a CoD test should assess the individual’s ability
to decelerate and reaccelerate for a specific direction change, without evaluating the
other physical qualities, e.g., maximal velocity or endurance. As such, some com-
monly used CoD tests have notable limitations commonly based around test dura-
tion and the associated metabolic demands (Table 12.1). For a detailed evaluation of
assessments, CoD, and agility assessments, see Jones and Nimphius (2019).
When selecting the appropriate CoD test, it is important to consider the demands
of the sport and the CoD actions performed. For example, the 505 CoD tests include
a 180° turn, which can commonly be seen in sports such as cricket (e.g., changing

DOI: 10.4324/9781003186762-12
 Change of Direction Performance 183
Table 12.1 Comparison of a selection of common change of direction tests.

Test CoD angle Distance time to Completion Response to stimulus

Modified 505 180° 10 m 2.5–3.0 s ✗

Traditional 505 180° 10 m* ~3.0 s ✗
L Run 180° ~27 m 7.0–8.0 s ✗
Illinois Agility Test 180° ~60 m 13–19 s ✗
T-test 90° 36.56 m 7.5–13 s ✗
Pro-Agility Test 180° ~18 m 4.0–5.0 s ✗
Y-Agility Test ~45° 8–11 m 1.5–2.5 s ✓

Modified from Jones and Nimphius (2019).

*Timed distance (does not include initial 10 m approach).

direction between wickets) and rugby league (e.g., when the defending retreat 10 metres
from the tackle prior to the next play of the ball) and is clearly an important physical
quality to evaluate, with the demand of the turn being similar to those in the sport.
However, with longer duration tests, such as the “Illinois Agility Test,” it can be dif-
ficult to determine whether the athlete is limited by their ability to perform at high
intensities for the duration of the test, or whether their performance is limited due to
poor acceleration, poor deceleration or their technique (Nimphius et al., 2018; Jones
and Nimphius, 2019).

Part 2: Change of Direction Assessments

Change of direction tests such as the 505 and modified 505 are effective at evaluating
an athlete’s ability to accelerate, decelerate, change direction, and reaccelerate, which
is important in all multidirectional sports (Nimphius et al., 2018; Dos’santos et al.,
2020; Ryan et al., 2022c). However, calculation of the change of direction deficit
(CoDD) (time to complete the 505 test – maximal 10-m sprint time) may be more
insightful than simply considering the time to complete the CoD test, as the deficit
score indicates the additional time required to decelerate, turn (change direction)
and re-accelerate. Because the modified 505 CoD test includes two 5-m accelerations
(Figure 12.1), it may be more appropriate to calculate the CoDD by doubling the
5-m sprint time and subtracting that value from the time to complete the CoD test,
resulting in a deficit which represents the individual’s time to decelerate at the end of
the initial 5 m and turn; however, no research regarding this appears to have been
published. Cuthbert et al. (2019) have also demonstrated that the CoDD calculation
can reliably be applied to a CoD test involving a 90° cut.
Ryan et al. (2022a, 2022b) have also suggested subdividing the phases of the mod-
ified 505 CoD test further to consider performance of the acceleration, deceleration,
180° turn, and the reacceleration phases. This can be achieved by adding two addi-
tional sets of timing gates to provide five split times (Figure 12.2). It should be noted,
however, that there is currently limited published normative data to make compari-
sons to. Additionally, it is possible that the third set of timing gates (immediately pre-/
post-CoD) may be too close to the CoD line for the athlete to clear the laser beam
when they change direction (i.e., perform the 180° turn) and then retrigger it as the
commence reacceleration.
184 Change of Direction Performance

Figure 12.1 Comparison of the traditional and modified 505 change of direction tests.

5-0-5 Change of Direction

As with the assessment of sprint speed (Chapter 11), electronic timing gates (ETG)
should be used to evaluate CoD performance based on the time to complete the test.
For the traditional 505 CoD test, the ETG should be set up 10 m from the start line
and 5 m from the turn line (Figure 12.2), at a height which approximately resembles
hip height for the athlete(s). The athlete should start in a 2-point stance with their front
foot on the start line and be instructed to accelerate maximally through the initial 10+
metres and then decelerate and change direction with their desired foot contacting the
turn line, when making the 180° turn, followed by another maximal acceleration back
through the ETG. If the athlete does not appear to accelerate maximally across the
initial 10 m (i.e., adopting a pacing strategy), or starts to decelerate prior to passing
through the 5-m ETG after the turn, the trial should be discounted and repeated.

Figure 12.2 S ubdivision of the modified 505 change of direction test to provide additional
phase-specific information as suggested by Ryan et al. (2022a, 2022b).
 Change of Direction Performance 185
Ideally, when assessing groups of athletes, they can rotate between trials to ensure
a minimum of a 60 s rest between efforts, in an attempt to mitigate fatigue. The
athletes should complete three acceptable trials per leg (e.g., three trials changing
direction with the final foot contact on the turn line for both left and right legs), with
the mean of the three trials taken forward for analysis.
To calculate the 505 CoD deficit, take the 505 duration and subtract the 10-m
sprint time. Please note that in an ideal testing battery, the sports scientist/strength
and conditioning coach would evaluate linear sprint performance prior to the tradi-
tional 505 CoD test so that they know the athletes’ 10-m sprint time and can easily
determine if they are adopting a pacing strategy.

Data Interpretation
It is important to consider how an athlete’s performance compares to published
normative performances, although one should be mindful that there may be subtle
differences in the testing procedures (e.g., distances measured in yards or metres,
positioning of ETG) which may affect the comparisons. In addition, the data
should be considered in relation to the changes in the athlete’s performance in other
tasks, such as 5-m and 10-m sprint performances, as a higher speed during short
sprints will result in a greater momentum, making the deceleration and CoD (i.e.,
turn) more challenging. Alternatively, if the athlete’s mass has increased over time,
their momentum will also increase, even if their sprint speeds have not increased.
Collect some data and compare their performances to the normative data below, or
any normative data that you can find in the published research (Table 12.2). Then try
and determine if the athlete should focus on increasing linear sprint speed, or CoD
performance, based on the overall CoD time and the CoDD. It will also be worth
considering the 5-m and 10-m sprint times in conjunction with this data.

Modified 5-0-5 Change of Direction

For the modified 505 CoD test, the ETG should be set up 0.5 m from the start line
and 5 m from the turn line (Figure 12.2), at a height which approximately resembles
hip height for the athlete(s). The athlete should start in a 2-point stance with their
front foot on the start line and be instructed to accelerate maximally through the

Table 12.2 Example normative data for the traditional 505 and 505 deficit for a range
of sports.

Compare Your Data

Sport CoD Time (s) CoDD (s) CoD Time (s) CoDD (s)

Soccer 2.34 ± 0.12 s /

Basketball 2.43 ± 0.18 s /
Rugby League 2.34 ± 0.20 s /
Lacrosse 2.50 ± 0.20 s /
Rugby Union 2.48 ± 0.11 s /
Tennis 2.50 ± 0.13 s 0.52 ± 0.10 s
Netball 2.40 ± 0.12 s 0.62 ± 0.07 s
Cricket 2.50 ± 0.10 s 0.62 ± 0.07 s

CoD = Change of direction; CoDD = Change of direction deficit.

186 Change of Direction Performance
initial 10+ metres and then decelerate and change direction with their desired foot
contacting the turn line, when making the 180° turn, followed by another maximal
acceleration back through the ETG. If the athlete starts to decelerate prior to passing
through the 5 m ETG after the turn, the trial should be discounted and repeated.
Ideally, when assessing groups of athletes, they can rotate between trials to ensure
a minimum of a 60 s rest between efforts, in an attempt to mitigate fatigue. The
athletes should complete three acceptable trials per leg (e.g., three trials changing
direction with the final foot contact on the turn line for both left and right legs), with
the mean of the three trials taken forward for analysis. To calculate the modified 505
CoDD, take the modified 505 duration and subtract the 10-m sprint time.

Data Interpretation
As mentioned previously, it is important to consider how an athlete’s performances
compare to published normative performances, although you should be mindful that
there may be subtle differences in the testing procedures (e.g., distance that the ath-
lete starts from the timing gates which can vary between 0.3 m, 0.5 m, and 1 m)
which may affect the comparisons due to differences in approach speed. In addi-
tion, the data should be considered in relation to the changes in the athlete’s perfor-
mance in other tasks, such as 5-m sprint performance, as a higher speed results in a
greater momentum, making the deceleration and CoD (i.e., turn) more challenging.
Alternatively, if the athlete’s mass has increased over time, their momentum will also
increase, even if their sprint speeds have not increased. Collect some data and com-
pare their performances to the normative data below, or any normative data that you
can find in the published research (Table 12.3). Then try and determine if the athlete
should focus on increasing linear sprint speed, or CoD performance, based on the
overall CoD time and the CoDD. It will also be worth considering your 5-m sprint
times in conjunction with this data.

T-Test
The t-test (also incorrectly referred to as the agility t-test) is commonly used to
assess CoD performance across numerous sports, although it is somewhat under-re-
searched. It is sometimes more appropriately referred to as a test of manoeuvrability
and is seen by some as more specific to common movement patterns observed in team
sports as it includes forward running, side shuffling, and backpedalling to complete
the T-shaped course. When selecting the appropriate CoD test, practitioners should
consider if the test reflects some of the common movement patterns in the sport, with

Table 12.3 Example normative data for the modified 505 test for a range of sports.

Compare your data

Sport CoD time (s) CoDD (s) CoD time (s) CoDD (s)

Rugby League 2.66 ± 0.14 s /

Tennis 2.68 ± 0.13 s /
Cricket 2.70 ± 0.15 s /

CoD = Change of direction; CoDD = Change of direction deficit.

 Change of Direction Performance 187

Figure 12.3 T-test set-up.

the t-test clearly appropriate for sports such as volleyball (Gabbett and Georgieff,
2007; Melrose et al., 2007) and numerous racket sports.
The test has been shown to be highly reliable (intraclass correlation coefficient =
0.82–0.96) with the smallest detectable difference of ~3.7% and ~5.4% in females
and males, respectively (Munro and Herrington, 2011). As such, when assessing
individual athletes, changes greater than these magnitudes can be considered a real
change, although Munro and Herrington (2011) suggested that four trials should
be performed and the initial trial should be disregarded, as there is a learning effect
which stabilizes after the first trial.
The t-test should be set up as originally described by Semenick (1990), although
timing should be conducted using ETG rather than a stopwatch (Figure 12.3). The
course, as the name suggests, resembles a T, with the timing gates at the start/finish
point and the initial cone 9.14 m from the start line, with two further cones 4.57 m
to the left and right of the first cone. Athletes should start in a 2-point stance 0.5 m
behind the ETG to prevent a false trigger of the timing system, although some
researchers have used 0.3 m (Pereira et al., 2018), this can occasionally result in a
false trigger, especially in larger athletes. The athlete should sprint to the first cone,
touching it with the tip of their right hand and then shuffle to the left to touch the
cone with their left hand, shuffle to the right 9.14 m to touch the cone with their right
hand, shuffle 4.57 m back to the middle cone with their left hand and then backpedal
until they pass through the timing gates (Pauole et al., 2000; Munro and Herrington,
2011). As already mentioned, four trials should be performed with the initial trial
discounted and a mean of the final three trials used for analysis, as the initial trial has
been shown to result in a learning effect (Munro and Herrington, 2011).

L-Run
The L-run is also referred to as the 3-cone drill (Sierer et al., 2008; Robbins, 2010;
Nimphius et al., 2016) and has been used extensively in the American Football as
part of the combine (Sierer et al., 2008; Robbins, 2010; Fitzgerald and Jensen, 2020).
Researchers have reported good reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.80
188 Change of Direction Performance

Figure 12.4 L
 -Run (a.k.a. 3 cone drill) sequence. The athlete performing a shuttle run between
cones 1 and 2, touching the cone 2 line with their left hand prior to returning
to cone 1, then sprints back to and around cone 2 in a clockwise fashion, with
the cone on their right side, then counter-clock-wise around cone 3 with the cone
on their left side, back around cone 2 with the cone on their left and finally back
across the line at cone 1 to finish. Performance is evaluated based on time to
completion.

and 0.88 for males and females, respectively), and low variability (coefficient of varia-
tion 1.63–2.23%) (Stewart et al., 2014). Interestingly, the movements involved do not
appear to follow the sequence of movements observed in numerous sports. Similar
to the t-test, this can be considered a test of manoeuvrability due to the movement
patterns involved, where the athlete performs a shuttle run between cones 1 and 2,
touching the cone 2 line with their left hand prior to returning to cone 1, then sprints
back to and around cone 2 in a clockwise fashion, with the cone on their right side,
then counter-clock-wise around cone 3 with the cone on their left side, back around
cone 2 with the cone on their left and finally back across the line at cone 1 to finish
(Figure 12.4). Performance is evaluated based on time to completion, with timing
ideally determined using ETG set at the start/finish line.

Case Study
Below is a case study of a rugby union full-back through pre-season (6 weeks) and
the start of the competitive season (4 weeks). Baseline performance at the start of
pre-season was considered adequate (Table 12.4), with the primary training focus on
enhancing maximal and rapid force production, to improve acceleration (short sprint
performance) and CoD performance.
The focus of the gym-based training during the first 6 weeks of pre-season was
to maximize force production (using high loads [≥85% one repetition maximum]
and moderate volumes [3–5 sets of 3–5 repetitions per exercise] and ensure good
movement quality during the lower limb control-focused exercises and the ballistic
and plyometric (reactive) tasks. During the 4 weeks at the start of the season, sessions
 Change of Direction Performance 189
Table 12.4 Changes in physical characteristics of a rugby union player over two phases of
training.

Start of Pre-season End of Pre-season In Season

(W0) (W6) (W10)

Body Mass (kg) 94.5 94.0 94.0

Body Fat (%) 10.2 8.1 8.3
Sprint 5 m (s) 1.09 0.95 0.96
10 m (s) 1.78 1.69 1.65
20 m (s) 3.12 2.98 2.89
5-0-5 CoD (s) 2.78 2.75 2.62
5-0-5 CoDD (s) 1.00 1.06 0.97
1RM Back Squat (kg/kg) 1.71 1.95 /
IMTP PF (N/kg) 39.1 47.0 47.2
F150 (N/kg) 24.8 27.3 29.0
F250 (N/kg) 32.9 35.6 36.5

CoD = Change of direction (modified 5-0-5); CoDD = Change of direction deficit (5-0-5 time − 10-m sprint
time); RM = Repetition maximum; IMTP = Isometric mid-thigh pull; PF = Peak force; F150 = force at
150 ms; F250 = Force at 250 ms.

alternated between a strength-speed and speed strength emphasis. Notable improve-

ments in 5-m and 10-m sprint performances can be seen across the pre-season period,
but minimal change in 505 CoD performance and an increase in the CoDD, which is
likely due to the increased momentum due to an increased sprint speed. In contrast,
by week 10 (after the first 4 weeks of the season), 5-m and 10-m sprint performance
has not changed notably, but the athlete now demonstrates improvements in 505 CoD
performance and likely due to a decrease in the CoDD due to an improved ability to
decelerate and turn (i.e., change direction). This is commonly observed in numerous
collision sports and practitioners should be aware of the potential initial decrease in
CoD performance when short sprint performance initially increases.

References
Barber, O. R., Thomas, C., Jones, P. A., Mcmahon, J. J. & Comfort, P. 2016. Reliability of the
505 change-of-direction test in netball players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 11, 377–80.
Bloomfield, J., Polman, R. & O’donoghue, P. 2007. Physical demands of different positions in
FA premier league soccer. J Sports Sci Med, 6, 63–70.
Brughelli, M., Cronin, J., Levin, G. & Chaouachi, A. 2008. Understanding change of direc-
tion ability in sport. Sports Med, 38, 1045–63.
Chandler, P. T., Pinder, S. J., Curran, J. D. & Gabbett, T. J. 2014. Physical demands of train-
ing and competition in collegiate netball players. J Strength Cond Res, 28, 2732–7.
Cuthbert, M., Thomas, C., Dos’santos, T. & Jones, P. A. 2019. Application of change of direc-
tion deficit to evaluate cutting ability. J Strength Cond Res, 33, 2138–44.
Davidson, A. & Trewartha, G. 2008. Understanding the physiological demands of netball: A
time-motion investigation. Int J Perform Anal Sport, 8, 1–17.
Dos’santos, T., McBurnie, A., Thomas, C., Comfort, P. & Jones, P. A. 2020. Biomechanical
determinants of the modified and traditional 505 change of direction speed test. J Strength
Cond Res, 34, 1285–96.
Fitzgerald, C. F. & Jensen, R. L. 2020. A comparison of the national football league’s annual
national football league combine 1999–2000 to 2015–2016. J Strength Cond Res, 34,
771–8.
190 Change of Direction Performance
Gabbett, T. & Georgieff, B. 2007. Physiological and anthropometric characteristics of
Australian junior national, state, and novice volleyball players. J Strength Cond Res, 21,
902–8.
Jones, P. A. & Nimphius, S. 2019. Change of direction and agility. In: Comfort, P., Jones, P. A.
& McMahon, J. J. (eds) Performance Assessment in Strength and Conditioning. Abingdon,
UK: Routledge.
Melrose, D. R., Spaniol, F. J., Bohling, M. E. & Bonnette, R. A. 2007. Physiological and
performance characteristics of adolescent club volleyball players. J Strength Cond Res, 21,
481–6.
Munro, A. G. & Herrington, L. C. 2011. Between-session reliability of four hop tests and the
agility t-test. J Strength Cond Res, 25, 1470–7.
Nimphius, S., Callaghan, S. J., Bezodis, N. E. & Lockie, R. G. 2018. Change of direction
and agility tests: Challenging our current measures of performance. Strength Cond J, 40,
26–38.
Nimphius, S., Callaghan, S. J., Spiteri, T. & Lockie, R. G. 2016. Change of direction deficit: A
more isolated measure of change of direction performance than total 505 times. J Strength
Cond Res, 30, 3024–32.
Pauole, K., Madole, K., Garhammer, J., Lacourse, M. & Rozenek, R. 2000. Reliability and
validity of the t-test as a measure of agility, leg power, and leg speed in college-aged men and
women. J Strength Cond Res, 14, 443–50.
Pereira, L. A., Nimphius, S., Kobal, R., Kitamura, K., Turisco, L. A. L., Orsi, R. C., Cal
Abad, C. C. & Loturco, I. 2018. Relationship between change of direction, speed, and
power in male and female national Olympic team handball athletes. J Strength Cond Res,
32, 2987–94.
Robbins, D. W. 2010. The national football league (NFL) combine: Does normalized data
better predict performance in the NFL draft? J Strength Cond Res, 24, 2888–99.
Ryan, C., Uthoff, A., Mckenzie, C. & Cronin, J. 2022a. New perspectives of the traditional
and modified 5-0-5 change of direction test. Strength Cond J, E-pub ahead of print.
Ryan, C., Uthoff, A., Mckenzie, C. & Cronin, J. 2022b. Sub-phase analysis of the modified
5-0-5 test for better change of direction diagnostics. J Sport Exer Sci, 6, 16–21.
Ryan, C., Uthoff, A., Mckenzie, C. & Cronin, J. 2022c. Traditional and modified 5-0-5
change of direction test: Normative and reliability analysis. Strength Cond J, 44, 22–37.
Semenick, D. 1990. Tests and measurements: The t-test. Strength Cond J, 12, 36–7.
Sheppard, J. & Young, W. 2006. Agility literature review: Classifications, training and test-
ing. J Sports Sci, 24, 919–32.
Sierer, S. P., Battaglini, C. L., Mihalik, J. P., Shields, E. W. & Tomasini, N. T. 2008. The
national football league combine: Performance differences between drafted and nondrafted
players entering the 2004 and 2005 drafts. J Strength Cond Res, 22, 6–12.
Stewart, P. F., Turner, A. N. & Miller, S. C. 2014. Reliability, factorial validity, and interre-
lationships of five commonly used change of direction speed tests. Scand J Med Sci Sports,
24, 500–6.
Stolen, T., Chamari, K., Castagna, C. & Wisloff, U. 2005. Physiology of soccer: An update.
Sports Med, 35, 501–36.
Taylor, J. B., Wright, A. A., Dischiavi, S. L., Townsend, M. A. & Marmon, A. R. 2017.
Activity demands during multi-directional team sports: A systematic review. Sports Med,
47, 2533–51.
Index

Note: Page references in italics denote figures and in bold denote tables.

1.0–1.5-mile run/walk test: testing protocol ankle clearing test 31, 31–32, 32
for 158 anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries 26
1 Repetition Maximum (1RM) 104 anthropometry 74, 83
5-0-5 change of direction (CoD) test 184, assessment: of aerobic capacity 149–150;
184–185; data interpretation 185 change of direction 183, 184; ­laboratory
6 Repetition Maximum (6RM) 100 and field 150; muscular endurance
12-minute run test: test protocol for 123–130; power 110–115; speed 174–177
157–158, 158 Astrand step test 150
athlete needs analysis 14–16, 15
accelerometers 14
active straight-leg raise 33–34, 34, 35 Back-Saver test 48–49
adenosine triphosphate (ATP) 133–134, 148 back squat 19–21, 92, 101–104, 189
aerobic capacity testing 148–169; ­additional baseline power testing 115, 115–117, 116
running tests 157–160; assessment of basketball needs analysis 19–21,
­aerobic capacity 149–150; criteria for 20–21; game demands 19–20; injury
VO2max 152; energy production 149; field ­considerations 20–21; physical
testing 156–157; graded ­exercise ­treadmill ­characteristics 20, 20; training priorities 21
test protocol 152–154; ­importance of bench press 101–102
148–149; laboratory and field ­assessments bench press muscular endurance test (NFL-
150; lactate threshold 150; maximal 225 test) 129–130, 130; ­standardized
­exercise testing 151–152; overview sequence for 130; testing protocol
148–149; ramp incremental cycling test 129–130, 130
protocol 154–156; ­treadmill test 161–162; bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)
Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test 79–83; data analysis and interpretation
163–169 81–82; population-specific equations
aerobic fitness 148 81; practical examples 82–83; pre-test
agility, defined 182 ­guidelines for testing 80; standardized
air displacement plethysmography (ADP) procedures for whole-body 80–81
62; and body volume 66–69; data ­analysis Bod Pod 63, 66, 68, 68, 69, 70
and interpretation 70; guidelines for body composition 61–86; air displacement
69–70; minimizing error during 70; plethysmography 66–70; ­anthropometry
­principle for 68 74; of athletes 61, 67; dual-energy X-ray
anaerobic capacity 133–145; data absorptiometry (DEXA/DXA) 72–73,
­interpretation 143–144; energy ­systems 73; four-compartment mode 62, 62;
133–134; fatigue and lactate 134; ­laboratory testing 63–66; ­overview 61–62;
­laboratory task 144; Margaria-Kalamen proper clothing attire for ­measurements
step test 142–143; maximal ­accumulated 62–63; three-compartment model 62, 62;
oxygen deficit (MAOD) 135–137; two-component model 61, 62; underwater
­measurement of anaerobic capacity 134; weighing (UWW) 63–66
overview 133–134; Wingate Anaerobic body fat 61–62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 73,
Test (WAnT) 137–140 77, 83
192 Index
body mass (BM): categories 77; data ­analysis discontinuous exercise tests 152
and interpretation 77; and research displacement 102, 109–110, 114, 119, 174
­laboratory 75–76 dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA/
body mass index (BMI) 76 DXA) 62, 72–73, 73; data analysis
body volume (BV) 62; and ADP 66–69; and and interpretation 73; device for body
densitometry 63; equation for 64; UWW ­composition 74; guidelines for 73
for determining 63 dual-photocell ETGs 175
bone mineral content 62 dynamic assessments: data analysis and
interpretation 103–104; muscular strength
case studies: baseline power testing 115, 99–104
115–117, 116; CoD performance 188–189,
189; monitoring power changes 117, electronic timing gates (ETGs) 174–175
117–119, 118; range of motion (ROM) endurance athletes 61
45–46; skinfold testing 79; VO2max testing endurance sports 61
158–160, 159, 160 energy production 149
change of direction (CoD) assessments energy systems 133–134
183, 184 exercise testing: informed consent for 1–4
change of direction (CoD) performance
182–189; 5-0-5 change of direction (CoD) fat see body fat
test 184, 184–185; case study 188–189, fatigue and lactate 134
189; change of direction assessments 183, fatigue index (FI) 137–138
184; L-run (3-cone drill) 187–188, 188; female athlete triad (FAT) 61
modified 5-0-5 change of direction (CoD) Fick equation 148–149
test 185–186, 186; t-test (agility t-test) field testing 73; aerobic capacity testing
186–187, 187 156–157
coefficient of variation (CV) 54, 188 fixed bias 57
collision sports 14 flexibility: direct and indirect testing of
concurrent validity 56–57, 112, 174 43–49; and injury risk assessment 25–27;
continuous exercise tests 152 sit-and-reach 26–27
critical power (CP) 150 force 15, 109–110; baseline 94; comparing
critical velocity (CV) 150 91; gross 97; peak 93, 97; plate 56, 95,
curl-up test 127–129, 128; testing protocol 112–115, 119; rapid force production 91,
127–129, 128 92, 93, 96
force plates 112–115, 113
data analysis 16–17, 17; air displacement forward dynamics 114
­plethysmography 70; bioelectrical fully automatic timing systems 174, 176
­i mpedance analysis 81–82; body mass Functional Movement Screen (FMS) 26,
77; dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry 27–38; active straight-leg raise 33–34,
73; dynamic assessments 103–104; height 34, 35; data interpretation for 38, 42–43;
77; isometric strength assessments 95–97, deep squat 28, 28; in female athletes 26;
96; Margaria-Kalamen step test 143; hurdle step 28–29, 29, 30; in-line lunge
maximal accumulated oxygen deficit test 30, 30–32, 31; movement patterns 27–28;
136, 136–137, 137; needs analysis 16–17, rotary stability test 35–38, 38; scoring 38,
17; skinfold testing 79; ­u nderwater 39; shoulder mobility 32–33, 33, 33–34;
weighing 66; Wingate Anaerobic test 139, testing protocol of 28–38; trunk stability
139–140, 140 push-up 34–35, 35, 36, 37, 37
data interpretation 143–144; air ­displacement
plethysmography 70; b ­ ioelectrical gastrointestinal tract (GT) 63
­impedance analysis 81–82; body mass general repetition maximum testing
77; dual-energy X-ray ­absorptiometry 73; ­protocols 100, 100–101
dynamic assessments 103–104; height 77; Global Positioning System (GPS) 14
needs analysis 16–17, 17; skinfold testing glycolysis 133–134, 149
79; underwater ­weighing 66 goniometer 44, 44
deep squat assessment 28, 28 goniometry 44
densitometry 63 graded exercise test (GXT) 150
direct testing technique: of flexibility 43–49; graded exercise treadmill test protocol
goniometry 44 152–154; data interpretation 153,
 Index 193
153–154, 154; reason for test 152; test 143, 143–144, 144; data sheet 145;
protocol 153 ­methodological information 142, 142;
testing protocol 142–143
health history questionnaire/medical history Margaria stair climb test 142
questionnaire 9–12, 10–11; procedures for maximal accumulated oxygen deficit
9, 12; questions in 9 (MAOD) test 134–135; cycling 135–137;
height: data analysis and interpretation 77; data analysis 136, 136–137, 137; testing
measurement and research laboratory protocol 135, 136
75–76; standardized procedures for 76–77 maximal exercise testing 151–152
high-speed videography 174, 176–177 maximal sprint performance 173
hurdle step testing 28–29, 29, 30 mean anaerobic power (MAP) 137
hydrostatic weighing 66 mechanical work 109
medical referral 57
indirect testing technique: of flexibility methodological information:
43–49; methodological information ­Margaria-Kalamen step test 142, 142;
46–49 Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) 138
informed consent: example 2–3; for exercise minimal detectible change (MDC) 55
testing 1–4; procedures for 4 modified 5-0-5 change of direction (CoD)
injury considerations: basketball needs test 185–186, 186
analysis 20–21; women’s soccer needs monitoring power changes 117, 117–119, 118
analysis 18 Movement Screen Testing: injury risk
injury risk assessment 25–27 ­assessment and flexibility 25–27; overhead
in-line lunge 30, 30–32, 31; additional squat 38–40; overview 25; purpose of 25;
considerations 32; ankle clearing test 31, quadruped superman 41–42; ­shoulder
31–32, 32 mobility 42; single-legged hip hinge
interpretation, of needs analysis 16–17, 17 40–41; standing lunge 41
intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) multi-joint isometric assessments 97
52–54, 54; test-retest reliability 52–53, muscular endurance 122–130; assessments
142, 175 123–130; overview 122
isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) 91–95, 95, muscular endurance assessments 123–130;
97–98, 189 curl-up test 127–129, 128; NFL-225 test
isometric squat 97–99, 98, 99, 99 129–130, 130; pull-up test 123–127, 126,
isometric strength assessments: comparing 127; push-up tests 123, 124, 125, 125,
methods 92, 92–93; data analysis 95–97, 126
96; isometric mid-thigh pull 91–95; muscular power 109–120; assessing power
isometric squat 97–99, 98, 99; multi-joint 110–115; baseline power testing 115,
isometric assessments 97; performing 115–117, 116; force plates 112–115, 113;
91–99 laboratory task 119; measuring power
110; monitoring power changes 117,
joint stability 26 117–119, 118; overview 109–110; ­practical
examples 115–120; task instructions
key performance indicator(s) (KPIs) 14 119–120; vertical jump tests 110–112, 111
muscular strength: assessing, methods of 91;
laboratory task: anaerobic capacity 144; dynamic assessments 99–104; isometric
muscular power 119 strength assessments 91–99; overview
laboratory testing: anthropometry 74; body 90–91
composition 63–66; body mass index 76;
densitometry 63; field testing 73; height National Football League (NFL) 26, 129
and BM 75–76; skinfold testing 77–79; needs analysis 13–21; athlete 14–16, 15;
underwater weighing 63–66 basketball 19–21, 20–21; components of
lactate threshold, and aerobic capacity 13; data analysis and interpretation 16–17,
testing 150 17; overview 13–14; of sport 14; women’s
lasers/radars 174, 176 soccer 17–19
L-run (3-cone drill) 187–188, 188 normative/benchmark data 13, 16, 21, 46,
97, 98, 103, 123, 126, 129, 143, 183,
Margaria-Kalamen step test 134, 142–143; 185, 186
data analysis 143; data interpretation numerical integration 114
194 Index
obesity 61, 76 single-legged hip hinge: errors demonstrated
overhead squat: errors demonstrated ­during during 40–41; Movement Screen Test
40; Movement Screen Test 38–40; 40–41; scoring 40
­procedures 38–40; scoring 40 single-photocell ETGs 175
sit-and-reach flexibility 26–27; mean and
peak power (PP) 111, 135–137, 139, standard deviation of test 49; test 46, 47;
140, 144 test in females 48; test in males 48
percentiles 16, 117, 125, 126, 127 skinfold testing 77–79, 78, 82; case study
phosphagen (ATP-PC) system 133, 149 79; data analysis and interpretation 79;
Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire recommendations for 78–79; standardized
(PAR-Q+) 4–9, 5–8; advantages of 4; procedures for 77–78
­procedures for 4, 9 speed 173–179; assessing 174–177;
physical characteristics: basketball needs ­electronic timing gates (ETGs) 174–175;
­analysis 20–21; women’s soccer needs high-speed videography 176–177; lasers
analysis 17–18, 18 and radars 176; overview 173–174;
power: assessing 110–115; calculating 109, ­practical examples 177–179; sprint
143; defined 109; force plates 112–115, ­acceleration 177–178, 178; sprint
113; measuring 110; muscular (see ­momentum 178, 179; sprint speed 177,
­muscular power); vertical jump tests 177; stopwatch 174
110–112, 111 sport(s): endurance and power 61; injuries
power clean 102–103 90; needs analysis of 14; subjectively
power sports 61 scoring of athletes 14; team 13–14, 20,
pre-participation health screening 1; 53, 186
­components of 1; health ­history sprint acceleration 177–178, 178
­questionnaire/medical history sprint momentum 178, 179
­questionnaire 9–12, 10–11; informed sprint speed 177, 177
consent 1–4; Physical Activity Readiness standard error of measurement (SEM)
Questionnaire 4–9, 5–8 54–56, 55
pull-up tests 123–127, 126, 127; testing standardised scores 16
protocol 124–127, 126, 127 standard ten score 16
push-up tests 123, 124, 125, 125, 126; standing lunge 41
­testing protocol 123, 124, 125, 125, 126 stopwatches 174
strength: assessing 90–91; defined 90;
quadruped superman: errors demonstrated importance of 90; muscular (see ­muscular
during 42; Movement Screen Testing strength); physical 25; program 25;
41–42; scoring 42 ­training 26
Queens College step test 150 Système International (SI) 109, 174

ramp incremental cycling test 154–156; data tare weight (TW) 63

interpretation 155; reason for test 154; task instructions 119–120
test protocol 154–155 team sports 13–14, 20, 53, 186
range of motion (ROM) 25–26; average, for test administration: athletes strength training
different joints in healthy adults 45; case 57–59; health and safety ­considerations
study 45–46; measuring 43–44 57; preparing athletes for testing 58–59;
rate of force development (RFD) 91, 92, 93, 96 recording forms 58; ­selection of training of
relative energy deficiency in sport testers 57–58; sequence of tests 58
(RED-S) 61 test forms 58
reliability: concurrent validity 56–57; ­intraclass test protocol: for 1.0–1.5-mile run/walk
correlation coefficient 52–54, 54; standard test 158; for 12-minute run test 157–158,
error of measurement 54–56, 55 158; curl-up test 127–129, 128; graded
residual volume (RV) 63–64; measuring 64; exercise treadmill 153; MAOD test 135,
regression equations to estimate 64 136; Margaria-Kalamen step test 142–143;
rotary stability test 35–38, 38 NFL-225 test 129–130, 130; pull-up test
running tests 157–160; reason for the test 157 124–127, 126, 127; push-up tests 123, 124,
125, 125, 126; ramp incremental cycling
shoulder mobility 32–33, 33, 33–34; errors test 154–155; Wingate Anaerobic Test
demonstrated during 42; Movement (WAnT) 138, 138, 139; Yo-Yo Intermittent
Screen Test 42; scoring 42 Recovery Test (IR) tests 156–157
 Index 195
test-retest reliability 52–53, 142, 175 VO2max testing 158–160, 159, 160; criteria
thoracic gas volume (TGV) 68–69 for 152; laboratory task 160
total body water (TBW) 62, 79–80 V sit-and-reach test (YMCA test) 47–48
total work 137–138 V-slope method 155, 155
treadmill test: aerobic capacity testing
161–162; lab results for 161–162 Wingate Anaerobic test (WAnT) 134,
trunk stability push-up 34–35, 35, 36, 37, 37 137–140; data analysis 139, 139–140, 140;
t-scores 16–17 data interpretation 140, 140, 141; data
t-test (agility t-test) 186–187, 187 sheet 144; methodological information
138; testing protocol 138, 138, 139
underwater weighing (UWW) 63–66; data women’s soccer needs analysis 17–19; injury
analysis and interpretation 66; guidelines considerations 18; match demands 17;
for 64–66 physical characteristics 17–18, 18; training
­priorities 18, 19
validity 15, 52; concurrent 56–57, 112, 174
vector quantities 109 YMCA cycle ergometer test 150
velocity 90, 100, 101, 103–104, 109–110; Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test (IR) tests:
COM 114; critical 150; mean ­concentric data interpretation 157; level 1 163–165;
126–127; movement 90; propulsion level 2 166–169; reason for test 156; test
111; SI unit for 174; take-off 112; protocol 156–157
vertical 103
vertical jump tests 110–112, 111 z-score 16–17