ArticlePloS one2026
Optimal two-point loading strategy for accurate leg press force-velocity assessment.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate assessment of an individual force-velocity (F-V) profile is essential for prescribing targeted resistance training; however, F-V outcomes depend strongly on the testing method used. This study examined the concurrent validity of the F-V relationship in a horizontal leg press exercise by comparing two-point methods, which use pairs of different loads relative to body weight, with a multiple-point method using a wider range of loads. Sixteen men (mean ± SD, age: 20.0 ± 1.4 years, height: 172.4 ± 6.3 cm, body mass: 69.2 ± 7.6 kg) performed maximal-effort horizontal dynamic leg press actions on a device equipped with pneumatic artificial muscles (ddrobotec®, Switzerland) against eleven external loads (100%-300% of body weight [BW] in 20% increments). The F-V relationship was obtained using 10 two-point methods that paired a 100% BW load with each of the additional loads (120%-300% BW) and also from all points. The F-V relationship parameters were compared between the two-point methods and the multiple-point method, and their correlations were analyzed. The results showed that the F-V relationship obtained from the four two-point methods with wider load differences (100% and 240%, 100% and 260%, 100% and 280%, and 100% and 300% BW) was nearly perfectly correlated with that by the multiple-point method (r = 0.906 to 0.993). The concurrent validity of the F-V relationship parameters obtained from the two-point methods tended to decrease when using loads that were closer together (e.g., 100% and 120% BW) than loads with a larger difference (e.g., 100% and 240% BW). These findings indicate that, on a horizontal leg press with pneumatic artificial muscles, a two-point method based on sufficiently distinct loads can provide an accurate estimate of the F-V relationship and may be a practical alternative to comprehensive multi-load testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.