Task-Specificity and Agreement of Force–Velocity Profiles Across Sprinting, Jumping, and Squatting

This research project investigates whether force–velocity characteristics represent a general neuromuscular capacity or whether they are primarily task-specific and dependent on the testing modality. Sprint acceleration performance is a key determinant of success in many sports and is largely influenced by an athlete’s ability to generate high levels of force within very short time frames. To better understand these neuromuscular determinants, force–velocity profiling (FVP) approaches were established. FVP describe mechanical performance through parameters such as maximal theoretical force (F₀), maximal theoretical velocity (V₀), and maximal power output (Pmax). These profiles are increasingly used to guide individualised training interventions, especially in sprint and strength development contexts. FVP can be derived from different types of movements. Sprint-based profiling captures horizontal force production and the effectiveness of force application during acceleration, which is highly relevant for sport-specific sprint performance. In contrast, vertical jump-based profiling, commonly assessed using the countermovement jump (CMJ), provides a standardised and widely used measure of explosive lower-body performance and is frequently applied in athletic diagnostics. Additionally, resistance training methods often rely on load–velocity profiling (LVP), particularly in exercises such as the back squat, to estimate relative intensity and monitor training adaptation. While these methods are conceptually related, current evidence suggests that the relationships between profiles derived from different movement patterns (e.g., vertical jumping vs. horizontal sprinting) may be limited, with previous research reporting only low to moderate correlations between modalities. A major unresolved question is therefore whether athletes can be meaningfully classified as “force-dominant” or “velocity-dominant” across different testing approaches, or whether such classifications only apply within a specific task. Clarifying this issue is important for both scientific understanding and applied practice, as it determines whether general strength diagnostics (such as CMJ or squat testing) can be reliably used to infer sprint-specific mechanical capabilities and inform sprint training decisions. To address this research gap, the present study systematically examines the relationships between FVP obtained from three distinct test modalities: sprint acceleration testing, countermovement jump testing under multiple external load conditions, and loaded squat assessments. These tests represent different regions of the force–velocity continuum. The CMJ reflects a ballistic, reactive movement with high time constraints and predominantly vertical force production. The squat represents a controlled strength exercise performed under external loads, allowing detailed assessment of force output under slower contraction velocities. Sprint testing represents a highly dynamic, cyclic whole-body movement where horizontal force generation and the ability to apply force effectively to the ground are critical for acceleration performance. By comparing these modalities, the study aims to determine the extent of agreement or divergence in key FVP parameters (F₀, V₀, Pmax) across tasks and to identify whether individual mechanical profiles remain stable across different performance contexts. The expected outcomes of this research include a clearer understanding of how strongly force–velocity parameters derived from different modalities are related and whether force–velocity dominance can be interpreted as a general athletic characteristic. It is anticipated that sprint-derived FVP will show only limited overlap with vertical jump and squat-derived profiles due to the biomechanical and coordinative differences between horizontal sprinting and vertical or controlled resistance exercises. Overall, the findings are expected to contribute to a deeper scientific understanding of neuromuscular performance determinants and provide practical implications for performance diagnostics and individualised training prescription. By identifying whether general strength and jump diagnostics can meaningfully predict sprint-specific mechanical performance, the study may support more efficient testing strategies and improved evidence-based training decisions.