Back

Beyond Imbalance: An Elasticity Framework for the Distance-averaged Force-Velocity Relationship in Vertical Jump

Li, Z.; Li, M.; Zhang, X.; Chen, Z.; Yang, L.; Li, Q.

2026-09-02 biophysics
10.64898/2026.09.01.748530 bioRxiv
Show abstract

This study aimed to (1) establish the distance-averaged F-V relationship framework and (2) develop elasticity metrics that quantify how F-V relationship variables govern jump height and inform training prescription. Theoretical derivation and experimental validation across 108 F-V relationship models derived from 1578 jumps (countermovement jump and squat jump at three knee angles; 20 well-trained subjects) yielded a standard error of 2.1% and a nearly perfect correlation (r = 0.96, p < 0.001) between measured and predicted jump height. Four elasticity metrics were formulated: force elasticity (F_{e}), the elasticity of jump height to maximal force (F_{0}); velocity elasticity (v_{e}), the elasticity of jump height to maximal velocity (v_{0}); the force-velocity elasticity norm {(\mathrm{F}-\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{EN}}=\sqrt{F_{e}^{2}+v_{e}^{2}}), reflecting the overall sensitivity of jump height to changes in F-V relationship variables; and the force-velocity elasticity ratio {(\mathrm{F}-\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{ER}}=F_{e}{\div v}_{e}), indicating which variable dominates the jump height response. Simulations and experiments revealed that F_{e} bore an inverse relationship to F_{0}, and v_{e} was inversely related to v_{0}, reflecting diminishing marginal returns. At a fixed jump height, simulations showed {\mathrm{F}-\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{EN}} and {\mathrm{F}-\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{ER}} displayed a U-shaped relationship; a balanced profile ({\mathrm{F}-\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{ER}}=1) did not always correspond to the lowest {\mathrm{F}-\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{EN}}. The distance-averaged F-V elasticity framework offers a physically grounded and quantitative tool for linking F-V relationship variables directly to jump performance, providing a basis for informing individualized training decisions.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.