International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2024, 19, 2-12

https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2023-0066
© 2024 Human Kinetics, Inc. BRIEF REVIEW

The Relationship Between Isometric and Dynamic Strength

Following Resistance Training: A Systematic Review,
Meta-Analysis, and Level of Agreement
Lachlan P. James,1 Jonathon Weakley,2,3,4 Paul Comfort,5,6 and Minh Huynh1
1
Department of Dietetics, Nutrition and Sport, Sport, Performance, and Nutrition Research Group, School of Allied Health, Human Services, & Sport, La Trobe University,
Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 2School of Behavioral and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; 3Sports Performance, Recovery,
Injury and New Technologies (SPRINT) Research Center, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; 4Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Centre,
Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom; 5Directorate of Psychology and Sport, University of Salford, Salford, United Kingdom;
6
School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia

Background: Maximal lower-body strength can be assessed both dynamically and isometrically; however, the relationship
between the changes in these 2 forms of strength following resistance training is not well understood. Purpose: To systematically
review and analyze the effects of resistance training on changes in maximal dynamic (1-repetition-maximum back squat, deadlift,
and power clean) and position-matched isometric strength (isometric midthigh pull and the isometric squat). In addition,
individual-level data were used to quantify the agreement and relationship between changes in dynamic and isometric strength.
Methods: Databases were systematically searched to identify eligible articles, and meta-analysis procedures were performed on
the extracted data. The raw results from 4 studies were acquired, enabling bias and absolute reliability measures to be calculated
using Bland–Altman test of agreement. Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria, which resulted in 29 isometric–dynamic
change comparisons. The overall pooled effect was 0.13 in favor of dynamic testing; however, the prediction interval ranged from
g = −0.49 to 0.75. There was no evidence of bias (P = .825) between isometric and dynamic tests; however, the reliability
coefficient was estimated to be 16%, and the coefficient of variation (%) was 109.27. Conclusions: As a range of future effects can
be expected when comparing isometric to dynamic strength changes following resistance training, and limited proportionality
exists between changes in these 2 strength qualities, there is strong evidence that isometric and dynamic strength represent
separate neuromuscular domains. These findings can be used to inform strength-assessment models in athlete populations.

Keywords: testing, assessment, validity, adaptations

The assessment of specific fitness qualities is a key step in the strength assessment is a 1-repetition maximum (1RM) test, with
training process, as it can be used to quantify the effects of training variations involving multiple, but few, repetitions also considered
and can be associated with sport performance outcomes.1 Further- acceptable (eg, 3RM or 5RM).11 Maximal dynamic strength
more, athlete assessments can inform decisions regarding training consistently distinguishes higher from lower level athletes within
prescription and the management of fitness and fatigue across time. a range of sports and is strongly associated with other physical
For example, regular monitoring with a countermovement jump2 or qualities and key performance indicators within competition.9 The
of barbell velocity during a primary training lift3 can help identify assessment of maximal dynamic strength is highly reliable across
acute changes in fatigue state, which practitioners can consider populations,12–14 requires minimal equipment, can be conducted
when prescribing training loads. An important consideration of with large training groups, and is commonly used to prescribe
performance testing is to establish whether tests are similar or intensity for upcoming training cycles. For these reasons, it is the
distinct from each other.4 A test can be considered distinct if it key strength assessment method used by practitioners in sport.
shares limited commonality or if the responses to training or fatigue Maximal strength can also be assessed isometrically, when
are different over time when compared with other tests. Con- force is applied maximally against an immovable resistance with
versely, similar tests contain considerable overlapping information no time constraints to the duration of force application.15 Strength
when compared cross-sectionally or longitudinally.5–7 Assessment qualities are often presented along a continuum from high-velocity,
systems should be specific enough to isolate and track independent low-force expressions to high-force, low-velocity expressions.16–18
attributes while also minimizing redundant information.8 As isometric strength occurs at the extreme end of this continuum at
In many cases, the most important physical quality that zero velocity, it is often referred to as “pure” strength19 and is
requires assessment in sport is maximal strength.9 This quality therefore relevant in practice and research as it may represent an
refers to the force-generating capacity of the athlete against an individual’s ultimate strength capacity. While historically isomet-
external resistance.10 The gold standard of maximal dynamic ric measures of maximal force have held limited associations to
dynamic performance,15 when completed in a position that repli-
Weakley https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7892-4885
cates a common athletic action, such as an isometric squat or
Comfort https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1131-8626 isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP), stronger relationships have been
Huynh https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7349-7482 reported.20 These isometric assessments of maximal strength have
James (l.james@latrobe.edu.au) is corresponding author, https://orcid.org/0000- become commonplace in strength assessment models as they are
0002-0598-5502 often simple to administer, induce less fatigue than traditional
2
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 11/11/24 07:33 AM UTC
 Changes in Isometric Versus Dynamic Strength 3

dynamic assessments of strength, and are considered by some to Selection Criteria

carry a reduced injury concern due to their isometric demands.21
Search results were imported into EndNote (X9, Thomson Reuters)
However, the isometric squat and IMTP require specialized testing
for removal of duplicates and further sorting. Title and abstract
equipment and are influenced by joint angles in the testing posi-
screening for suitability was independently undertaken by James
tion.22 Nonetheless, these tests are an appealing and popular option
and Weakley, followed by full-text assessment of the remaining
for athlete strength assessment.
articles. Studies were deemed eligible if (1) they were a resistance
Both dynamic and isometric maximal strength assessments are
training study that included pretest and posttest results for a 1RM,
reliable and are feasible to administer in most training environ-
3RM, or 5RM free weight squat (back or front), power clean, or
ments.14,21,23 However, while a high commonality exists between
deadlift, in addition to peak force derived from an IMTP or an
position-matched maximal dynamic and isometric strength in
isometric squat; (2) the training duration was a minimum of
competitive weightlifters,24,25 in all other athlete populations, they
5 weeks; (3) participants were apparently healthy adults or athletes;
generally demonstrate <50% shared variance20 and can therefore be
(4) they were published in a peer-reviewed journal before March
considered independent forms of strength that are more dissimilar
2022; and (5) they were full text in English language. Those that
than similar.4,5 It is unclear how this relationship tracks across time,
did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. Data pertaining to
as an isolated association does not necessarily imply a similar
the authors, isometric and dynamic test used, study duration,
response to a training stimulus. Such information can help practi-
participant demographics and group designation, and training type
tioners to ascertain whether a change in an isometric strength test is
were extracted from each study. Additionally, changes in physical
an indicator of a change in dynamic strength (which is typically the
performance within each relevant test were extracted and used for
training target), or whether they are distinct neuromuscular do-
analysis. Means, SDs, and sample size were required for eligibility.
mains that need to be assessed and trained independently.
Authors from all of the eligible studies were contacted for study
Concerns have been raised over the sensitivity of isometric
data at the individual level to determine the level of agreement
strength assessments to long-term training15; however, this was
between the isometric and dynamic changes.
based on mostly single joint or supported multijoint tests that often
demonstrated limited association to dynamic performance. It is
possible that upright, unsupported, multijoint isometric assess- Assessment of Reporting Quality
ments may demonstrate different results. Furthermore, recent Study quality was assessed by the scale first employed by Brughelli
analysis has indicated limited concordance and agreement between et al27 for strength and conditioning-based training interven-
cross-sectional assessments of isometric and dynamic strength.26 It tions,28,29 as opposed to health care research and interventions.
is therefore important to understand how well changes in isometric The tool includes a combination of items from the Delphi, Co-
strength transfer to changes in dynamic strength following resis- chrane, and PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) instru-
tance training, so practitioners can make evidence-based training ments and assesses the following 10 factors: (1) inclusion
and testing decisions. criteria were clearly stated, (2) subjects were randomly allocated
The aim of this study was to systematically review and analyze to groups, (3) intervention was clearly defined, (4) groups were
the effects of resistance training on changes in maximal dynamic tested for similarity at baseline, (5) use of a control group,
and isometric strength in healthy adults. Furthermore, where avail- (6) outcome variables were clearly defined, (7) assessments were
able, individual data were used to quantify the agreement and practically useful, (8) duration of intervention practically useful,
relationship between changes in dynamic and isometric strength. (9) between-group statistical analysis appropriate, and (10) point
Finally, subgroup analysis was conducted to determine whether the measures of variability.
type of isometric test, method of training, intervention duration, or Each domain can achieve a maximum of 2 points for a “yes”
participant characteristics were influential factors on the effect. response, while 1 and 0 represent “maybe” and “no,” respectively.
The scores for each of the domains are then summed to provide a
total study quality score ranging from 0 to 20.
Methods
Search Strategy Statistical Analyses
In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-analysis was performed using the “metafor”30 and “club-
Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework for systematic reviews, Sandwich” packages in the R programming language. To pool
the databases Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, MEDLINE, and effect sizes between isometric and dynamic tests, we computed
PubMed were systematically searched in April 2022 to identify standardized mean differences (SMDs) for each study. Uncertainty
eligible English language peer-reviewed original research articles. was expressed using 95% confidence intervals (CIs), calculated
All terms and key words can be found in Table 1. Reference list of based on a t distribution. Prediction intervals (PI) were computed
the selected studies were manually searched for eligible articles. alongside the estimates, via a random-effects model, to convey the

Table 1 Database Search Terms and Keywords

Search category 1 Search category 2 Search category 3 Search category 4
“Adaptation” OR “adaptations” “Squat” OR “Deadlift” OR “Repetition maximum” OR “Isometric squat” OR “Isometric
OR “Changes” OR “Training” OR “Power clean” OR “Power-clean” “repetition - maximum” OR “RM” midthigh pull” OR “Isometric
“Longitudinal” OR “Intervention” OR “maximum” OR “strength” mid-thigh pull” OR “Isometric
OR “Development” mid thigh pull”
Note: All 4 categories combined using “AND.”

IJSPP Vol. 19, No. 1, 2024

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 11/11/24 07:33 AM UTC
4 James et al

likely range of the true change in maximal strength in similar future and accuracy (how well the measurements align with a reference
studies. Unlike CIs that estimate the range of the true effect size, PIs value) of the measurements. The imprecision of the estimates are
account for both within-study sampling error and between-study denoted with 95% CI. To ensure that the model estimates are
heterogeneity. The borders of the PI are determined by considering robust, a sensitivity analysis was conducted using linear mixed
the estimated effect size, the standard error of the effect size, and models, with fixed effects for time (pre–post) and random effects
the desired level of confidence. Including PIs are important as they for subject ID.
show a wider range of expected treatment effects compared with
CIs and, thus, may lead to different conclusions. From an applied
perspective, they allow practitioners to determine what is expected Results
to occur in future settings.31 Between-studies heterogeneity was Search Results
estimated with Cochran Q and Higgins and Thompson I2 statistics.
An initial model (intercept-only), using restricted maximum Following the removal of duplicates, 195 studies remained. Fol-
likelihood, was constructed to serve as the baseline model. To lowing title and abstract screening, 28 articles were brought
examine the effect of programming variables on maximal strength, forward for full-text screening. Once full-text assessment was
study factors were added to the baseline model as fixed effects. completed, 11 articles remained and were included in the meta-
These moderator variables included study subject (strong, recrea- analysis and review. Figure 1 describes the Preferred Reporting
tional, and collegiate); training (heavy resistance training, com- Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
bined heavy-high velocity training, and other training); isometric process applied to this review. The 11 studies resulted in 29
test (mid-thigh pull and squat); and duration (less than 10 wk and isometric–dynamic change comparisons stemming from multiple
greater than 10 wk). groups or multiple isometric or dynamic tests within a given study.
Training type was classified as “Heavy resistance training” if In total, 229 participants were investigated (competitive athletes:
>66% of resistance training activities was at 75% 1RM or above, n = 126; recreational or resistance-trained individuals: n = 103).
“Combined heavy-high velocity training” if training consisted of Data sets from 4 studies were provided to enable analysis at the
both heavy and ballistic/plyometric training, or “Other training” for individual level (N = 94; competitive athletes: n = 61; recreational
remaining resistance training structures. Subjects were classified as or resistance-trained individuals: n = 33).
strong if their 1RM back squat or deadlift was >1.90 × body mass, or
1RM power clean was >1.5 × body mass,32,33 otherwise they were Outcome of Assessment of Reporting Quality
classified as collegiate if they were university or college athletes or
Study quality assessment scores ranged from 15 to 20 on the 20-
recreational for the remaining participant groups. Training duration
point scale with a mean and SD of 17.2 (1.4), indicating a high
was stratified as <10 weeks or ≥10 weeks, while the isometric test
methodological quality of included articles based on this scale.
type was classified as either the IMTP or isometric squat.
Most common criteria not met was “use of a control group” (met in
The effects of each moderator were estimated (along with
3/12 studies), as it is typically not feasible to use control groups in
95% CIs and PIs, where appropriate), with all other factors held
athlete populations, and “inclusion criteria clearly stated” (fully
constant. Cohen’s d effect sizes were used to describe the magni-
met in 8/12 studies).
tude of the observed pairwise differences in standardized units and
interpreted with the following descriptors: trivial (<0.2), small
(0.2–0.59), moderate (0.6–1.19), large (1.2–1.99), and very large Study Characteristics
(2.0–4.0).34 The IMTP featured across 15 comparisons in 5 studies, while the
Finally, we were able to collate the raw results from 4 studies isometric squat was present in 14 comparisons within 6 studies.
and conduct a validity analysis of the participant’s isometric and The 1RM back squat was featured in 9 studies, each containing 2
dynamic test results, specifically the change between pretest and groups, representing 18 comparisons. Three studies, each with 2
posttest. To evaluate the variability of the measurements, we groups, contained the 1RM deadlift, resulting in 6 comparisons.
calculated the coefficient of variation (CV) for each variable of The 1RM power clean occurred in 2 studies, with one containing 2
interest. The CV was obtained by dividing the standard deviation of groups and the other with 3 groups, resulting in 5 comparisons.
the measurements by their mean and multiplying by 100. A lower There were no studies in the final analysis that contained multiple
CV indicates lower relative variability and greater precision in the RM testing or the front squat. A summary of studies included in the
measurements. To assess the reliability of the measurements, we analysis is presented in Table 2.
computed the standard error of measurement (SEM). The SEM The 4 studies for which individual values were obtained (and
provides an estimate of the typical amount of measurement error therefore brought forward for Bland–Altman tests) contained 9
associated with individual test scores. It was calculated by multi- study effects. The IMTP and isometric squat featured on 5 and 4
plying the standard deviation of the measurements by the square occasions, respectively. With regard to the dynamic strength tests,
root of one minus the reliability coefficient. A smaller SEM value the 1RM back squat occurred 4 times, while the 1RM power clean
indicates higher reliability and greater precision in the measure- was included on 5 occasions.
ments. To evaluate the agreement between 2 measurement meth-
ods, we performed a Bland–Altman analysis. This involved
plotting the differences between the measurements obtained from
Meta-Analysis
method A and method B against their average. We then assessed The between-study heterogeneity variance for the baseline model
the presence of any systematic bias or limits of agreement. was estimated at τ2 = .09 (95% CI, .03 to .20), with an I2 value of
Relative reliability was examined with the concordance cor- 62.7% (95% CI, 44.3% to 75.0%). The overall pooled effect
relation coefficient (CCC). The CCC is a statistical measure used to comparing the magnitude of change in isometric and dynamic
assess the agreement or concordance between 2 sets of measure- strength was estimated to be 0.13 in favor of dynamic testing;
ments. It takes into account both the precision (closeness of values) however, the PI ranged from g = −0.49 to 0.75, indicating
IJSPP Vol. 19, No. 1, 2024
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 11/11/24 07:33 AM UTC
 Changes in Isometric Versus Dynamic Strength 5

Records identified from:

Identification
Web of Science (n = 111) Records removed before
SPORTDiscus (n = 111) screening:
MEDLINE (n = 228) Duplicate records removed
PubMed (n = 100) (n = 355)
Registers (n = 0)

Records screened Records excluded

(n = 195) (n = 167)

Articles sought for retrieval

(n = 28)
Screening

Articles assessed for eligibility Articles excluded: (n = 17)

(n = 28)
Included

Studies included in review

(n = 11)

Figure 1 — PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram describing the selection processes for
eligible articles.

uncertainty in the magnitude of change between isometric and the initial test. This demonstrates that the model estimates from the
dynamic tests for future studies (Figure 2). Bland–Altman test were robust and consistent across different
Subgroup analyses (Table 3) indicated that the pooled effects methods.
are significant across several factors. These include heavy resis-
tance training (SMD = 0.27; 95% PI, 0.10 to 0.45); duration less
than 10 weeks (SMD = 0.15; 95% PI, 0.05 to 0.24); and recrea- Discussion
tional subjects (SMD = 0.27; 95% PI, 0.14 to 0.40). Figures for the
subgroup analysis can be found in Supplementary Materials S1, S2, The primary aim of this investigation was to systematically review
S3, and S4 (available online). the evidence and analyze the effect of, and association between,
training-induced changes in maximal dynamic strength with
Bland–Altman Analysis respect to changes in maximal isometric strength. In addition, this
study sought to quantify the agreement and relationship between
There was no evidence of bias (P = .825) between isometric and changes in the 2 forms of strength. The final aim was to examine the
dynamic tests; however, the reliability coefficient (as assessed by effect at several subgroup levels, including training type, test type,
concordance correlation) was estimated to be only 16%, indicating training duration, and participant characteristics. Eleven studies
poor agreement between measurements on the same subject, with were included in the final review and analysis, with the results of
95% limits of agreement (from Bland–Altman tests) estimated as the meta-analysis revealing that following resistance training there
−27.03 to 27.66. Based on a reliability analysis, the SEM was 9.82, are trivial differences yet wide PIs when changes in isometric and
with a large CV (%) of 109.27 and a poor CCC of .16. dynamic strength are compared. This indicates that the magnitude
The results of the sensitivity analysis (conducted via a linear of change in these different forms of strength test can be expected to
mixed model) also found no evidence of bias between the 2 tests vary dramatically following future resistance training interven-
(F1,93 = 0.05, P = .0825), with a mean difference of 0.32 units tions. A similar pattern was generally seen across most subgroups.
between isometric and dynamic testing. The intraclass correlation Furthermore, the very small CI, wide limits of agreement, and
coefficient was estimated to be equivalent to the CCC (.16) from absence of consistent bias revealed by the Bland–Altman analysis
IJSPP Vol. 19, No. 1, 2024
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 11/11/24 07:33 AM UTC
 6
Table 2 Characteristics of Resistance-Training-Intervention Studies Containing Both Isometric and Dynamic Maximal Strength Assessment
of the Lower Body
Isometric Dynamic Duration, Group 1 demographics Group 2 demographics Group 2 training
Study authors test test wk (body mass) (body mass) Group 1 training type type
Banaszek et al35 Midthigh Back squat 8 7 recreational CrossFit males 8 recreational CrossFit males CrossFit training (whey CrossFit training (pea
pull and females (83.9 [18.9]) and females (78.4 [11.6]) supplementation) supplementation)
Banaszek et al35 Midthigh Deadlift 8 7 recreational CrossFit males 8 recreational CrossFit males CrossFit training (whey CrossFit training (pea
pull and females (83.9 [18.9]) and females (78.4 [11.6]) supplementation) supplementation)
Bartolomei et al36 Squat Back squat 10 10 experienced, resistance- 11 experienced, resistance- Heavy resistance training Heavy resistance
trained men (78.7 [11.3]) trained men (79.2 [9.5]) (full body) training (split body)
Bazyler et al37 Squat Back squat 7 9 recreationally trained males 8 recreationally trained males Heavy resistance training Heavy resistance
(84.9 [10.9]) (84.6 [8.4] kg) (full range of motion) training (partial range of
motion)
Comfort et al38 Midthigh Power 10 16 collegiate athletes and 18 collegiate athletes and Combined heavy-high Combined heavy-high
pull clean professional youth soccer professional youth soccer velocity training (catch velocity training (pull
players (71.14 [11.79]) players (66.43 [10.13]) phase) phase only)
Cormie et al39 Squat Back squat 12 10 recreationally trained males 8 recreationally trained males High velocity training Combined heavy-high
(81.6 [18.8]) (79.6 [15.4]) velocity training
Cormie et al40 Squat Back squat 10 8 recreationally trained males 8 recreationally trained males Heavy resistance training High velocity training
(82.2 [13.7]) (79.9 [14.5])
James et al32 Squat Back squat 10 8 strong males (76.82 [6.27]) 8 recreationally active males Combined heavy-high Combined heavy-high
(82.03 [14.7]) velocity training (stronger velocity training (weaker
participants) participants)
Painter et al41 Midthigh Back squat 11 14 collegiate track athletes 12 collegiate track athletes Combined heavy-high Combined heavy-high
pull (86.1 [30.9]) (80.7 [18.1]) velocity training (block velocity training (DUP)

IJSPP Vol. 19, No. 1, 2024

periodization)
Suchomel et al42 Midthigh Power 10 9 collegiate males athletes 9 collegiate male athletes Combined heavy-high Combined heavy-high
pull clean (85.8 [13.4]) (84.3 [17.3]) velocity training (catch velocity training (pull
phase) phase only)
Suchomel et al42 Midthigh Power 10 9 collegiate males athletes Combined heavy-high
pull clean (83.0 [13.6]) velocity training (pull phase
only + overload)
Toohey et al43 Midthigh Back squat 10 10 collegiate female athletes 13 collegiate female athletes General resistance training General resistance
pull (70.0 [8.4]) (66.6 [5.1]) (dietary supplement) training (no supplement)
Toohey et al43 Midthigh Deadlift 10 10 collegiate female athletes 13 collegiate female athletes General resistance training General resistance
pull (70.0 [8.4]) (66.6 [5.1]) (dietary supplement) training (no supplement)
Travis et al44 Squat Back squat 6 8 male and female powerlifters 8 male and female powerlifters Heavy resistance training Heavy resistance
(88.6 [19.0]) (91.1 [24.9]) (step taper) training (exponential
taper)
Travis et al44 Squat Deadlift 6 8 male and female powerlifters 8 male and female powerlifters Heavy resistance training Heavy resistance
(88.6[19.0]) (91.1 [24.9]) (step taper) training (exponential
taper)

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 11/11/24 07:33 AM UTC

Figure 2 — Forest plot of the combined studies for the meta-analysis. SMD indicates standardized mean difference.

Table 3 Meta-Analyses With Subgroups

Subgroup k SMD 95% CI 95% PI τ2 Q I2 (%)
Training
Heavy resistance training 9 0.27 0.10 to 0.44 0.10 to 0.45 .00 6.04 0.0
Combined heavy-high velocity 10 −0.18 −0.37 to 0.00 −0.55 to 0.18 .02 14.04 35.9
Other 10 0.38 0.13 to 0.62 −0.21 to 0.96 .05 17.26 47.8
Iso test
Midthigh pull 15 0.06 −0.17 to 0.30 0.05 to 0.24 .13 52.66 73.4
Squat 14 0.23 0.07 to 0.40 −0.71 to 0.98 .01 14.88 12.6
Duration
<10 wk 10 0.15 0.05 to 0.24 0.03 to 0.28 .00 2.36 0.0
10+ wk 19 0.14 −0.08 to 0.35 −0.56 to 0.91 .15 71.90 75.0
Subject
Recreational 13 0.27 0.14 to 0.40 0.14 to 0.40 .00 8.04 0.0
Strong 5 0.07 −0.30 to 0.44 −0.54 to 0.68 .02 5.17 22.6
Collegiate 11 0.05 −0.29 to 0.38 1.01 to 1.11 .20 51.54 80.6
Abbreviations: I2, Higgins and Thompson I statistic; k, number of study effects; PI, prediction interval; Q, Cochran Q; SMD,
standardized mean difference; τ2, tau squared.

IJSPP Vol. 19, No. 1, 2024 7

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 11/11/24 07:33 AM UTC
8 James et al

demonstrate limited agreement and proportionality between the warranted to better understand the sensitivity of the IMTP and
isometric and dynamic strength change scores. Consequently, isometric squat to different forms of dynamic resistance training.
practitioners should be wary of what measure of strength is
implemented following resistance training interventions, as this Agreement Between Isometric and Dynamic
may alter the interpretation of the training intervention’s effective-
ness. Furthermore, due to the substantial variance and lack of
Strength Changes Following Resistance
agreement in change between these tests following training inter- Training
ventions, practitioners must be careful not to conflate changes in The second aim of this investigation was to determine the longitu-
isometric strength with dynamic strength, or vice versa. dinal association between isometric and dynamic assessments of
maximal lower body strength. The agreement metrics revealed very
Effect of Resistance Training on Isometric poor levels of agreement (CCC = .16) and high levels of variation
Versus Dynamic Strength (CV% = 109.27), between changes in isometric versus dynamic
strength following resistance training. Based on these findings,
While there is a considerable body of literature demonstrating practitioners and researchers should not use isometric and dynamic
isolated relationships between isometric and dynamic strength,20,45 strength assessments interchangeably or infer that changes in the 2
the difference in the change between forms of strength following forms of assessment are proportional. Although individual level
training has received less attention.46,47 The findings of the overall data were obtained from only 4 studies, this resulted in pairs of
meta-analysis demonstrate that the difference between isometric change scores from 94 subjects. These data provide greater insight
and dynamic strength changes should be expected to vary dramati- into the interrelationship between strength qualities than relation-
cally. The resulting heterogeneity contrasts the generally moderate ships assessed at a single time point.46,47 The results of this present
to strong cross-sectional relationships between the 2 forms of investigation agree with previous reports of considerably weaker
strength and indicates why it is important that cross-sectional relationships between different forms of strength and power-ori-
findings are not assumed to hold true when examined across time. ented tests when tracked longitudinally rather than cross-section-
Indeed, the issue of transfer between isometric and dynamic ally.46,47 However, the notable finding of this investigation is that
strength was noted in a review by Wilson and Murphy,15 who both tests are considered forms of maximal strength, yet no
concluded that the vast weight of evidence suggested that changes predictable longitudinal relationship exists between the 2 qualities
in dynamic strength performance did not align with changes in in response to resistance training.
maximal isometric strength. From an applied perspective, the There are several differences in the underpinning mechanisms
findings of this present analysis provide strong evidence that it that drive force production in isometric versus dynamic actions that
is not possible to accurately estimate a change in 1RM back squat, may explain the limited agreement revealed by the Bland–Altman
power clean, or deadlift from a change in isometric squat or IMTP analysis. Muscle activation strategies vary between isometric and
maximal strength following future training. Furthermore, both dynamic actions,52 while intramuscular and intermuscular motor
isometric and dynamic assessments should be considered if a unit recruitment change based on joint angle and the direction of
holistic strength diagnosis of the individual is required. Alterna- force application.53–56 In addition, dynamic actions are often
tively, a needs analysis can be employed to decide which strength influenced by the stretch-shortening cycle; however, this mecha-
quality is of greatest relevance and therefore prioritized in a nism is absent from isometric tasks.57,58 It has been suggested that
strength assessment battery. However, other factors should also musculoskeletal stiffness also has a greater contribution to force
be considered when selecting appropriate strength tests. For exam- production within isometric tasks59 and may in part explain
ple, rapid force production (eg, rate of force development, collo- differences between the 2 types of strength. Regardless of the
quially referred to as “explosive strength”) can also be evaluated mechanisms responsible, the findings of this present study provide
via the same isometric tests,25,48 which may be more important than strong evidence that these 2 forms of maximal strength represent
maximal isometric strength in identifying training priorities.49-51 In separate neuromuscular domains. It is important to note that the
addition, 1RM testing also permits the objective selection of loads vast majority of the subjects in this analysis (n = 77) undertook
for subsequent phases of training. combined heavy-high velocity training. Further research is needed
Only 2 interventions in a single study38 possessed a trivial to understand how the agreement between isometric and dynamic
difference alongside a CI that did not envelop ±0.30. Two com- strength change scores is impacted by different training interven-
parisons exhibited a significantly greater change in isometric versus tions and across training phases.
dynamic strength,41,42 while a significantly greater change in
dynamic strength occurred in 5 comparisons,36,40,43 which suggests Effect of Resistance Training Type on Isometric
that the isometric tests are likely to be less responsive to dynamic
resistance training. It should be acknowledged that the significantly
Versus Dynamic Strength
greater improvements in isometric strength in the aforementioned The type of training appears to have some influence on the
studies may have been influenced by the limited use of full-range magnitude of changes between isometric and dynamic strength.
lower body exercises in the final block of training. Indeed, within Tests of maximal dynamic strength were more sensitive to heavy
their respective final training period, 5 of 6 lower body lifts in one strength training interventions with 7 of the 9 comparisons dem-
study41 and all 7 lower body lifts in the other investigation42 onstrating at least a “small” effect or greater in its favor, while the
utilized a reduced range of motion at the hip and knee (eg, from remaining 2 comparisons were trivial. However, a considerable
the hang, ¼ squats). As such, these actions may have achieved amount of within-comparison variation was present. The interven-
greater specificity to the IMTP test when compared with lifts tions in these 7 studies included a greater volume of resistance
performed through larger ranges of motion. It is also possible that training that was similar to the dynamic strength test, which may
greater changes in isometric strength could be due to the lack of have contributed to the outcome by way of specificity.60,61 It is
familiarization leading up to baseline testing. Further exploration is worth noting that the back squat was both a training task throughout
IJSPP Vol. 19, No. 1, 2024
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 11/11/24 07:33 AM UTC
 Changes in Isometric Versus Dynamic Strength 9

the intervention and a dynamic strength assessment in each of the interventions in full, making it challenging to identify the cause
heavy resistance training comparisons, which likely facilitated a of the observed effect.
greater transfer effect compared with the isometric assessment.62
Population
Test Type
While considerable within-study variation existed, the dynamic
When compared with the IMTP, the relatively narrow PI in the strength assessment was more sensitive to training than isometric
isometric squat subgroup indicates a more predictable relationship tests within recreationally trained individuals when studies were
with maximal dynamic strength assessment. Practitioners can; pooled, albeit to a small but consistent extent. Less trained in-
therefore, be somewhat confident that dynamic strength testing dividuals have less exposure to dynamic strength activities and,
is consistently more sensitive to training than the isometric squat to therefore, likely possess a greater capacity for dynamic strength
a small extent. The markedly wide PI in the IMTP subgroup adaptation than those who are more trained.65,66 Furthermore, in the
analysis demonstrates that considerable variation in the change early stages of training, more general adaptations can be ex-
score differences between IMTP performance and measures of pected67,68 leading to a homogenous response across studies within
dynamic strength can be expected in future settings. Despite similar this population, regardless of training. A range of potential true
lower limb positions, there are notable differences between the differences between isometric and dynamic strength changes was
IMTP and the isometric squat. A feature of the isometric squat that revealed in strong populations and may indicate that the type of
may not be present to the same extent in the IMTP is the high axial strength response may be specific to the within-study character-
compressive forces that likely require different contributions from istics (eg, the resistance training intervention) and not generalizable
the trunk musculature.63 In addition, unlike the isometric squat, the across situations. However, as only 2 studies containing partici-
IMTP may incorporate a meaningful shoulder extension moment. pants whose 1RM back squat was >1.90 × body mass,32,44 it is
These factors contribute to a cross-sectional unexplained variance challenging to draw meaningful conclusions, and future investiga-
of 43% between the 2 tests and differences in peak force ranging tions with strong individuals are therefore recommended.
from 9.5% to 28.5%.48,64 One possible explanation for the results The wide PI for the collegiate athletes subanalysis demon-
is that the studies incorporating the isometric squat included its strates that practitioners working with this population would be
dynamic equivalent (ie, 1RM back squat) as the strength test more uncertain of what differences would be present in isometric versus
often (12/14 comparisons) than the IMTP was included alongside dynamic strength changes. A range of factors such as long-term
its dynamic equivalent (1RM power clean or deadlift) as the training history,69 sport,70 and the presence of other training tasks71
strength assessment (9/15 comparisons). The increased specificity potentially contributed to this divergent response. What is clear,
between isometric and dynamic tests in the isometric squat sub- however, is that changes in isometric strength do not consistently
group might have enabled a more consistent association to be represent changes in dynamic strength, particularly within colle-
revealed. giate populations.

Intervention Duration Practical Applications

Only 3 studies,35,37,44 representing a total of 8 comparisons, Both isometric and 1RM dynamic tests are typically considered as
included training interventions less than 10 weeks. The narrow tests of maximal strength; however, because there is substantial
PI and trivial effect (albeit significant) would suggest that there is variance in the response between the 2 forms of strength following
little collective difference between the changes in isometric and resistance training, and no proportional relationship, the assess-
dynamic strength across those investigations. This finding is in ments cannot be used interchangeably or assumed to assess the
alignment with strong cross-sectional relationships between the 2 same quality. While practitioners may be tempted to include
qualities in many cases.20 However, notable within-comparison isometric strength measures (eg, the IMTP) in lieu of a dynamic
variability is present which indicates that the same training stimulus strength test, such a decision would likely provide misleading
has markedly different effects on isometric versus dynamic information if dynamic strength was the attribute of interest.
strength between individuals. While the SMD was similar regard- Consequently, when conducting a needs analysis to determine the
less of whether training duration was <10 or ≥10 weeks, a much relevance of specific physical qualities to a given sport, practi-
greater range of effects are expected following interventions lasting tioners may wish to include both forms of assessment in their initial
10 weeks or beyond. It is possible that longer duration training analysis before then considering which is of greatest relevance. As
studies provide a greater opportunity for differential adaptations to the 2 assessments represent separate strength domains, it may also
manifest between forms of maximal force expression.32,65 In other be necessary for practitioners to use specific training interventions
words, early-stage changes in isometric and dynamic strength are depending on whether isometric or dynamic strength is targeted.
similar; however, as training time goes on, it is not possible to infer
a change in one from the change in the other. Another explanation Conclusions
may be related to the similarity between the training interventions
and both forms of assessment in the short-term studies. This The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis demon-
included powerlifters undertaking training for competition (where strate that a range of differences between changes in maximal
success is in part determined by squat strength)44 and interventions isometric strength (assessed via the isometric midthigh pull and
characterized by the squat or half squat.37 These findings indicate isometric squat) versus maximal dynamic strength (assessed via the
that isometric strength changes may be a suitable indicator of 1-repetition-maximum back squat, deadlift, and power clean) can
dynamic strength changes in the short term where the training lifts be expected following resistance training. Additionally, interven-
and loading are highly specific to both types of assessment. tion duration and specificity of the training tasks to the test type,
However, 235,37 of the 3 studies did not describe the training particularly in the final phase of training, appear to have some
IJSPP Vol. 19, No. 1, 2024
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 11/11/24 07:33 AM UTC
10 James et al

impact on the observed effect. A key outcome of this investigation 17. Suchomel TJ, Comfort P, Lake JP. Enhancing the force–velocity
was the absence of agreement and proportionality between changes profile of athletes using weightlifting derivatives. Strength Cond J.
in isometric and dynamic strength, which provides strong evidence 2017;39(1):10–20. doi:10.1519/SSC.0000000000000275
that these 2 forms of strength represent separate neuromuscular 18. Cronin JB, McNair PJ, Marshall RN. Force-velocity analysis of
domains. strength-training techniques and load: implications for training
strategy and research. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(1):148–155.
PubMed ID: 12580670
References 19. Bompa TO, Calcina O. Periodization of Strength: The New Wave
in Strength Training. Veritas; 1993.
1. Jeffries AC, Marcora SM, Coutts AJ, et al. Development of a revised 20. Lum D, Haff GG, Barbosa TM. The relationship between isometric
conceptual framework of physical training for use in research and force-time characteristics and dynamic performance: a systematic
practice. Sports Med. 2022;52(4):709–724. doi:10.1007/s40279-021- review. Sports. 2020;8(5):63. doi:10.3390/sports8050063
01551-5 21. Brady CJ, Harrison AJ, Comyns TM. A review of the reliability of
2. Cormack SJ, Newton RU, McGuigan MR, et al. Neuromuscular biomechanical variables produced during the isometric mid-thigh
and endocrine responses of elite players during an Australian Rules pull and isometric squat and the reporting of normative data. Sports
football season. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2008;3(4):439–453. Biomech. 2020; 19(1):968. doi:10.1080/14763141.2018.1452968
doi:10.1123/ijspp.3.4.439 22. Beckham GK, Sato K, Santana HAP, et al. Effect of body position
3. Weakley J, Mann B, Banyard H, et al. Velocity-based training: from on force production during the isometric midthigh pull. J Strength
theory to application. Strength Cond J. 2021;43(2):31–49. doi:10. Cond Res. 2018;32(1):48–56. doi:10.1519/JSC.000000000000
1519/SSC.0000000000000560 1968
4. David HC, Harrison HC. Research Processes in Physical Education, 23. Banyard HG, Nosaka K, Haff GG. Reliability and validity of the
Recreation and Health. Prentice Hall Inc; 1970. load–velocity relationship to predict the 1RM back squat. J Strength
5. Hortobagyi T, Katch FI, LaChance PF. Interrelationships among Cond Res. 2017;31(7):1897–1904. doi:10.1519/JSC.00000000000
various measures of upper body strength assessed by different 01657
contraction modes. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1989;58(7): 24. Haff GG, Carlock JM, Hartman MJ, et al. Force-time curve char-
749–755. doi:10.1007/BF00637387 acteristics of dynamic and isometric muscle actions of elite women
6. Baker D, Wilson G, Carlyon B. Generality versus specificity: a Olympic weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19:741–748. doi:
comparison of dynamic and isometric measures of strength and 10.1519/R-15134.1
speed-strength. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1994;68(4): 25. Haff GG, Stone M, O’Bryant HS, et al. Force-time dependent
350–355. doi:10.1007/BF00571456 characteristics of dynamic and isometric muscle actions. J Strength
7. Young W, Wilson G, Byrne C. Relationship between strength Cond Res. 1997;11:269–272.
qualities and performance in standing and run-up vertical jumps. 26. Warneke K, Wagner C-M, Keiner M, et al. Maximal strength
J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1999;39:285–293. PubMed ID: measurement: a critical evaluation of common methods—a narrative
10726428 review. Front Sports Act Living. 2023;5:201. doi:10.3389/fspor.
8. James LP, Talpey SW, Young WB, et al. Strength classification and 2023.1105201
diagnosis: not all strength is created equal. Strength Cond J. 2022; 27. Brughelli M, Chaouachi A, Cronin J, et al. Understanding change
3:744. doi:10.1519/SSC.0000000000000744 of direction ability in sport: a review of resistance training studies.
9. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Stone MH. The importance of muscular Sports Med. 2008;38(12):1045–1063. doi:10.2165/00007256-2008
strength in athletic performance. Sports Med. 2016;46(10):1419– 38120-00007
1449. doi:10.1007/s40279-016-0486-0 28. McMaster DT, Gill N, Cronin J, et al. The development, retention and
10. Stone MH. Position statement: explosive exercise and training. decay rates of strength and power in elite rugby union, rugby league
Strength Cond J. 1993;15(3):7–15. doi:10.1519/0744-0049(1993) and American football. Sports Med. 2013;43(5):367–384. doi:10.
015%2C0007:EEAT%2E2.3.CO;2 1007/s40279-013-0031-3
11. Haff GG. Strength–isometric and dynamic testing. Performance 29. Nicholson B, Dinsdale A, Jones B, et al. The training of medium- to
Assessment in Strength and Conditioning. Routledge; 2018:166–192. long-distance sprint performance in football code athletes: a system-
12. Faigenbaum AD, McFarland JE, Herman R, et al. Reliability of the atic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2021;52:257–286. doi:
one repetition-maximum power clean test in adolescent athletes. 10.1007/s40279-021-01552-4
J Strength Cond Res. 2012; 26(2):432–427. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e 30. Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor
318220db2c package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36:1–48.
13. Comfort P, McMahon JJ. Reliability of maximal back squat and 31. IntHout J, Ioannidis JPA, Rovers MM, et al. Plea for routinely
power clean performances in inexperienced athletes. J Strength presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2016;
Cond Res. 2015;29(11):3089–3096. doi:10.1519/JSC.000000000 6(7):e010247. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010247
0000815 32. James LP, Haff G, Kelly VG, et al. The impact of strength level
14. McMaster DT, Gill N, Cronin J, et al. A brief review of strength and on adaptations to combined weightlifting, plyometric, and ballistic
ballistic assessment methodologies in sport. Sports Med. 2014;44(5): training. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018;28(5):1494–1505. doi:10.
603–623. doi:10.1007/s40279-014-0145-2 1111/sms.13045
15. Wilson GJ, Murphy AJ. The use of isometric tests of muscular 33. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Influence of strength on
function in athletic assessment. Sports Med. 1996;22(1):19–37. doi: magnitude and mechanisms of adaptation to power training. Med
10.2165/00007256-199622010-00003 Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(8):1566–1581. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e
16. Turner AN, Comfort P, McMahon J, et al. Developing powerful 3181cf818d
athletes part 2: practical applications. Strength Cond J. 2021;43(1): 34. Hopkins WG. Linear models and effect magnitudes for research,
23–31. doi:10.1519/SSC.0000000000000544 clinical and practical applications. Sportscience. 2010;14:49–59.

IJSPP Vol. 19, No. 1, 2024

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 11/11/24 07:33 AM UTC
 Changes in Isometric Versus Dynamic Strength 11

35. Banaszek A, Townsend JR, Bender D, et al. The effects of whey vs. multijoint isometric assessment. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
pea protein on physical adaptations following 8-weeks of High- 2019;15(4):478–482. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2019-0217
Intensity Functional Training (HIFT): a pilot study. Sports. 2019; 51. Comfort P, Jones PA, Thomas C, et al. Changes in early and maximal
7(1):12. doi:10.3390/sports7010012 isometric force production in response to moderate-and high-load
36. Bartolomei S, Nigro F, Lanzoni IM, et al. A comparison between total strength and power training. J Strength Cond Res. 2022;36(3):
body and split routine resistance training programs in trained men. 593–599. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000003544
J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35(6):1520–1526. doi:10.1519/JSC. 52. Murphy AJ, Wilson GJ. Poor correlations between isometric tests and
0000000000003573 dynamic performance: relationship to muscle activation. Eur J Appl
37. Bazyler CD, Sato K, Wassinger CA, et al. The efficacy of incorpo- Physiol Occup Physiol. 1996;73(3–4):353–357. doi:10.1007/BF02
rating partial squats in maximal strength training. J Strength Cond 425498
Res. 2014;28(11):3024–3032. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000465 53. ter Haar Romeny B, Van Der Gon JD, Gielen C. Changes in
38. Comfort P, Dos Santos T, Thomas C, et al. An investigation into the recruitment order of motor units in the human biceps muscle. Exp
effects of excluding the catch phase of the power clean on force-time Neurol. 1982;78(2):360–368. doi:10.1016/0014-4886(82)90054-1
characteristics during isometric and dynamic tasks: an intervention 54. ter Haar Romeny B, Van Der Gon JD, Gielen C. Relation between
study. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(8):2116–2129. doi:10.1519/ location of a motor unit in the human biceps brachii and its critical
JSC.0000000000002656 firing levels for different tasks. Exp Neurol. 1984;85(3):631–650. doi:
39. Cormie P, McCaulley GO, McBride JM. Power versus strength- 10.1016/0014-4886(84)90036-0
power jump squat training: influence on the load power relationship. 55. Hasan Z, Enoka R. Isometric torque-angle relationship and move-
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(6):996–1003. doi:10.1097/mss. ment-related activity. Exp Brain Res. 1985;59:441–450. PubMed ID:
0b013e3180408e0c 4029320
40. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Adaptations in athletic 56. Howard J, Hoit J, Enoka R, et al. Relative activation of two human
performance after ballistic power versus strength training. Med Sci elbow flexors under isometric conditions: a cautionary note concern-
Sports Exerc. 2010;42(8):1582–1598. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e ing flexor equivalence. Exp Brain Res. 1986;62(1):199–202. doi:10.
3181d2013a 1007/BF00237416
41. Painter K, Haff G, Ramsey M, et al. Strength gains: block versus daily 57. Komi PV, Bosco C. Utilization of stored elastic energy in leg extensor
undulating periodization weight training among track and field muscles by men and women. Med Sci Sports. 1978;10:261–265.
athletes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2012;7(2):161–169. doi:10. PubMed ID: 750844
1123/ijspp.7.2.161 58. Wilson GJ, Wood GA, Elliott BC. Optimal stiffness of series elastic
42. Suchomel TJ, McKeever SM, Comfort P. Training with weightlifting component in a stretch-shorten cycle activity. J Appl Physiol. 1991;
derivatives: the effects of force and velocity overload stimuli. 70(2):825–833. doi:10.1152/jappl.1991.70.2.825
J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(7):1808–1818. doi:10.1519/JSC. 59. Wilson GJ, Murphy AJ, Pryor JF. Musculotendinous stiffness: its
0000000000003639 relationship to eccentric, isometric, and concentric performance.
43. Toohey JC, Townsend JR, Johnson SB, et al. Effects of probiotic J Appl Physiol. 1994;76(6):2714–2719. doi:10.1152/jappl.1994.76.
(Bacillus subtilis) supplementation during offseason resistance train- 6.2714
ing in female division I athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(11): 60. Stone M, Plisk S, Collins D. Strength and conditioning: training
3173–3181. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002675 principles: evaluation of modes and methods of resistance training—
44. Travis SK, Zwetsloot KA, Mujika I, et al. Skeletal muscle adaptations a coaching perspective. Sports Biomech. 2002;1(1):79–103. doi:10.
and performance outcomes following a step and exponential taper in 1080/14763140208522788
strength athletes. Front Physiol. 2021;12:735932. doi:10.3389/fphys. 61. Plisk SS. Effective needs analysis and functional training principles.
2021.735932 In: Jeffreys I, Moody J, eds. Strength and Conditioning for Sports
45. Drake D, Kennedy R, Wallace E. The validity and responsiveness Performance. Routledge; 2016:181–199.
of isometric lower body multi-joint tests of muscular strength: a 62. Zatsiorsky VM, Kraemer WJ. Science and Practice of Strength
systematic review. Sports Med Open. 2017;3(1):23. doi:10.1186/ Training. Human Kinetics; 1995.
s40798-017-0091-2 63. Guppy S, Brady C, Comfort P, et al. The isometric mid-thigh pull:
46. Lindberg K, Solberg P, Bjørnsen T, et al. Strength and power testing a review and methodology – Part 1. Prof Strength Cond. 2018;51:
of athletes: associations of common assessments over time. Int J 13–19.
Sports Physiol Perform. 2022;17(8):1280–1288. doi:10.1123/ijspp. 64. Nuzzo JL, McBride JM, Cormie P, et al. Relationship between
2021-0557 countermovement jump performance and multijoint isometric and
47. Gross M, Lüthy F. Anaerobic power assessment in athletes: are dynamic tests of strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(3):699–707.
cycling and vertical jump tests interchangeable? Sports. 2020;8(5): doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31816d5eda
60. doi:10.3390/sports8050060 65. Wilson G, Murphy A, Walshe A. Performance benefits from weight
48. Brady CJ, Harrison AJ, Flanagan EP, et al. A comparison of the and plyometric training: effects of initial strength level. Coach Sport
isometric midthigh pull and isometric squat: intraday reliability, Sci J. 1997;2:3–8.
usefulness, and the magnitude of difference between tests. Int J 66. Newton RU, Kraemer WJ. Developing explosive muscular power:
Sports Physiol Perform. 2018;13(7):844–852. doi:10.1123/ijspp. implications for a mixed methods training strategy. Strength Cond
2017-0480 J. 1994;16(5):20–31. https://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj/citation/
49. Maffiuletti NA, Aagaard P, Blazevich AJ, et al. Rate of force 1994/10000/developing_explosive_muscular_power__implications.
development: physiological and methodological considerations. Eur 2.aspx
J Appl Physiol. 2016;116(6):1091–1116. doi:10.1007/s00421-016- 67. Cormie P, McGuigan M, Newton R. Developing maximal neuromus-
3346-6 cular power: part 2 – Training considerations for improving maximal
50. Comfort P, Dos’Santos T, Jones PA, et al. Normalization of early power production. Sports Med. 2011;41(2):125–146. doi:10.2165/
isometric force production as a percentage of peak force during 11538500-000000000-00000

IJSPP Vol. 19, No. 1, 2024

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 11/11/24 07:33 AM UTC
12 James et al

68. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Bellon CR, et al. The importance of 70. Williams KJ, Chapman DW, Phillips EJ, et al. Effects of athlete-
muscular strength: training considerations. Sports Med. 2018;48(4): dependent traits on joint and system countermovement-jump power.
765–785. doi:10.1007/s40279-018-0862-z Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018;13(10):1378–1385. doi:10.1123/
69. Häkkinen K, Komi P, Alen M. Effect of explosive type strength ijspp.2018-0050
training on isometric force‐and relaxation‐time, electromyographic 71. Wilson JM, Marin PJ, Rhea MR, et al. Concurrent training: a meta-
and muscle fibre characteristics of leg extensor muscles. Acta analysis examining interference of aerobic and resistance exercises.
Physiol Scand. 1985;125:587–600. doi:10.1111/j.1748-1716.1985. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(8):2293–2307. doi:10.1519/JSC.
tb07759.x 0b013e31823a3e2d

IJSPP Vol. 19, No. 1, 2024

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 11/11/24 07:33 AM UTC