Share this article on:

00005768-201401000-0001600005768_2014_46_107_samozino_contribution_1miscellaneous-article< 530_0_14_114 >Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise© 2014 American College of Sports MedicineVolume 46(1)January 2014p 107–114Force–Velocity Properties’ Contribution to Bilateral Deficit during Ballistic Push-off[APPLIED SCIENCES]Samozino, Pierre1; Rejc, Enrico2; di Prampero, Pietro Enrico2; Belli, Alain3; Morin, Jean-Benoît31Laboratory of Exercise Physiology (EA4338), University of Savoie, Le Bourget-du-Lac, FRANCE; 2Department of Biomedical Sciences and Technologies, University of Udine, Udine, ITALY; and 3Laboratory of Exercise Physiology (EA4338), University of Lyon, Saint Etienne, FRANCEAddress for correspondence: Pierre Samozino, PhD, Laboratoire de Physiologie de l’Exercice, Université de Savoie, UFR CISM-Technolac, Le Bourget-du-Lac F-73376, France; E-mail: .Submitted for publication June 2012.Accepted for publication June 2013.Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site ( ).ABSTRACTPurpose: The objective of this study is to quantify the contribution of the force–velocity (F-v) properties to bilateral force deficit (BLD) in ballistic lower limb push-off and to relate it to individual F-v mechanical properties of the lower limbs.Methods: The F-v relation was individually assessed from mechanical measurements for 14 subjects during maximal ballistic lower limb push-offs; its contribution to BLD was then investigated using a theoretical macroscopic approach, considering both the mechanical constraints of movement dynamics and the maximal external capabilities of the lower limb neuromuscular system.Results: During ballistic lower limb push-off, the maximum force each lower limb can produce was lower during bilateral than unilateral actions, thus leading to a BLD of 36.7% ± 5.7%. The decrease in force due to the F-v mechanical properties amounted to 19.9% ± 3.6% of the force developed during BL push-offs, which represents a nonneural contribution to BLD of 43.5% ± 9.1%. This contribution to BLD that cannot be attributed to changes in neural features was negatively correlated to the maximum unloaded extension velocity of the lower limb (r = −0.977, P < 0.001).Conclusion: During ballistic lower limb push-off, BLD is due to both neural alterations and F-v mechanical properties, the latter being associated with the change in movement velocity between bilateral and unilateral actions. The level of the contribution of the F-v properties depends on the individual F-v mechanical profile of the entire lower limb neuromuscular system: the more the F-v profile is oriented toward velocity capabilities, the lower the loss of force from unilateral to bilateral push-offs due to changes in movement velocity.The bilateral force deficit (BLD) is defined as the inability of an individual to develop as much maximal voluntary force with one limb during bilateral (two limbs simultaneously (BL)) as during unilateral (each limb separately (UL)) actions (2,27). This phenomenon has been observed during isometric (16,19,22,31), isokinetic (11,12), and ballistic exercises (2,27) involving one muscle group or the entire limb. The mechanisms underlying BLD have been debated, and the following neural mechanisms have been proposed: (i) neural alterations during BL exercises, including a reduced neural drive due to division of attention and/or interhemispheric inhibition (15,25,35), (ii) a change in motor units recruitment (16,19,24,32,35), and (iii) different muscle coordination strategies (27).During ballistic lower limb extension movements (e.g., horizontal or vertical jump and starting phase of sprint running, henceforth called “push-off”), nonneural factors have also been considered as possible causes of BLD, notably the muscle mechanical properties characterized by the force–velocity (F-v) relation (2,5,27,34). Indeed, BL push-off results in a higher movement (and, in turn, muscle shortening) velocity than that during UL push-off because a higher total external force is developed against the same resistive load (2). Consequently, knowing the inverse muscle F-v relationship (14), the force-generating capability of each lower limb would be lower during BL extension than during UL extension, which in turn would lead to BLD. However, only Bobbert et al. (2) proposed an actual influence of the F-v properties on BLD through a realistic forward simulation model of the human musculoskeletal system, whereas other studies ended up discarding this hypothesis (5,27,34). Consequently, the nonneural contribution of the F-v properties to BLD during ballistic exertions deserves further investigation.Assuming that BLD in ballistic lower limb push-off is primarily caused by the F-v properties (2), the changes in external force due to the F-v properties (BLDFv, representing the nonneural part in BLD) ought to depend on the change in individual F-v qualities. Indeed, an F-v relation oriented toward high-velocity capabilities is characterized by a high maximum unloaded velocity. This would induce a lower alteration of the force-generating capability in response to the increase in movement velocity occurring between UL and BL conditions and would in turn reduce BLDFv. The model used by Bobbert et al. (2), which had muscle simulation as its only independent input, allowed these authors to estimate an overall nonneural proportion of BLD associated with F-v properties of about 75%. However, they did not identify, for each individual, the fraction of this part in relation to his own F-v mechanical properties. Identifying this would contribute to explaining the inter- and intraindividual variability observed in BLD during dynamic actions (2,5,12,18,33,34). Moreover, because BLD during lower limb extensions has been linked to jumping or sprint start performance (2,4,5), as well as to daily life activities (e.g., sit-to-stand task [6,20]), it could be valuable to quantify the individual part of BLD due to the F-v properties and to relate it to individual F-v qualities.Therefore, this study aimed at (i) providing additional information to the debated contribution of the F-v properties to BLD in ballistic lower limb push-off, (ii) quantifying this nonneural contribution of F-v properties, and (iii) relating this contribution to individual muscular F-v qualities. To reach these goals, UL and BL inclined maximum push-offs were performed by subjects and analyzed according to a theoretical macroscopic approach based on an empirically determined F-v relation for the entire neuromuscular system of the lower limb. The hypotheses were that BLD in ballistic lower limb push-off is partly explained by a shift along the F-v relationship and that this nonneural contribution was lower in individuals with high-velocity capabilities.METHODSSubjects and experimental protocolFourteen subjects (age, 26.3 ± 4.5 yr; body mass, 83.9 ± 18.3 kg; height, 1.81 ± 0.07 m) gave their written informed consent to participate in this study after being informed of the procedures approved by the local ethics committee and in agreement with the Declaration of Helsinki. Eight subjects were rugby players (four of them played in the Italian first league), and the remaining six practiced physical activities including explosive efforts (e.g., basketball and soccer). After a 10-min warm-up and a brief familiarization with the laboratory equipment, each subject performed (i) horizontal maximum BL tests with different resistive forces and (ii) UL inclined push-offs.Tests were performed on the Explosive Ergometer (EXER; Figure, Supplemental Digital Content 1 for a diagram of the EXER, ) consisting of a carriage seat free to move on one rail along a metal frame (for more details, see Ref. [27]). The total moving mass (seat + carriage) was 31.6 kg. The main frame could be inclined up to a maximum angle of 30° with respect to the horizontal. The subject could therefore accelerate himself and the carriage seat backward, pushing on two force plates (Laumas PA 300; Laumas Elettronica, Parma, Italy) positioned perpendicular to the rail. The velocity of the carriage seat along the direction of motion was continuously recorded by a wire tachometer (Lika SGI; Lika Electronic, Vicenza, Italy). Force and velocity analog outputs were sampled at 1000 Hz using a data acquisition system (MP100; BIOPAC Systems, Inc., Goleta, CA). The instantaneous power was calculated from the product of instantaneous force and velocity values. An electric motor, linked to the seat by a chain, allowed us to impose known braking forces (from 200 to 2300 N) acting along the direction of motion immediately at the onset of the subject’s push.For each test, the subject was seated on the carriage seat, secured by a safety harness tightened around the shoulders and abdomen, with his arms on handlebars. The starting position was standardized, with both feet placed on the force plates and on 90° knee flexion. This position was set using adjustable blocks positioned on the rail of the EXER, preventing the downward movement of the carriage seat and, thus, any countermovement before push-off.F-v relations of lower limb multisegmental neuromuscular systemThe external dynamic mechanical capabilities of the entire lower limb multisegmental neuromuscular system (henceforth called “lower limb”) can be modeled by an inverse linear F-v relation during UL or BL multijoint extension (e.g., Refs. [1,3,26,36,38]). To determine BL F-v relations, each subject performed horizontal maximum BL push-offs against seven randomized motor braking forces: 0%, 40%, 80%, 120%, 160%, 200%, and 240% of his body weight. The condition without braking force (0% of body weight) was performed with the motor chain disconnected from the carriage seat. For each trial, subjects were asked to extend their lower limbs as fast as possible. Two trials, separated by 2 min of recovery, were completed at each braking force. Mean total force (Equation (Uncited)) for the best trial of each condition were determined from the averages of instantaneous values over the entire push-off phase. As previously suggested (3,26,28,30,36), F-v and force–power (F-P) relationships were determined by linear least squares and second-degree polynomial regressions, respectively. F-v curves were then extrapolated to obtain Equation (Uncited), which correspond to the intercepts of the F-v curve with the force and velocity axes, respectively. Maximum power of the lower limbs (Equation (Uncited), then normalized to body + carriage seat mass) was determined from the first mathematical derivation of the F-P regression equations. Moreover, F-v relations were also determined separately for the right and left lower limb during these BL push-offs from the mean force developed on each of the two force plates.Inclined push-off performanceFollowing the procedures described previously, each subject performed two right UL and two left UL inclined maximal push-offs. The sledge angle was set at 20° with respect to the horizontal, and the motor chain was disconnected from the carriage seat (see the diagram of the EXER, Supplemental Digital Content 1, ). The inclined position was set to test BLD in different testing conditions than those used to determine F-v relations, whose variables were then used as inputs in the biomechanical model. As mentioned previously, the mean force was determined for the better trial of each condition Equation (Uncited)and Equation (Uncited)). The push-off distance (hPO) was determined for each subject by integrating the velocity signal over time during the push-off phase. On the other hand, subjects also performed two BL inclined push-offs (α = 20°) to compare Equation (Uncited)values obtained from equations with values measured by the force plates. Furthermore, the mean force developed by each lower limb during these BL push-offs was also quantified (Equation (Uncited)and Equation (Uncited)).Biomechanical modelThe theoretical macroscopic approach used here to analyze BLD in ballistic lower limb push-off considers the mechanical constraints of movement dynamics, as well as the mechanical properties of lower limbs that limit the external force production during push-off. This approach was proposed, detailed, and used elsewhere (29,30). Briefly, from movement dynamics, the velocity of the body center of mass at take-off (vTO) or averaged over push-off (Equation (Uncited)) increases with the increase in the mean external force developed throughout the push-off (Equation (Uncited)(N·kg−1)):Equation (Uncited)Equation (Uncited)with g as the gravitational acceleration (9.81 m·s−2), α the push-off angle with respect to the horizontal (°), and hPO the extension range of the lower limbs determining the distance over which force can be generated (m). This increase in velocity (Equation (Uncited)or vTO), and in turn, the increase in performance, with increasing Equation (Uncited)is represented by the thin line in Figure 1 (hPO = 0.4 m and α = 20°). However, the increase in Equation (Uncited)Equation (Uncited)is limited by the dynamic mechanical capabilities of the force generator, characterized by the lower limb F-v relation (thick line in Fig. 1 for BL action). The maximum Equation (Uncited)lower limbs can produce during one extension can be expressed as a function of Equation (Uncited):FIGURE 1. Theoretical representation of the mechanical constraints imposed by movement dynamics (thin line) and capabilities of lower limb multisegmental neuromuscular system (thick or dashed line) during a typical push-off (hPO = 0.4 m and α = 20°). The thin line represents the take-off velocity as a function of the mean force produced over push-off. The decrease in external force-generating capability of the lower limb with increasing velocity (F-v relationship) is represented by the thick line for both limbs during BL push-off and by the dashed line for a single limb during BL action. All maximum push-offs were performed for optimal mechanical outputs, respecting both the mechanical constraints of movement dynamics and F-v properties. Such specific mechanical outputs are presented for a typical BL maximum push-off (white circle), a typical UL push-off (black circle, arbitrarily fixed should a bilateral deficit occur), and a theoretical UL push-off, during which each limb would present the same external mechanical capabilities as during BL exertions (gray circle). The mechanical outputs for each single limb during the BL push-off is represented by the white diamond (same velocity and halved force compared with the BL push-off). For this representation, with (25 N·kg−1) and (3 m·s−1) correspond to typical values of lower limb capabilities during a human BL the theoretical maximum external force that can be generated over one lower limb extension at a theoretical null velocity (force axis intercept of the F-v curve) and Equation (Uncited)the theoretical maximum velocity of the lower limb extension in unloaded conditions (velocity axis intercept of the F-v curve).The mechanical outputs (Equation (Uncited)) during a maximum ballistic lower limb push-off have to respect both the mechanical constraints imposed by (i) the movement dynamics (vTO and Equation (Uncited)increasing with Equation (Uncited), equations 1 and 2) and by (ii) the mechanical capabilities of the lower limb neuromuscular system (maximum external force-generating capability decreasing with increasing velocity, equation 3). Graphically (Fig. 1), during a BL push-off, these optimal mechanical outputs correspond to the intercept (white circle) of the F-v relation (thick line) and the movement dynamics curve (thin line). The maximum value of vTO (Equation (Uncited)) obtained in this push-off condition can be determined by solving the system formed by equations 1–3. Thus, Equation (Uncited)can be expressed from Equation (Uncited), Equation (Uncited), and hPO:Equation (Uncited)From equations 2–4, the maximum Equation (Uncited)that can be developed during a given push-off can be estimated from the force generator and movement characteristics (Equation (Uncited), Equation (Uncited), hPO, and α). This force value can be computed in UL (Equation (Uncited)) or BL (Equation (Uncited)) push-offs, adjusting the corresponding Equation (Uncited)and Equation (Uncited)values (hPO being the same). Note that Yamauchi et al. (38) showed no difference in Equation (Uncited)between UL and BL lower limb push-off and a lower Equation (Uncited)during UL than BL exertion (37).Moreover, this approach allows one to estimate the theoretical mean force (Equation (Uncited)) that would be developed during UL push-off if each single limb acted independently of the other and presented the same external mechanical capabilities during UL and BL exertions (i.e., the same F-v relation). This purely theoretical situation excludes any neural capability alterations between UL and BL push-offs and attributes to each limb during UL actions the mechanical capabilities that it presents during BL exertions. The dynamic capabilities of a single lower limb during a BL push-off can be described by a linear F-v relation with the same Equation (Uncited)and a halved Equation (Uncited)compared with the F-v curve of both limbs (dashed line in Fig. 1). This is supported by both basic mechanical principles (two independent identical force generators in parallel) and previous experimental results showing similar Equation (Uncited)and lower Equation (Uncited)values during UL than BL actions (37,38). Consequently, the mechanical outputs developed during this theoretical UL push-off (i.e., UL action during which the limb would present the same F-v relation as during BL push-offs) correspond to the intercept (gray circle in Fig. 1) of the F-v relation of one limb during BL action (dashed line) and the movement dynamics curve (thin line in Fig. 1).From Equation (Uncited), Equation (Uncited), and Equation (Uncited), actual BLD and theoretical BLD due only to F-v properties (BLDFv) can be computed as:Equation (Uncited)Equation (Uncited)Thus, BLDFv represents the change in external force only because of a shift along the F-v relation. It would be null during isometric exercise (i.e., when Equation (Uncited)= 0) but not null during ballistic lower limb push-offs. The remaining change in external force is due to the well-known (previously mentioned) neural factors. The relative contribution of the F-v properties to BLD (%BLDFv) can be computed as the ratio between the loss of force due to F-v properties and the loss of force associated with actual BLD:Equation (Uncited)On this basis, Equation (Uncited)and Equation (Uncited)were computed from Equation (Uncited), Equation (Uncited), and hPO for each subject using equations 2–4 for a push-off angle of α = 20°. Then, BLD, BLDFv, and %BLDFv were determined for each subject from equations 5–7 after measuring Equation (Uncited)and Equation (Uncited)during inclined UL (left and right) push-offs.(All these computations are detailed for a typical subject in the Appendix, Supplemental Digital Content 2, .)Equation (Uncited)Statistical analysesAll data are presented as mean ± SD. After checking distributions normality (Shapiro–Wilk test) and variance homogeneity (F test), differences between mean values of , Equation (Uncited), Equation (Uncited), Equation (Uncited), Equation (Uncited), Equation (Uncited), Equation (Uncited)and Equation (Uncited)were analyzed with a one-way ANOVA for repeated measures and Newman–Keuls post hoc tests. Following the same statistical procedure, the characteristics of F-v relations (Equation (Uncited)and Equation (Uncited)) obtained during horizontal BL push-offs were compared between right, left, and both lower limbs. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to assess the associations between BLDFv and F-v mechanical properties (Equation (Uncited)). Furthermore, in case of correlations between these variables, correlation analyses were performed for each variable after adjusting the remaining variables as covariates; each correlation between BLDFv and one F-v mechanical property was tested, controlling the other properties to remove their potential effect as confounding factors. For all statistical analyses, a P value of 0.05 was accepted as the level of significance.RESULTSEquation (Uncited)Individual F-v and F-P relations were accurately fitted by linear (r2 = 0.75–0.99, P ≤ 0.012) and second-degree polynomial (r2 = 0.70–1.00, P ≤ 0.024) regressions, respectively (data of a typical subject in Fig. 2). ANOVA did not show a difference in Equation (Uncited)between considering one or two lower limbs during BL push-offs (P = 0.838), but they demonstrated differences in Equation (Uncited)between these conditions (P < 0.001), with no difference between left and right lower limbs (P = 0.91) (Fig. 2). Mean values ± SD of Equation (Uncited), and hPO characterizing BL F-v relations were 24.2 ± 2.97 N·kg−1, 2.78 ± 0.63 m·s−1, 16.34 ± 2.26 W·kg−1, and 0.39 ± 0.04 m, respectively.Mean values ± SD of FIGURE 2. F-v and F-P relations for a typical subject during BL actions for the right and left lower limbs and for both lower limbs considered together. Solid lines represent the corresponding inverse linear and quadratic least-square regressions, respectively. Each point represents a lower limb push-off.Equation (Uncited)and Equation (Uncited)are presented in Figure 3. All these values were significantly different from each other (P < 0.001), with the exception of right/left comparisons (Equation (Uncited)Equation (Uncited)vs Equation (Uncited), P = 0.86; Equation (Uncited)vs Equation (Uncited), P = 0.87). The external force developed by each lower limb during UL actions was significantly higher than during BL actions (P < 0.001). The external force produced during theoretical UL push-off with BL mechanical capabilities was lower than the force produced during actual UL push-offs but higher than during BL actions (P < 0.001). Consequently, the external force developed by both limbs during BL actions was lower than the sum of forces that each limb can produce during actual UL contractions (the difference representing BLD) and lower than the sum of forces that each limb can produce during theoretical UL push-offs with BL mechanical capabilities (the difference being BLDFv). The resulting BLD, BLDFv, and %BLDFv values were 36.7% ± 5.7%, 19.9% ± 3.6%, and 43.5% ± 9.1%, respectively. The relative contribution of the F-v properties to BLD (%BLDFv) amounted to 43.5%, which was significantly lower than 50% (95% confidence interval for the population mean, 38.2%–48.8%). BLDFv was significantly correlated to Equation (Uncited)and Equation (Uncited)(Table 1). These relations were significant even after controlling for Equation (Uncited)FIGURE 3. From left to right: external force developed over push-off during left unilateral (UL left), right unilateral (UL right), left bilateral (BL left), right bilateral (BL right), theoretical unilateral if each limb presented BL mechanical capabilities (theoretical UL with BL mechanical capabilities), and bilateral (BL both limbs) push-offs; sum of force developed during right and left UL actions (UL left + UL right); twice the force developed during theoretical UL action if each limb presented BL mechanical capabilities (2 × theoretical UL with BL mechanical capabilities). Data are expressed as mean and SD. The actual BLD and the BLD due to the F-v properties (BLDFv) are presented by arrows. All these force values are significantly different, except left and right limb values during both UL and BL conditions.(Table 1, Fig. 4). Contrastingly, neither Equation (Uncited)). Each point represents one subject.nor Equation (Uncited)retained its association with BLDFv once Equation (Uncited)had been statistically controlled. Furthermore, BLD tended to be correlated to Equation (Uncited)(r = −0.47, P = 0.09) but not to Equation (Uncited)(r = 0.27, P = 0.35). The values of the Equation (Uncited)measured during inclined push-off and predicted from equations 2–4 were 1228 ± 192 and 1154 ± 218 N, respectively, with their difference amounting to −73.5 ± 96.4 N, which supports the validity of our computational approach.DISCUSSIONTABLE 1 Correlation coefficients (r) for the associations between BLD due to F-v relation (BLDFv) and lower limb mechanical properties (n = 14).The primary findings of this investigation were that (i) the F-v properties do indeed play an important role in BLD during ballistic lower limb push-off, (ii) a method based on a macroscopic biomechanical model and experimental measurements could be used to individually quantify the contribution of F-v properties to BLD, and (iii) this contribution was related to individual mechanical F-v qualities.This study was based on theoretical developments aiming to describe the mechanical outputs that result from the action of the entire lower limb neuromuscular system and not to model the musculoskeletal structures at the origin of these outputs. The main limit of this approach could be the macroscopic level from which the multisegmental neuromuscular system is considered, inducing (i) the description of its mechanical external capabilities by the empirically determined F-v relations and (ii) the application of principles of dynamics to a whole body considered as a system. (These points have been discussed in Ref. (29).) However, the slight difference (approximately 6.2%) in FIGURE 4. Negative correlation between the individual BLD partly due to the F-v properties (BLDFv) and the individual maximum unloaded velocity (between the experimental measurements and the equation predictions is in line with the accuracy recently reported for this approach (30), which confirms its validity. The F-v linear model used to characterize the dynamic external capabilities of the lower limb neuromuscular system has previously been reinforced and discussed during multijoint lower limb extensions (1,3,26,30,36,38). These overall dynamic external capabilities are the final result of the different mechanisms involved in limb extension and characterize the mechanical limits of the entire in vivo neuromuscular function. They encompass individual muscle mechanical properties (e.g., intrinsic F-v and length–tension relation and rate of force development), some morphological factors (e.g., cross-sectional area, fascicle length, pennation angle, and tendon properties), neural mechanisms (e.g., motor unit recruitment, firing frequency, motor unit synchronization, and intermuscular coordination), and segmental dynamics (1,7–9,38). Consequently, the present macroscopic approach of the F-v relation includes neural mechanisms, contrary to previous studies (2,5,34). However, these neural mechanisms are not directly related to the difficulty in maximally driving both limbs simultaneously. Consequently, the proportion of BLD resulting from the F-v properties can refer to the nonneural component of BLD because it was computed theoretically on the explicit assumption that the entire neuromuscular system of each limb would present the same external mechanical capabilities during UL and BL exertions and, in turn, that no alterations in neural capabilities would occur between these two conditions (equation 6).During ballistic lower limb push-offs, the maximum force each lower limb can produce is lower during BL than UL actions, which was confirmed here by the difference between Equation (Uncited)and Equation (Uncited)(Fig. 3). The resulting BLD values (approximately 35%) were in line with previous studies testing dynamic exertions (2,12,13,27). Note that these BLD values were computed here using Equation (Uncited)values obtained from the equations, and not from those measured, to reduce the effect of measurement errors on the actual interindividual variability in BLDFv. As concluded by Bobbert et al. (2), the origin of the lower force produced by each limb during BL push-off can be divided into two main kinds of mechanisms, neural alterations and the role of F-v properties. The distinction was made here by considering the purely theoretical situation in which each single lower limb presented the same dynamic mechanical capabilities in UL and BL actions (and in turn the same F-v relation, dashed line in Fig. 1), i.e., assuming that no neural capability alterations occurred between UL and BL conditions. Even in this specific theoretical situation, the force each limb could produce during maximum push-offs would be lower during BL than UL actions because of a higher extension velocity. This BLD due to the F-v properties (i.e., BLDFv), brought about by the difference between Equation (Uncited)and 2 Equation (Uncited), would then reach approximately 20%. This gives a relative contribution of the F-v properties to BLD (%BLDFv) slightly lower than 50%. The remaining part of BLD is therefore explained by an alteration between UL and BL exertions in the neural capability to maximally drive both limbs simultaneously, as previously suggested (13,15,27). The external dynamic capabilities of each single limb are thus actually different between UL and BL actions, which can be characterized by different F-v relations. To sum up, when considering the external F-v relation of the entire neuromuscular system of each lower limb, BLD is due to (i) a change in the F-v relation for each limb because of neural alterations (slightly >50% of the BLD, shift from the black to the gray circle in Fig. 1) and (ii) a shift along the F-v relation because of a change in movement velocity (slightly <50% of the BLD, shift from the gray circle to the white diamond in Fig. 1).Even if the theoretical and experimental approaches used here were very different, especially by considering the lower limb neuromuscular system at a more macroscopic level than that of Bobbert et al. (2), the present findings support that the F-v properties do play an important role in determining BLD during ballistic lower limb push-offs, which has often been challenged (5,27,34). From a forward simulation model of the musculoskeletal system, these authors suggested that 75% of the BLD was explained by the increase in extension velocity and 25% by a reduced active state of certain extensor muscles. They attributed this latter part primarily to differences in activation dynamics between BL and UL jumping due to different levels in the muscle active state at the start of the jump. This neural origin was reduced in the present experiment because the lower limbs did not support the body weight in the starting position because of the mechanical blocks preventing downward movements on the EXER, thus preventing any stretch-shortening cycle from occurring. In addition, no deficit in maximum neural drive related to a potential difficulty in driving both limbs simultaneously was incorporated in the model simulations reported by Bobbert et al. This can lead to an underestimation of the effect of neural mechanisms on BLD because maximum voluntary activation of muscles was previously found to be affected by interlimb interactions during BL contractions (15,19,35), even if this has not been systematically observed (22,31). In addition, Bobbert et al. noted differences in the push-off distance between UL and BL experimental jumps, which can also explain differences in BLDFv estimations. However, no difference in push-off distance was observed in the present study between UL and BL conditions (comparison of hPO, P = 0.19), mainly resulting from the mechanically fixed starting position and the configuration of the EXER ergometer. All these points can partly explain the difference in %BLDFv prediction.The change in external force due to the F-v properties (BLDFv), which are variable among subjects, is influenced by individual mechanical properties of the lower limb neuromuscular system. Indeed, BLDFv is highly correlated with maximum force (Equation (Uncited)), velocity (Equation (Uncited)), and power output (Equation (Uncited)) capabilities of the lower limbs (Table 1). As expected, this nonneural contribution to BLD was lower for subjects presenting F-v profiles oriented toward velocity capabilities (i.e., steep F-v curves in Fig. 1), which were characterized by rather low Equation (Uncited)and high Equation (Uncited)values (Table 1, Fig. 4). For such F-v profiles, the decrease in force-generating capability with increasing extension velocity (e.g., during BL push-offs) is reduced, which in turn limits BLDFv. The F-v profile, and in turn, the balance between force and velocity capabilities, thus seem to be the main individual mechanical properties of the neuromuscular system affecting BLDFv. The different mechanical properties analyzed (Equation (Uncited)and Equation (Uncited)) being intercorrelated for the present subject sample, partial correlation analyses were performed to remove potential confounding effects and showed that BLDFv was only related to maximum unloaded velocity (Equation (Uncited)). Given the importance of the balance between force and velocity capabilities (30), one can expect a significant positive relation between BLDFv and Equation (Uncited)even when Equation (Uncited)was statistically controlled. The absence of this relation may be explained by the low interindividual variability in Equation (Uncited)for the sample of subjects tested (coefficient of variation = 9.3% when normalized to total moving mass) as compared with Equation (Uncited)(coefficient of variation = 22.5%) values. Furthermore, even if it also largely depends on neural mechanisms, it is worth noting that BLD tended to be directly correlated to Equation (Uncited), which means that the individuals with low velocity capabilities were those presenting high BLD values and vice versa.These results contribute to new insights into the overall understanding of the BLD during dynamic movements, and especially on the factors that may affect it. Indeed, BLD has often been explored during isometric contractions, whereas the necessity to develop maximum force using BL contractions often occurs during dynamic actions, either in sports activities (e.g., jumping in basketball and volleyball, the starting phase in sprint running, and the throw-in in soccer [11]) or during daily-life activities, such as standing up from a sitting position for the elderly or individuals with Parkinson disease (6,17,20). Note that for these individuals, a sit-to-stand task represents a nonisokinetic dynamic maximum BL effort for which reduced strength or an inability to perform rapid muscle contractions can lead to impaired mobility and eventually to institutionalization (6,20). During such dynamic BL actions, the magnitude of the force production varies among individuals, and these differences can change after training or rehabilitation adaptations. First, the neural capability to maximally drive both limbs simultaneously has been shown to increase with training using BL exertions (18,33). As a result, because BLDFv is negatively correlated to Equation (Uncited), which experimentally supports the logical theoretical causal link between these two variables (see the first section of this article), BLD could be reduced by improving Equation (Uncited). This improvement, corresponding to an increase in the force capability in the high velocity part of the F-v relation, could be achieved through “ballistic” or “power” training using light (e.g., <30% of one repetition maximum [7,8,10,23]) or negative (21) loading.To summarize, the present study confirmed that the bilateral deficit in external force during lower limb push-offs was partly due to the F-v properties (for approximately 43% of BLD), which had hitherto been advanced only by Bobbert et al. (2) and challenged by many others (5,27,34). The contribution of this nonneural factor to BLD depends on the individual mechanical F-v profile of the neuromuscular system: the more the F-v profile is oriented toward velocity capabilities, the lower the loss of force from UL to BL push-offs because of changes in movement velocity. These original findings were obtained through a macroscopic theoretical approach, allowing the distinction between neural and nonneural parts of BLD during ballistic lower limb push-offs, which could be further used for individual athlete or patient evaluations.Equation (Uncited)We thank Alberto Botter (Udine Rugby Football Club) for his help in recruiting the subjects tested and the subjects for their “unilateral and bilateral” involvement in the protocol.We declare that we have no conflict of interest and that no funding was received for this work.The results of the present study do not constitute endorsement by the American College of Sports Medicine.REFERENCES1. Bobbert MF. Why is the force–velocity relationship in leg press tasks quasi-linear rather than hyperbolic? J Appl Physiol. 2012; 112 (12): 1975–83. [Context Link]2. Bobbert MF, de Graaf WW, Jonk JN, Casius LJ. Explanation of the bilateral deficit in human vertical squat jumping. J Appl Physiol. 2006; 100 (2): 493–9. [CrossRef] [Medline Link] [Context Link]3. Bosco C, Belli A, Astrua M, et al. A dynamometer for evaluation of dynamic muscle work. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1995; 70 (5): 379–86. [CrossRef] [Medline Link] [Context Link]4. Bracic M, Supej M, Peharec S, Bacic P, Coh M. An investigation of the influence of bilateral deficit on the counter-movement jump performance in elite sprinters. Kinesiology. 2010; 42 (1): 73–81. [Context Link]5. Challis JH. An investigation of the influence of bi-lateral deficit on human jumping. Hum Mov Sci. 1998; 17 (3): 307–25. [CrossRef] [Medline Link] [Context Link]6. Corcos DM, Chen CM, Quinn NP, McAuley J, Rothwell JC. Strength in Parkinson’s disease: relationship to rate of force generation and clinical status. Ann Neurol. 1996; 39 (1): 79–88. [CrossRef] [Medline Link] [Context Link]7. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Adaptations in athletic performance after ballistic power versus strength training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010; 42 (8): 1582–98. [CrossRef] [Full Text] [Medline Link] [Context Link]8. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Influence of strength on magnitude and mechanisms of adaptation to power training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010; 42 (8): 1566–81. [CrossRef] [Full Text] [Medline Link] [Context Link]9. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Developing maximal neuromuscular power: part 1—biological basis of maximal power production. Sports Med. 2011; 41 (1): 17–38. [CrossRef] [Full Text] [Medline Link] [Context Link]10. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Developing maximal neuromuscular power: part 2—training considerations for improving maximal power production. Sports Med. 2011; 41 (2): 125–46. [CrossRef] [Full Text] [Medline Link] [Context Link]11. Dickin DC, Sandow R, Dolny DG. Bilateral deficit in power production during multi-joint leg extensions. Eur J Sport Sci. 2011; 11 (6): 437–45. [Context Link]12. Dickin DC, Too D. Effects of movement velocity and maximal concentric and eccentric actions on the bilateral deficit. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2006; 77 (3): 296–303. [CrossRef] [Medline Link] [Context Link]13. Hay D, de Souza VA, Fukashiro S. Human bilateral deficit during a dynamic multi-joint leg press movement. Hum Mov Sci. 2006; 25 (2): 181–91. [CrossRef] [Medline Link] [Context Link]14. Hill AV. The heat of shortening and the dynamic constants of muscle. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1938; 126B: 136–95. [Context Link]15. Howard JD, Enoka RM. Maximum bilateral contractions are modified by neurally mediated interlimb effects. J Appl Physiol. 1991; 70 (1): 306–16. [Medline Link] [Context Link]16. Jakobi JM, Chilibeck PD. Bilateral and unilateral contractions: possible differences in maximal voluntary force. Can J Appl Physiol. 2001; 26 (1): 12–33. [CrossRef] [Medline Link] [Context Link]17. Janssen WG, Bussmann HB, Stam HJ. Determinants of the sit-to-stand movement: a review. Phys Ther. 2002; 82 (9): 866–79. [Medline Link] [Context Link]18. Janzen CL, Chilibeck PD, Davison KS. The effect of unilateral and bilateral strength training on the bilateral deficit and lean tissue mass in post-menopausal women. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006; 97 (3): 253–60. [CrossRef] [Medline Link] [Context Link]19. Kuruganti U, Murphy T. Bilateral deficit expressions and myoelectric signal activity during submaximal and maximal isometric knee extensions in young, athletic males. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008; 102 (6): 721–6. [Medline Link] [Context Link]20. Mak MK, Levin O, Mizrahi J, Hui-Chan CW. Joint torques during sit-to-stand in healthy subjects and people with Parkinson’s disease. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2003; 18 (3): 197–206. [Context Link]21. Markovic G, Vuk S, Jaric S. Effects of jump training with negative versus positive loading on jumping mechanics. Int J Sports Med. 2011; 32: 365–72. [CrossRef] [Medline Link] [Context Link]22. Matkowski B, Martin A, Lepers R. Comparison of maximal unilateral versus bilateral voluntary contraction force. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011; 111 (8): 1571–8. [CrossRef] [Medline Link] [Context Link]23. McBride JM, Triplett-McBride T, Davie A, Newton RU. The effect of heavy- vs. light-load jump squats on the development of strength, power, and speed. J Strength Cond Res 2002; 16 (1): 75–82. [CrossRef] [Full Text] [Medline Link] [Context Link]24. Oda S, Moritani T. Maximal isometric force and neural activity during bilateral and unilateral elbow flexion in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1994; 69 (3): 240–3. [CrossRef] [Medline Link] [Context Link]25. Ohtsuki T. Decrease in human voluntary isometric arm strength induced by simultaneous bilateral exertion. Behav Brain Res. 1983; 7 (2): 165–78. [CrossRef] [Medline Link] [Context Link]26. Rahmani A, Viale F, Dalleau G, Lacour JR. Force/velocity and power/velocity relationships in squat exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2001; 84 (3): 227–32. [CrossRef] [Medline Link] [Context Link]27. Rejc E, Lazzer S, Antonutto G, Isola M, di Prampero PE. Bilateral deficit and EMG activity during explosive lower limb contractions against different overloads. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010; 108 (1): 157–65. [CrossRef] [Medline Link] [Context Link]28. Samozino P, Horvais N, Hintzy F. Why does power output decrease at high pedaling rates during sprint cycling? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007; 39 (4): 680–7. [Context Link]29. Samozino P, Morin JB, Hintzy F, Belli A. Jumping ability: a theoretical integrative approach. J Theor Biol. 2010; 264 (1): 11–8. [CrossRef] [Medline Link] [Context Link]30. Samozino P, Rejc E, Di Prampero PE, Belli A, Morin JB. Optimal force-velocity profile in ballistic movements—altius: citius or fortius? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012; 44 (2): 313–22. [Context Link]31. Schantz PG, Moritani T, Karlson E, Johansson E, Lundh A. Maximal voluntary force of bilateral and unilateral leg extension. Acta Physiol Scand. 1989; 136 (2): 185–92. [CrossRef] [Medline Link] [Context Link]32. Secher NH, Rorsgaard S, Secher O. Contralateral influence on recruitment of curarized muscle fibres during maximal voluntary extension of the legs. Acta Physiol Scand. 1978; 103 (4): 456–62. [CrossRef] [Medline Link] [Context Link]33. Taniguchi Y. Lateral specificity in resistance training: the effect of bilateral and unilateral training. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1997; 75 (2): 144–50. [CrossRef] [Medline Link] [Context Link]34. van Soest AJ, Roebroeck ME, Bobbert MF, Huijing PA, van Ingen Schenau GJ. A comparison of one-legged and two-legged countermovement jumps. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1985; 17 (6): 635–9. [CrossRef] [Full Text] [Medline Link] [Context Link]35. Vandervoort AA, Sale DG, Moroz J. Comparison of motor unit activation during unilateral and bilateral leg extension. J Appl Physiol. 1984; 56 (1): 46–51. [Medline Link] [Context Link]36. Yamauchi J, Ishii N. Relations between force-velocity characteristics of the knee–hip extension movement and vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2007; 21 (3): 703–9. [CrossRef] [Full Text] [Medline Link] [Context Link]37. Yamauchi J, Mishima C, Fujiwara M, Nakayama S, Ishii N. Steady-state force–velocity relation in human multi-joint movement determined with force clamp analysis. J Biomech. 2007; 40 (7): 1433–42. [CrossRef] [Medline Link] [Context Link]38. Yamauchi J, Mishima C, Nakayama S, Ishii N. Force–velocity, force–power relationships of bilateral and unilateral leg multi-joint movements in young and elderly women. J Biomech. 2009; 42 (13): 2151–7. [CrossRef] [Medline Link] [Context Link] UNILATERAL LOWER LIMB EXTENSION; EXPLOSIVE PUSH-OFF; NEURAL ALTERATION; MUSCLE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES; POWER OUTPUT(25 N·kg−1) and (3 m·s−1) correspond to typical values of lower limb capabilities during a human BL push-off.). Each point represents one|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R2-16))|11065213||ovftdb|SL00004560200610049311065213P374[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R2-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL00004560200610049311065405P374[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R3-16))|11065213||ovftdb|SL0000364719957037911065213P375[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R3-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL0000364719957037911065405P375[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R5-16))|11065213||ovftdb|SL0001218219981730711065213P377[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R5-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL0001218219981730711065405P377[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R6-16))|11065213||ovftdb|SL000006681996397911065213P378[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R6-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL000006681996397911065405P378[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R7-16))|11065213||ovftdb|00005768-201008000-00018SL00005768201042158211065213P379[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R7-16))|11065404||ovftdb|00005768-201008000-00018SL00005768201042158211065404P379[Full Text]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R7-16))|11065405||ovftdb|00005768-201008000-00018SL00005768201042158211065405P379[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R8-16))|11065213||ovftdb|00005768-201008000-00017SL00005768201042156611065213P380[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R8-16))|11065404||ovftdb|00005768-201008000-00017SL00005768201042156611065404P380[Full Text]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R8-16))|11065405||ovftdb|00005768-201008000-00017SL00005768201042156611065405P380[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R9-16))|11065213||ovftdb|00007256-201141010-00002SL000072562011411711065213P381[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R9-16))|11065404||ovftdb|00007256-201141010-00002SL000072562011411711065404P381[Full Text]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R9-16))|11065405||ovftdb|00007256-201141010-00002SL000072562011411711065405P381[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R10-16))|11065213||ovftdb|00007256-201141020-00003SL0000725620114112511065213P382[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R10-16))|11065404||ovftdb|00007256-201141020-00003SL0000725620114112511065404P382[Full Text]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R10-16))|11065405||ovftdb|00007256-201141020-00003SL0000725620114112511065405P382[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R12-16))|11065213||ovftdb|SL0000696620067729611065213P384[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R12-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL0000696620067729611065405P384[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R13-16))|11065213||ovftdb|SL0001218220062518111065213P385[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R13-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL0001218220062518111065405P385[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R15-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL0000456019917030611065405P387[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R16-16))|11065213||ovftdb|SL000085332001261211065213P388[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R16-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL000085332001261211065405P388[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R17-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL0000651320028286611065405P389[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R18-16))|11065213||ovftdb|SL0000364720069725311065213P390[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R18-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL0000364720069725311065405P390[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R19-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL00003647200810272111065405P391[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R21-16))|11065213||ovftdb|SL0000435520113236511065213P393[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R21-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL0000435520113236511065405P393[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R22-16))|11065213||ovftdb|SL000036472011111157111065213P394[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R22-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL000036472011111157111065405P394[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R23-16))|11065213||ovftdb|00124278-200202000-00011SL001242782002167511065213P395[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R23-16))|11065404||ovftdb|00124278-200202000-00011SL001242782002167511065404P395[Full Text]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R23-16))|11065405||ovftdb|00124278-200202000-00011SL001242782002167511065405P395[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R24-16))|11065213||ovftdb|SL0000364719946924011065213P396[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R24-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL0000364719946924011065405P396[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R25-16))|11065213||ovftdb|SL000019741983716511065213P397[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R25-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL000019741983716511065405P397[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R26-16))|11065213||ovftdb|SL0000364720018422711065213P398[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R26-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL0000364720018422711065405P398[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R27-16))|11065213||ovftdb|SL00003647201010815711065213P399[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R27-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL00003647201010815711065405P399[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R29-16))|11065213||ovftdb|SL0000535420102641111065213P401[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R29-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL0000535420102641111065405P401[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R31-16))|11065213||ovftdb|SL00000191198913618511065213P403[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R31-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL00000191198913618511065405P403[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R32-16))|11065213||ovftdb|SL00000191197810345611065213P404[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R32-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL00000191197810345611065405P404[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R33-16))|11065213||ovftdb|SL0000364719977514411065213P405[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R33-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL0000364719977514411065405P405[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R34-16))|11065213||ovftdb|00005768-198512000-00002SL0000576819851763511065213P406[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R34-16))|11065404||ovftdb|00005768-198512000-00002SL0000576819851763511065404P406[Full Text]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R34-16))|11065405||ovftdb|00005768-198512000-00002SL0000576819851763511065405P406[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R35-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL000045601984564611065405P407[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R36-16))|11065213||ovftdb|00124278-200708000-00009SL0012427820072170311065213P408[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R36-16))|11065404||ovftdb|00124278-200708000-00009SL0012427820072170311065404P408[Full Text]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R36-16))|11065405||ovftdb|00124278-200708000-00009SL0012427820072170311065405P408[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R37-16))|11065213||ovftdb|SL00004617200740143311065213P409[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R37-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL00004617200740143311065405P409[Medline Link]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R38-16))|11065213||ovftdb|SL00004617200942215111065213P410[CrossRef]|00005768-201401000-00016#xpointer(id(R38-16))|11065405||ovftdb|SL00004617200942215111065405P410[Medline Link]Force–Velocity Properties&#8217; Contribution to Bilateral Deficit during Ballistic Push-offSamozino, Pierre; Rejc, Enrico; di Prampero, Pietro Enrico; Belli, Alain; Morin, Jean-BenoîtApplied Sciences146