TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of peak power prediction equations in male basketball players
AU - Duncan, Michael J.
AU - Lyons, Mark
AU - Nevill, Alan M.
PY - 2008/7
Y1 - 2008/7
N2 - Duncan, MJ, Lyons, M, and Nevill, AM. Evaluation of peak power prediction equations in male basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1379-1381, 2008-This study compared peak power estimated using 4 commonly used regression equations with actual peak power derived from force platform data in a group of adolescent basketball players. Twenty-five elite junior male basketball players (age, 16.5 ± 0.5 years; mass, 74.2 ± 11.8 kg; height, 181.8 ± 8.1 cm) volunteered to participate in the study. Actual peak power was determined using a counter-movement vertical jump on a force platform. Estimated peak power was determined using countermovement jump height and body mass. All 4 prediction equations were significantly related to actual peak power (all p < 0.01). Repeated-measures analysis of variance indicated significant differences between actual peak power and estimate peak power from all 4 prediction equations (p < 0.001). Bonferroni post hoc tests indicated that estimated peak power was significantly lower than actual peak power for all 4 prediction equations. Ratio limits of agreement for actual peak power and estimated peak power were 8% for the Harman et al. and Sayers squat jump prediction equations, 12% for the Canavan and Vescovi equation, and 6% for the Sayers countermovement jump equation. In all cases peak power was underestimated.
AB - Duncan, MJ, Lyons, M, and Nevill, AM. Evaluation of peak power prediction equations in male basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1379-1381, 2008-This study compared peak power estimated using 4 commonly used regression equations with actual peak power derived from force platform data in a group of adolescent basketball players. Twenty-five elite junior male basketball players (age, 16.5 ± 0.5 years; mass, 74.2 ± 11.8 kg; height, 181.8 ± 8.1 cm) volunteered to participate in the study. Actual peak power was determined using a counter-movement vertical jump on a force platform. Estimated peak power was determined using countermovement jump height and body mass. All 4 prediction equations were significantly related to actual peak power (all p < 0.01). Repeated-measures analysis of variance indicated significant differences between actual peak power and estimate peak power from all 4 prediction equations (p < 0.001). Bonferroni post hoc tests indicated that estimated peak power was significantly lower than actual peak power for all 4 prediction equations. Ratio limits of agreement for actual peak power and estimated peak power were 8% for the Harman et al. and Sayers squat jump prediction equations, 12% for the Canavan and Vescovi equation, and 6% for the Sayers countermovement jump equation. In all cases peak power was underestimated.
KW - Force platform
KW - Prediction equations
KW - Vertical jump
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=51249116729&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31816a6337
DO - 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31816a6337
M3 - Article
C2 - 18545163
AN - SCOPUS:51249116729
SN - 1064-8011
VL - 22
SP - 1379
EP - 1381
JO - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
JF - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
IS - 4
ER -