Determining force-velocity isokinetic capacities to individualize muscle strengthening in sports rehabilitation.
Ayrton Moiroux-Sahraoui, Florian Forelli, Pierre Samozino
PMID 41777443WHAT IT FOUND
The argument here is that testing strength at one movement speed hides why a patient can hit a strength target yet still move slowly.
Sampling several speeds, the authors say, tells you what to train. No patients were tested.
What this paper is
This is a narrative review and clinical reasoning framework, not a study. It argues that reporting peak torque at a single testing speed hides why a patient can hit a strength target and still move slowly, and it proposes sampling several angular velocities so the resulting force-velocity profile can show whether the limit is producing force or producing it quickly. It then sketches a workflow for using that profile to choose exercises and re-test. No patients were tested, no outcomes were measured and no data are reported, so there is no finding here to act on.
What it does not show
This is a framework paper. No patients were assessed and no outcomes were measured, so nothing here shows that force-velocity profiling improves exercise selection, progression or return to activity. The authors themselves note that for some joints, such as the knee extensors, the speeds isokinetic devices can test at are not wide enough to capture the full force-velocity capacity, so further work is needed on this point. Isokinetic testing is single-joint and open-chain, at angular velocities well below those seen in sport-specific movement, so the profile may not carry over directly to functional performance.
Declared interests
The authors report no conflicts of interest. No funding source and no sponsor role is stated in the text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that force-velocity profiling works. No patients were tested and nothing was measured, so the claim that profiling sharpens exercise choice, speeds progression and improves return-to-activity planning is an argument, not a result.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →