ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2018
Assessment of the two-point method applied in field conditions for routine testing of muscle mechanical capacities in a leg cycle ergometer.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Article
- An innovative cardiac rehabilitation based on the power-force-velocity profile to further improve cardiorespiratory capacities in coronary artery disease patients: CITIUS study.European heart journal open · 2025Article
- Optimization of applied loads for assessing load-velocity relationship during back squat.PloS one · 2025Article
- Torque-Cadence Profile and Maximal Dynamic Force in Cyclists: A Novel Approach.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Feasibility of the 2-point method to determine the load-velocity relationship variables during the countermovement jump exercise.Journal of sport and health science · 2023Article
- Force-velocity profile during vertical jump cannot be assessed using only bodyweight jump and isometric maximal voluntary contraction tasks.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Optimal load for a torque-velocity relationship test during cycling.European journal of applied physiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the reliability and magnitude of the force-velocity (F-V) relationship parameters [maximum force (F0), maximum velocity (V0), F-V slope, and maximum power (P0)] obtained through the application of only two loads (i.e., two-point method) vs. six loads (i.e., multiple-point method).
methodsTen physically active men (age 19.5 ± 0.9 years, body mass 79.0 ± 9.0 kg, height 183.9 ± 8.4 cm) conducted four testing sessions after a preliminary familiarization session with the leg cycle ergometer exercise. In a counterbalanced order, subjects performed two sessions of the multiple-point method (six loads applied for the F-V modeling) over 1 week and two sessions of the two-point method (only the lightest and heaviest loads were applied) over another week.
resultsThe main findings revealed that (I) the reliability of the F-V relationship parameters was very high and generally of comparable magnitude for both the multiple- [coefficient of variation (CV) range 1.91-3.94%; intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) range 0.72-0.99] and two-point methods [CV range 1.41-4.62%; ICC range 0.76-0.95], (II) the magnitude of the same parameters obtained from both methods was highly correlated (r > 0.80), and (III) the P0 assessed from the multiple-point method was significantly lower than the obtained from the two-point method [P = 0.041; effect size (ES) 0.36] due to a significant decrease in F0 (P = 0.039; ES 0.41) with no significant differences observed for V0 (P = 0.570; ES - 0.15).
conclusionsThese results support the two-point method as a reliable, valid, and fatigue-free procedure of assessing the muscle mechanical capacities through the F-V relationship.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29946968What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.