Comparative Effects of Movement-Pattern-Oriented and Isometric Training on Neuromechanical Performance in Track and Field Athletes

Abstract

Optimizing the neuromechanical determinants of explosive performance remains a key objective in sports science. This study compared the effects of an eight-week movement-pattern-based training program (MPT) with an isometric strength training protocol (ITG) on countermovement jump (CMJ) mechanics in competitive track and field athletes. Thirty-four athletes (19 men, 15 women) with ≥7 years of training experience were randomly allocated to the MPT or ITG. Pre- and post-intervention assessments were conducted using dual force plates to evaluate jump height, musculotendinous stiffness, concentric and eccentric impulses, contraction time, eccentric-to-concentric force ratio, and rate of force development (RFD). The MPT elicited significant gains in stiffness (Δ = +840.94 ± 1302.21 N/m; p = 0.002), maintained concentric peak force, and reduced contraction time (Δ = –64.53 ± 190.32 ms; p = 0.01), suggesting improved elastic efficiency and neuromuscular timing. Conversely, ITG was associated with reductions in concentric peak force (Δ = –66.18 ± 77.45 N; p = 0.003) and stiffness (Δ = –691.94 ± 1414.41 N/m) and an increase in the eccentric-to-concentric force ratio (Δ = +1.99%; p = 0.006). The RFD changes were inconsistent across both groups. These findings indicate that dynamic multi-joint training confers superior neuromechanical adaptations compared to isolated isometric loading. From a performance perspective, programming strategies should prioritize movement-specific dynamic tasks to enhance the explosive qualities critical for sprinting, jumping, and multidirectional field sports.

1. Introduction

High-level performance in track and field events requires a highly specialized integration of neuromuscular coordination, dynamic force production, and precise movement control [1]. Explosive tasks, such as sprinting, depend not only on maximal strength or power output but also on the precise timing, regulation, and redirection of force throughout the movement cycle. As performance margins in elite athletics continue to narrow, the optimization of neuromechanical variables has become increasingly critical [2].

In high-performance sports, the capacity to generate, regulate, and absorb force with precision is a decisive determinant of athletic success. Traditional strength training programs, such as isotonic resistance training and plyometric exercises, have long been recognized as effective strategies for developing lower limb power and movement efficiency [3]. However, emerging research has emphasized the additional benefits of alternative modalities, including isometric training and movement-pattern-based interventions, particularly in neuromuscular control, functional transfer of strength, and injury prevention [4].

Isometric training, defined as the generation of muscular tension without joint displacement, has attracted increasing scientific interest because of its capacity to enhance early phase force production, joint-specific stability, and muscle–tendon stiffness [5,6,7]. Evidence indicates that isometric protocols can significantly improve peak force output, tendon compliance, and rate of force development (RFD), particularly within the first 50 to 200 ms of contraction, an interval that is especially relevant to reactive sports actions [8]. These adaptations are thought to arise from reduced neural inhibition and enhanced motor unit recruitment, making isometric training a valuable method for injury-prone or post-rehabilitation populations to regain and improve their strength. Nevertheless, the extent to which isometric strength improvements translate to dynamic and sport-specific performance remains a subject of debate [9].

In contrast, movement-pattern training emphasizes exercises that replicate the kinematic and kinetic demands of sport-specific actions. These programs are designed to reinforce joint sequencing, motor control, and intermuscular coordination under dynamic and multidirectional conditions [10,11]. Recent findings suggest that movement-pattern training improves not only force output but also the quality of movement execution, with particular benefits for eccentric control, braking efficiency, and impulse regulation [12,13]. These adaptations are believed to facilitate smoother transitions between the loading and propulsion phases, thereby contributing to a greater movement economy and enhanced athletic performance.

The neuromuscular system plays a decisive role in explosive force generation, which is fundamental to track-and-field events. Sprint performance is strongly influenced by neural drive, muscle activation strategies, and the ability to generate force rapidly [14,15]. The rate of force development (RFD) has been identified as a key neuromechanical determinant of success in explosive sports, as it reflects both muscular strength and efficiency of neural activation patterns [8,16].

Importantly, the assessment of RFD across specific time intervals provides greater diagnostic value than the use of peak RFD alone, as it allows practitioners to identify deficits or asymmetries at specific stages of the force–time curve [17,18,19,20]. Early phase RFD (<100 ms) is predominantly governed by neural drive, whereas late-phase RFD (>100 ms) reflects the combined contributions of neural and muscular factors [8,16,17].

Moreover, higher musculotendinous stiffness has been shown to facilitate faster and more effective utilization of the stretch–shortening cycle (SSC), a fundamental mechanism underlying rapid force production and efficient force transmission during explosive movements [17,18].

Meanwhile, SSC efficiency can be reliably assessed using the countermovement jump (CMJ), which provides insight into key parameters such as jump height, peak power, and eccentric–concentric force ratios [19]. Previous research on track-and-field athletes has shown that sprinters typically display higher RFD and more effective SSC utilization than athletes from other disciplines, underscoring the relevance of these parameters for sprint performance [21].

Impulse-related variables, such as concentric impulse (force applied during propulsion) and eccentric impulses (including braking, deceleration, and unloading), further illustrate how athletes manage external loads during the transitional phases of movement [22]. These metrics are functionally significant because they directly reflect momentum changes and overall movement efficiency in dynamic athletic contexts. Eccentric braking and deceleration impulses are of particular importance, as they are critical for jump landings and sprint stops, whereas concentric impulses are closely linked to acceleration and take-off ability [23].

Additional critical indicators include contraction time and the braking-to-contraction time ratio, both of which provide information on an athlete’s neuromuscular responsiveness and control during high-intensity dynamic actions. Shorter contraction times and more favorable ratios indicate faster muscle activation and superior readiness to transition between the eccentric and concentric phases. Furthermore, the eccentric-to-concentric mean force ratio serves as a functional index of muscle balance, reflecting how effectively athletes can absorb and redirect force. Finally, the force at zero velocity quantifies the ability to produce isometric strength, offering a valuable measure of static or initial capacity [24].

Despite the growing recognition of these mechanisms, there is a lack of comparative research examining the differential influence of isometric versus movement-pattern-based training on this broad spectrum of neuromechanical outcomes, particularly in elite track-and-field athletes. To address this gap, the present study investigated the effects of an eight-week intervention involving either isometric or movement-pattern training on a comprehensive set of biomechanical variables [25].

By directly comparing these two distinct training modalities, this study aimed to provide novel insights into the mechanisms by which neuromechanical efficiency can be optimized in elite athletes [26]. We hypothesized that movement-pattern-based training would elicit greater improvements in dynamic and coordination-dependent variables, whereas isometric training would selectively enhance force production in static or joint-specific contexts.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

Participants were randomly assigned to one of two intervention groups: movement-pattern training (MPT) or isometric training (ISO), each lasting 8 weeks. The MPT focused on redefining and optimizing functional movement patterns through dynamic, sport-specific drills. The ISO performed unilateral isometric exercises targeting the major muscle groups involved in sprinting and jumping mechanics. To ensure comparability between the protocols, the duration of tension in the ISO exercises matched the neuromuscular activation time observed in the dynamic (MPT) exercises.

2.2. Participants

Thirty-four competitive track and field athletes (n = 34; 19 men and 15 women) volunteered to participate in this study. All athletes were members of the Polish national athletics teams (youth or senior squads) and active members of the Academic Sports Association (AZS) at the Academy of Physical Education in Katowice, Poland. Each participant had achieved the qualifying standards required to compete at the Polish National Championships, ensuring that all represented a high-performance competitive level. Personal best times in the 100 m sprint ranged from 12.50 to 11.33 s among female athletes (U18 to senior categories) and from 10.98 to 10.44 s among male athletes (U18 to senior categories). Each participant had a minimum of seven years of structured training experience, was free from lower limb injuries within the previous six months, and had no history of neuromuscular or orthopedic disorders. All athletes were medically cleared for competitive sports in accordance with the Polish Athletics Federation regulations and demonstrated the ability to perform maximal-effort CMJ tasks.

The male participants were aged 20 ± 1.8 years, with a height of 173 ± 8 cm, body mass of 72 ± 6.4 kg, and body fat percentage of 8 ± 3.6%. The female participants were aged 19 ± 0.8 years, with a height of 164.5 ± 7.2 cm, body mass of 53.3 ± 6.2 kg, and body fat percentage of 12 ± 3.2%. Body composition was assessed using a multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analyzer (InBody 770; Biospace Co., Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea). Measurements were performed in the morning, under standardized conditions (fasted, euhydrated, and after voiding), and immediately prior to baseline performance testing. This ensured that the body mass and composition data were synchronized with the initial neuromechanical assessments.

All athletes were assessed at the beginning of the preparatory period and immediately after the transitional break. At the time of the intervention, they were reintroducing structured training loads, representing an early stage of their annual training cycle.

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants and, where applicable, from their legal guardians. The study and training intervention were carried out within the framework of a research grant funded by the Ministry of Sport and Tourism of the Republic of Poland (Supporting Scientific Projects in Elite Sport in 2024, grant no. RPW/8725/2024), in collaboration with the Polish Athletics Association. All participants were informed in detail about the study’s aims, procedures, potential benefits, and risks. The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee for Scientific Research at the Academy of Physical Education in Katowice, Poland (approval no. 3/2021) and conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki (2013). All data were anonymized and stored confidentially, with access restricted to the research team.

2.3. Training Protocol

Participants (n = 34) were randomly assigned to one of two intervention groups: run-specific isometric training group (ITG) (n = 17) and movement-pattern-based training (MPT) (n = 17). Each program lasted for eight weeks, with three supervised training sessions per week, led by certified strength and conditioning coaches. Moreover, both interventions were implemented under low external loading conditions, as the training stimulus was novel for the participants and was designed to avoid excessive fatigue during the early preparatory phase. This approach ensured progressive adaptation while minimizing the risk of overload in athletes returning after the transition period. All training sessions were supervised by experienced strength and conditioning instructors to ensure correct exercise execution, adherence to the prescribed loads, and participant safety throughout the intervention.

2.3.1. ISO Group–Isometric Strength Protocol

The ISO group completed an isometric strength training protocol designed to selectively target the primary lower limb joints responsible for force production in explosive locomotor tasks. Three standardized exercises were implemented to emphasize the hip, knee, and ankle joints of the dominant leg. Immovable resistance was generated using racks with the bar positioned against locked safety pins. The height of the bar and pin position were individually adjusted to correspond to the athlete’s joint angles identified during pre-testing. The athletes were instructed to apply maximal voluntary effort against the immovable bar for the prescribed contraction duration while maintaining a stable posture and avoiding compensatory movements. Standardized verbal encouragement was provided for all repetitions to ensure maximal effort. Each contraction was executed with maximal voluntary effort for 5 s, repeated three times across two sets, with a 10 s rest between repetitions and a 1 min rest between sets. This standardized setup ensured the reproducibility of the loading conditions across participants and sessions.

• Hip Iso-Push (Supine Hip Extension)

The participants performed this exercise while lying supine on the floor, with their hips and knees flexed to approximately 90° and their feet placed shoulder-width apart. A loaded barbell was positioned firmly across the pelvis and secured to provide an immovable resistance point. From this position, the athletes executed a maximal voluntary isometric contraction by forcefully driving their hips up against the bar. The primary emphasis was on the gluteus maximus, hamstrings, and spinal erectors while maintaining a neutral spine and stable trunk posture.

2.

Split-Squat Iso-Push (Isometric Lunge Position)

From a split-squat stance with the lead knee flexed to ~90–100° and a fixed barbell stabilized across the shoulders, participants exerted maximal vertical force through the lead limb. This exercise primarily engages the quadriceps, glutes, and hamstrings, while also requiring trunk stabilization, thereby replicating the unilateral force demands characteristic of sprint-specific mechanics.

3.

Ankle Iso-Push (Heel-Raised Plantarflexion)

In an upright stance with the ankle held in slight plantar flexion (0–10°) and heels elevated, athletes generated maximal downward force through the forefoot against an immovable bar. This drill emphasizes the activation of the gastrocnemius–soleus complex and intrinsic foot stabilizers, ensuring precise ankle joint force production (Figure 1).

All efforts were performed with maximal intent and controlled respiration while seated. Trained supervisors provided real-time feedback to standardize the posture, contraction quality, and neuromuscular activation. This protocol was designed to optimize the peak force, rate of force development, and joint-specific stiffness at the hip, knee, and ankle.

2.3.2. MPT Group—Dynamic Pattern-Matched Protocol

The MPT group performed an 8-week dynamic strength program designed to replicate the joint demands of isometric tasks under movement conditions. The program aimed to enhance functional strength, explosive power, and intermuscular coordination of the hip, knee, and ankle. Exercises were performed unilaterally with progressive loading: body weight in weeks 1–2, dumbbells corresponding to 5% body mass in weeks 3–5, and 10% in weeks 6–8. Each session comprised three primary exercises, performed for five sets of ten repetitions per limb, with 60 s rest intervals. In the MPT group, external loads were prescribed relative to body mass (5–10% BM). Body mass was recorded at baseline and re-checked prior to the week 6 progression to ensure that the prescribed external load remained accurate.

• Knee-Dominant Exercise

Explosive Bulgarian Split-Squat Jump. Athletes performed repeated split-squat jumps into a low platform while holding dumbbells. Emphasis was placed on minimizing ground contact time, producing maximal vertical propulsion, and maintaining symmetrical landing mechanics. This drill targeted concentric force generation through the quadriceps and hip extensors under dynamic conditions.

2.

Hip-Dominant Exercise (Single-Leg Dynamic Hip Thrust with Overhead Press)

With the upper back supported on a bench, participants executed unilateral explosive hip extensions combined with an overhead dumbbell press. The integration of upper- and lower-body actions promoted trunk stabilization, posterior chain recruitment, and neuromuscular timing, reflecting the dynamic equivalent of the hip iso-push.

3.

Ankle-Dominant Exercise—Split-Stance Calf Power Hop with Overhead Press

In a staggered stance, athletes performed reactive hops on the rear leg while simultaneously pressing dumbbells overhead. This exercise emphasized rapid stretch-shortening cycle utilization of the plantar flexors, balance control, and upper-limb coordination, corresponding to the dynamic analog of the ankle iso-push (Figure 1).

The protocol was designed to promote explosive power, lower limb stiffness, and intersegmental coordination across the hip, knee, and ankle joints, integrating whole-body stabilization to reflect the demands of sprinting performance. The combination of joint sequencing, force redirection, and high-velocity output provides a functional stimulus designed to reinforce neuromuscular coordination in dynamic contexts. Moreover, all MPT exercises were performed with maximal explosive intent; athletes were consistently instructed to move the external load (5–10% of body mass) as fast as possible in every repetition. This velocity-based effort ensured that the relative neuromuscular intensity was maximized, despite the lighter external load. The training volume was equated between the groups by matching the number of sets, repetitions, contraction durations, and rest intervals. The ISO group performed maximal voluntary contractions against an immovable resistance, while the MPT group emphasized peak movement velocity with external load, providing comparable relative effort within the constraints of each modality.

Warm-Up Protocol

Before each training session, all participants (both in the ISO and MPT groups) completed a standardized warm-up that lasted approximately 10 min. The protocol was designed to elevate the core body temperature, activate key muscle groups, enhance joint mobility, and prepare the neuromuscular system for unilateral lower-limb dominant exercises performed in the training protocols.

The warm-up was performed in the following sequence:

1. General locomotor phase (≈3 min): jogging (60 s), skipping (30 s), high-knees (30 s), butt kicks (30 s), side shuffles (30 s), and carioca drills (30 s).

2. Mobility and activation phase (≈4 min): dynamic leg swings in the sagittal and frontal planes (10 repetitions per leg), walking lunges with trunk rotation (10 repetitions per side), inchworms with push-ups (6 repetitions), and glute bridges (10 repetitions).

3. Neuromuscular activation phase (≈3 min): A-skips (20 m), reactive ankle pogo jumps (20 ground contacts), and bodyweight squat jumps (10 repetitions).

4. Exercise-specific rehearsal: 1–2 unloaded or lightly loaded practice repetitions of the main exercises planned for the day.

This structured warm-up was identical for all participants and across all sessions, ensuring consistency and reliability in physiological and neural readiness while avoiding pre-fatigue before the main training load.

Performance Assessment

Given that the study was conducted at the very beginning of the preparatory period, directly following the athletes’ off-season break, we prioritized safe and ecologically valid testing methods. Maximal strength assessments (e.g., 1-RM), sprint tests, and long jump evaluations were deliberately excluded, as previous research has shown that maximal efforts performed immediately after a detraining period may increase the risk of overload or musculoskeletal injury [14,16].

Instead, the CMJ was selected as the primary neuromuscular assessment because it is widely used by practitioners, safe, non-invasive, and repeatable, even during the early phases of reconditioning. Importantly, CMJ analysis extends beyond jump height and includes a broad set of force-platform-derived variables capturing both concentric and eccentric phases of the movement.

CMJ performance was assessed using dual force plates (ForceDecks, VALD Performance, Australia), a validated system for quantifying vertical jump performance. Before each trial, the participants stood motionless for 3 s to determine their body mass and the baseline force. With hands on the hips and feet shoulder-width apart, the participants were instructed to descend at a self-selected depth and jump vertically with maximal intent while avoiding countermovement artifacts [27]. Three maximal trials were performed. The best performance (based on jump height) was used for subsequent analysis. Vertical force-time data were collected and processed using the impulse-momentum method. Furthermore, all athletes were familiar with the CMJ testing protocol, as this assessment is routinely implemented in national projects and grants conducted in collaboration between the Polish Athletics Association and the University. These initiatives, supported by the Ministry of Sport and Recreation, regularly employ CMJ testing as part of athlete monitoring at the Muscle Strength and Power Laboratory. Therefore, no additional familiarization sessions were deemed necessary.

Justification of Selected Variables for Jump Performance Assessment

• Jump Height (cm): Calculated via the impulse–momentum method from vertical force–time data, this variable represents a validated indicator of explosive lower-limb power and overall jump performance.
• CMJ Stiffness (N/m): Quantifies the stiffness of the muscle–tendon complex during the eccentric loading phase. Higher stiffness reflects greater elastic energy storage and return, contributing to an efficient stretch–shortening cycle (SSC) function.
• Peak Power (W): The maximal instantaneous power output achieved during the concentric phase. This variable integrates both force and velocity, reflecting an athlete’s ability to produce explosive mechanical work.
• Peak Power/Body Mass (W/kg): Peak power normalized to body mass, allowing interindividual comparisons by accounting for differences in body size. It is a sensitive indicator of relative power.
• Concentric Peak Force (N): The highest vertical force recorded during the concentric phase, representing the maximal capacity of the neuromuscular system to generate force against the ground.
• Concentric Peak Force/Body Mass (N/kg): Absolute concentric peak force expressed relative to body mass. This normalization enables a fair comparison between athletes of different body sizes.
• Force at Zero Velocity (N): The vertical force measured at the instant when the upward velocity equals zero, representing the isometric transition point from eccentric to concentric contraction. This is critical for evaluating propulsion potential.
• Contraction Time (ms): The total duration from movement initiation to take-off. Shorter contraction times indicate more rapid force generation and enhanced neuromuscular efficiency.
• Braking Phase Duration/Contraction Time (%): The proportion of the total contraction time occupied by the eccentric braking phase. Lower ratios reflect a faster transition into propulsion, which is advantageous for the SSC efficiency.
• Concentric RFD (N/s): The slope of the force–time curve during the concentric phase, indicating the rate of force development. This variable is strongly linked to explosive strength and neural activity.
• Concentric RFD/Body Mass (N/s/kg): Rate of force development expressed relative to body mass, providing a normalized index of explosive capacity independent of body size.
• Concentric RFD at 50 ms (N/s): Early-phase RFD, largely determined by neural factors such as motor unit recruitment speed and firing frequency.
• Concentric RFD at 100 ms (N/s): Intermediate-phase RFD reflecting both neural and muscular contributions to force generation.
• Concentric RFD at 200 ms (N/s): Late-phase RFD, increasingly influenced by muscular contractile properties and tendon stiffness.
• Concentric Impulse (Ns): The total force-time integral during the concentric phase, reflecting the capacity to generate upward momentum and take-off velocity.
• Concentric Impulse/Body Mass (Ns/kg): Concentric impulse normalized to body mass, facilitating comparisons between athletes of different sizes.
• Eccentric Braking Impulse (Ns): The impulse generated during the braking phase of the downward movement, quantifying the athlete’s ability to absorb and control eccentric loading.
• Eccentric Deceleration Impulse (Ns): This reflects the impulse accumulated during the terminal deceleration phase, which is critical for optimizing the eccentric–concentric transition.
• Eccentric Unloading Impulse (Ns): Captures the reduction in force immediately preceding the downward movement, indicative of neuromuscular control at movement initiation.
• Eccentric-to-Concentric Mean Force Ratio (%): The ratio of the mean eccentric to concentric force. Higher values indicate effective transfer of eccentric loading to concentric propulsion, which is a hallmark of efficient SSC utilization.

Together, these metrics provide a multidimensional profile of neuromuscular performance beyond jump height, encompassing explosive strength, stretch–shortening cycle efficiency, stiffness regulation and neural drive. All athletes were already familiar with CMJ testing and force-platform equipment, minimizing learning effects and ensuring reliable capture of adaptations during the training program period.

All variables were collected using the ForceDecks (Vald Performance, Brisbane, Australia), operating at a sampling frequency of 1000 Hz. The collected data is sent to the ForceDecks software and calculated based on the best trial out of three attempts. Data were collected at a consistent time of the day to minimize circadian influence. The athletes abstained from caffeine and intense training 48 h prior to testing to control for external variability. Moreover, all testing and data processing were conducted by the same qualified strength and conditioning coach who was blinded to group allocation to minimize analytical bias. This integrative assessment framework enabled a robust evaluation of the neuromechanical adaptations resulting from two distinct training modalities in elite-level sprinters.

Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using Statistica 13.3 (TIBCO Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA). Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables, including means, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Normality of data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro–Wilk test, while homogeneity of variance was verified using Levene’s test.

Intra-group comparisons (before and after) were performed using t-tests for paired samples when normality was confirmed, and otherwise using Wilcoxon tests. Differences between groups in change scores (Δ) were analyzed using t-tests for independent samples or Mann–Whitney U tests, depending on assumptions about the distribution. Effect size (Cohen’s d for parametric tests; r for nonparametric tests) was calculated to quantify the magnitude of differences. Cohen’s d interpretation as follows: 0.2 = small effect; 0.5 = moderate effect; 0.8 = large effect. For nonparametric tests (r_g), the interpretation is: 0.1 (small effect), 0.3 (moderate effect), 0.5 (strong effect).

Additionally, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were calculated in each group to examine the relationships between changes in neuromechanical parameters. The variables were divided into functional domain categories: jump and flexibility, strength and power, and eccentric control. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

To evaluate the effects of the 8-week interventions, outcomes were organized into functional domains: jump and stiffness metrics, force and power outputs, impulse and timing variables, and eccentric control indices. Statistical tests included within-group (pre–post) comparisons and between-group analyses (Δ), with significance set at p < 0.05. The effect directions and magnitudes are summarized below, and detailed statistics are presented in

Table 1. Descriptive and inferential statistics for the movement-pattern training (MPT). Data are presented as mean ± SD (95% CI). Pre-test and post-test values are reported along with p-values for each variable.

Variable		MPT	Pre-Post		ITG	Pre-Post	Group
		M ± SD (−95%CI:95%CI)	p-Value	ES	M ± SD (−95%CI:95%CI)	p-Value	ES	p-Value	ES
Jump Height (Flight Time) [cm]	Pre-test	62.96 ± 12.78 (56.39:69.54)	0.047 *	rg = 0.48	47.82 ± 6.73 (44.36:51.28)	0.64	d = 0.05	<0.001 *	rg = 0.63
	Post-test	61.88 ± 12.71 (55.34:68.41)			48.14 ± 6.28 (44.91:51.37)			<0.001 *	rg = 0.59
CMJ Stiffness [N/m]	Pre-test	5317.29 ± 1390.89 (4602.17:6032.42)	0.01 *	rg = 0.60	6802.00 ± 3240.39 (5135.95:8468.05)	0.07	rg = 0.31	0.10	rg = 0.28
	Post-test	6158.24 ± 1648.70 (5310.55:7005.92)			6110.06 ± 3276.53 (4425.43:7794.69)			0.19	rg = 0.22
Peak Power [W]	Pre-test	5867.06 ± 1188.74 (5255.86:6478.25)	0.78	d = 0.04	5478.29 ± 946.07 (4991.87:5964.72)	0.52	rg = 0.11	0.32	rg = 0.17
	Post-test	5819.82 ± 952.50 (5330.09:6309.55)			5429.41 ± 806.82 (5014.58:5844.24)			0.21	d = 0.44
Peak Power/BM [W/kg]	Pre-test	81.09 ± 10.90 (75.48:86.69)	0.95	d = 0.01	67.41 ± 3.75 (65.48:69.34)	0.61	d = 0.12	<0.001 *	d = 1.87
	Post-test	81.23 ± 9.57 (76.31:86.15)			66.89 ± 4.59 (64.53:69.26)			<0.001 *	d = 2.03
Concentric Peak Force [N]	Pre-test	2066.06 ± 299.93 (1911.85:2220.27)	0.49	d = 0.16	2102.00 ± 293.47 (1951.11:2252.89)	0.003 *	d = 0.23	0.73	d = 0.12
	Post-test	2041.59 ± 246.74 (1914.73:2168.45)			2035.82 ± 285.08 (1889.25:2182.40)			0.95	d = 0.02
Concentric Peak Force/BM [N/kg]	Pre-test	28.65 ± 1.70 (27.77:29.52)	0.77	d = 0.08	25.96 ± 1.58 (25.15:26.77)	0.004 *	d = 0.50	<0.001 *	d = 1.64
	Post-test	28.52 ± 1.54 (27.73:29.31)			25.11 ± 1.85 (24.16:26.06)			<0.001 *	d = 2.01
Force at Zero Velocity [N]	Pre-test	1659.53 ± 323.43 (1493.24:1825.82)	0.91	rg = 0.03	1571.18 ± 380.02 (1375.79:1766.56)	0.79	d = 0.05	0.61	rg = 0.09
	Post-test	1600.59 ± 463.78 (1362.13:1839.04)			1551.59 ± 425.80 (1332.66:1770.52)			0.75	d = 0.11
Contraction Time [ms]	Pre-test	802.24 ± 145.52 (727.41:877.06)	0.18	d = 0.39	817.71 ± 130.54 (750.59:884.82)	0.30	d = 0.22	0.75	d = 0.10
	Post-test	737.71 ± 188.36 (640.86:834.55)			850.71 ± 170.42 (763.08:938.33)			0.08	d = 0.71
Braking Phase Duration: Contraction Time	Pre-test	40.46 ± 8.11 (36.29:44.63)	0.43	rg = 0.19	37.96 ± 8.35 (33.67:42.25)	0.83	rg = 0.04	0.38	d = 0.30
	Post-test	37.21 ± 10.78 (31.66:42.75)			38.10 ± 10.65 (32.62:43.58)			0.84	rg = 0.04
Concentric RFD [N/s]	Pre-test	2397.35 ± 1415.55 (1669.54:3125.16)	0.82	d = 0.04	3208.82 ± 2085.79 (2136.41:4281.24)	0.10	rg = 0.28	0.27	rg = 0.19
	Post-test	2447.19 ± 1137.08 (1841.28:3053.10)			2335.38 ± 1169.48 (1712.21:2958.54)			0.79	d = 0.10
Concentric RFD/BM [N/s/kg]	Pre-test	32.62 ± 17.70 (23.52:41.72)	0.96	rg = 0.01	39.79 ± 24.53 (27.18:52.40)	0.06	d = 0.53	0.34	d = 0.34
	Post-test	35.04 ± 18.51 (25.18:44.91)			29.26 ± 15.27 (21.13:37.40)			0.78	rg = 0.05
Concentric RFD—50 ms [N/s]	Pre-test	−2335.76 ± 2287.19 (−3511.73:−1159.80)	0.21	rg = 0.30	890.82 ± 3273.27 (−792.14:2573.78)	0.18	d = 0.38	0.002 *	d = 1.16
	Post-test	−836.71 ± 4044.84 (−2916.37:1242.96)			−581.18 ± 4452.64 (−2870.51:1708.16)			0.73	rg = 0.06
Concentric RFD—100 ms [N/s]	Pre-test	−963.53 ± 2684.55 (−2343.8:416.74)	0.36	d = 0.30	1494.18 ± 2906.08 (0.01:2988.34)	0.43	d = 0.25	0.02 *	d = 0.88
	Post-test	−13.88 ± 3610.27 (−1870.11:1842.35)			670.41 ± 3726.83 (−1245.75:2586.57)			0.59	d = 0.19
Concentric RFD—200 ms [N/s]	Pre-test	1010.35 ± 2258.37 (−150.79:2171.50)	0.28	d = 0.22	1385.53 ± 1778.51 (471.11:2299.95)	0.77	d = 0.10	0.59	d = 0.19
	Post-test	467.24 ± 2592.94 (−865.93:1800.40)			1227.29 ± 1236.58 (591.5:1863.08)			0.59	d = 0.19
Concentric Impulse [N·s]	Pre-test	242.59 ± 43.77 (220.09:265.10)	0.48	d = 0.08	247.98 ± 47.08 (223.77:272.18)	0.55	rg = 0.10	0.73	rg = 0.06
	Post-test	246.11 ± 41.33 (224.85:267.36)			249.39 ± 45.93 (225.78:273.01)			0.77	rg = 0.05
Concentric Impulse (Abs)/BM [N·s/kg]	Pre-test	6.05 ± 0.43 (5.83:6.27)	0.38	d = 0.28	5.92 ± 0.65 (5.59:6.25)	0.004 *	d = 0.40	0.50	d = 0.24
	Post-test	6.20 ± 0.66 (5.86:6.54)			6.21 ± 0.80 (5.80:6.62)			0.97	d = 0.01
Eccentric Braking Impulse [N·s]	Pre-test	56.32 ± 25.01 (43.46:69.18)	0.78	d = 0.02	53.81 ± 29.08 (38.86:68.77)	0.90	d = 0.03	0.79	d = 0.09
	Post-test	55.95 ± 19.06 (45.39:66.50)			52.95 ± 34.79 (35.06:70.84)			0.77	d = 0.11
Eccentric Deceleration Impulse [N·s]	Pre-test	98.68 ± 31.38 (82.54:114.81)	0.91	d = 0.12	91.45 ± 41.59 (70.06:112.83)	0.92	d = 0.01	0.57	d = 0.20
	Post-test	102.09 ± 23.77 (88.93:115.26)			91.98 ± 47.59 (67.51:116.45)			0.46	d = 0.28
Eccentric Unloading Impulse [N·s]	Pre-test	−98.63 ± 31.24 (−114.69:−82.57)	0.91	d = 0.13	−91.35 ± 41.62 (−112.75:−69.95)	0.92	d = 0.01	0.57	d = 0.20
	Post-test	−102.09 ± 23.66 (−115.19:−88.98)			−91.84 ± 47.49 (−116.25:−67.42)			0.46	d = 0.29
Eccentric: Concentric Mean Force Ratio [%]	Pre-test	44.59 ± 4.38 (42.34:46.84)	0.38	rg = 0.21	48.42 ± 3.73 (46.5:50.34)	<0.001 *	d = 0.50	0.01 *	d = 0.94
	Post-test	44.62 ± 4.22 (42.45:46.79)			50.41 ± 4.25 (48.22:52.59)			0.006 *	d = 1.37

* indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).

and

Table 2. Within-group changes (Δ) and between-group comparisons for key neuromechanical variables after eight weeks of training. Data are presented as mean change ± SD with 95% confidence intervals. Significant p-values are highlighted (p < 0.05).

Variable	MPT	ITG	p-Value	ES
Δ Jump Height (Flight Time) [cm]	−1.09 ± 3.45 (−2.86:0.69)	0.32 ± 2.79 (−1.11:1.76)	0.03 *	rg = 0.38
Δ CMJ Stiffness [N/m]	840.94 ± 1302.21 (171.41:1510.48)	−691.94 ± 1414.41 (−1419.17:35.28)	0.002 *	d = 1.18
Δ Peak Power [W]	−47.24 ± 695.51 (−404.83:310.36)	−48.88 ± 324.26 (−215.60:117.84)	0.99	d < 0.001
Δ Peak Power/BM [W/kg]	0.14 ± 9.57 (−4.78:5.06)	−0.52 ± 4.08 (−2.62:1.58)	0.80	d = 0.10
Δ Concentric Peak Force [N]	−24.47 ± 143.13 (−98.06:49.12)	−66.18 ± 77.45 (−106.00:−26.35)	0.30	d = 0.38
Δ Concentric Peak Force/BM [N/kg]	−0.13 ± 1.81 (−1.06:0.80)	−0.85 ± 1.03 (−1.37:−0.32)	0.17	d = 0.51
Δ Force at Zero Velocity [N]	−58.94 ± 295.83 (−211.04:93.16)	−19.59 ± 300.58 (−174.13:134.96)	0.89	rg = 0.02
Δ Contraction Time [ms]	−64.53 ± 190.32 (−162.38:33.33)	33.00 ± 127.84 (−32.73:98.73)	0.13	rg = 0.26
Δ Braking Phase Duration: Contraction Time	−3.26 ± 12.39 (−9.63:3.12)	0.14 ± 9.62 (−4.81:5.09)	0.65	rg = 0.08
Δ Concentric RFD [N/s]	−82.94 ± 1429.43 (−844.63:678.75)	−854.88 ± 1901.99 (−1868.37:158.62)	0.30	rg = 0.18
Δ Concentric RFD/BM [N/s/kg]	0.61 ± 20.66 (−10.40:11.62)	−11.04 ± 22.01 (−22.77:0.68)	0.13	d = 0.55
Δ Concentric RFD—50 ms [N/s]	1499.06 ± 3998.06 (−556.56:3554.67)	−1472.00 ± 4335.84 (−3701.28:757.28)	0.09	rg = 0.29
Δ Concentric RFD—100 ms [N/s]	949.65 ± 4138.84 (−1178.35:3077.64)	−823.76 ± 4217.65 (−2992.28:1344.75)	0.22	d = 0.42
Δ Concentric RFD—200 ms [N/s]	−543.12 ± 2012.45 (−1577.82:491.59)	−158.24 ± 2232.23 (−1305.94:989.47)	0.60	d = 0.18
Δ Concentric Impulse [N·s]	3.51 ± 19.93 (−6.73:13.76)	1.42 ± 8.20 (−2.80:5.64)	0.69	d = 0.15
Δ Concentric Impulse (Abs)/BM [N·s/kg]	0.15 ± 0.69 (−0.21:0.51)	0.29 ± 0.36 (0.10:0.47)	0.47	d = 0.27
Δ Eccentric Braking Impulse [N·s]	−1.98 ± 27.21 (−17.05:13.09)	−0.86 ± 28.28 (−15.40:13.68)	0.96	rg = 0.01
Δ Eccentric Deceleration Impulse [N·s]	0.84 ± 29.54 (−15.52:17.20)	0.53 ± 20.29 (−9.90:10.96)	0.17	rg = 0.24
Δ Eccentric Unloading Impulse [N·s]	−0.87 ± 29.52 (−17.22:15.47)	−0.48 ± 20.21 (−10.87:9.91)	0.17	rg = 0.23
Δ Eccentric:Concentric Mean Force Ratio [%]	0.03 ± 2.93 (−1.48:1.54)	1.99 ± 1.88 (1.02:2.95)	0.04 *	rg = 0.36

* indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).

.

3.1. Subsection

3.1.1. Neuromuscular Performance Variables: Jump Performance and Stiffness, Eccentric Control and Force Ratios

The MPT group showed a small but statistically significant decrease in jump height, with a moderate effect size (Z = 1.99, p = 0.047, ES = 0.48). The ITG showed no significant changes, with a small effect size (Z = –0.48, p = 0.64, ES = 0.05). A comparison of differences between groups showed a significant difference in favor of the ITG (Z = –2.20, p = 0.03, ES = 0.38). In contrast, stiffness improved significantly in the MPT (Z = 2.49, p = 0.01, ES = 0.60). In the ITG, a statistically insignificant decrease with a moderate effect size was observed (Z = 1.82, p = 0.07, ES = 0.31). A comparison of differences between groups showed a significant difference, with a strong effect size (t = 3.29, p = 0.002, ES = 1.18), indicating that dynamic training better maintained or improved elastic properties (Figure 2).

Furthermore, eccentric braking, deceleration, and unloading impulses remained unchanged in both groups. However, ITG showed a significant increase in the eccentric-to-concentric mean force ratio, increasing from 48.42 ± 3.73% (95% CI: 46.50–50.34) to 50.41 ± 4.25% (95% CI: 48.22–52.59) (Δ = +1.99 ± 1.88%; t = –2.77, p = 0.006) (Figure 3). MPT maintained a stable ratio (Pre: 44.59 ± 4.38%; Post: 44.62 ± 4.22%). MPT, indicating that ITG shifted toward greater eccentric reliance, whereas MPT retained balanced phase integration (Figure 2 and Figure 3).

3.1.2. Neuromuscular Performance Outcomes: Force and Power Outputs, Impulse and Timing Variables

Concentric peak force was relatively stable in the MPT with a small effect size (t = 0.70, p = 0.49, ES = 0.16). In contrast, ITG showed a significant decrease with a moderate effect size (t = 3.52, p = 0.003, ES = 0.23) (Figure 4). Differences between groups were not statistically significant with a moderate effect size (t = 1.06, p = 0.30, ES = 0.38). Relative concentric peak force (normalized to body weight) showed a similar trend. ITG decreased significantly with a moderate effect size (t = 3.41, p = 0.004, ES = 0.23), whereas MPT showed stability with a small effect size (t = 0.70, p = 0.49, ES = 0.16). Differences between groups approached statistical significance with a moderate effect size (t = 1.42, p = 0.17, ES = 0.51). Peak power and peak power-to-body mass ratio did not change significantly in any of the groups (all p > 0.2), indicating relatively stable results. Force at zero velocity also remained essentially unchanged in all groups (Figure 4).

Moreover, contraction time was non-significantly shortened in the MPT (p = 0.18). Conversely, the ITG lengthened slightly (p = 0.30). Normalized concentric impulse increased slightly in the ITG (p = 0.004) but remained unchanged in the MPT (p = 0.38). Comparison of delta between groups showed no significant difference with a moderate effect (t = –0.72, p = 0.47, ES = 0.27).

3.1.3. Rate of Force Development (RFD)

RFD values were highly variable. After 50 ms, MPT slightly increased (Δ = +1499.06 ± 3998.06 N/s), whereas ITG decreased (Δ = –1472.00 ± 4335.84 N/s); however, this difference was not statistically significant with a moderate effect size (Z = 1.72, p = 0.09, ES = 0.29). RFD changes in the middle and late phases (100 and 200 ms) were inconsistent and not statistically significant in both groups (all p > 0.2). RFD normalized to body weight showed similar patterns with no statistically significant effects.

3.1.4. Correlation Findings

Correlation analysis showed mostly weak associations between the variables. A moderate positive relationship was found between changes in eccentric braking and deceleration impulses and the braking-to-contraction time ratio, suggesting that improved braking efficiency may be associated with better timing during movement transitions. Other variable pairs showed low or non-significant correlations, indicating limited predictive values. Overall, MPT produced significant gains in stiffness and maintained force outputs, whereas ITG experienced reductions in some force variables but slight improvements in impulse and eccentric emphasis. Key group differences were observed in stiffness (favoring the MPT group) and eccentric-concentric ratios (favoring the ITG). Variability in RFD responses indicates possible individual differences and sample size limitations. Figures and tables complement these findings (Figure 5).

4. Discussion

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of an eight-week movement pattern-oriented training program compared to isometric strength training on neuromuscular performance during the CMJ. The findings indicate that the MPT group demonstrated more favorable or stable adaptations in terms of elasticity, strength, and coordination variables, whereas the ITG experienced a decline in several performance metrics. These results are highly relevant for sports in which explosive lower limbs and rapid neural drive are critical, such as sprinting, jumping, and multidirectional field sports.

A key methodological choice in this study was the evaluation of neuromuscular performance exclusively using CMJ-derived metrics. This was based on safety and ecological validity; the study was conducted immediately after the athletes’ off-season break, when their conditioning level was reduced, and maximal strength or sprint tests would have posed elevated risks [14,16]. The CMJ is widely accepted as a safe, noninvasive, and repeatable test. Moreover, our analysis encompassed not only jump height but also stiffness, RFD, impulse, and eccentric–concentric ratios, offering a multidimensional perspective on neuromuscular adaptations. Although incorporating sprint, maximal strength, or change-of-direction measures would have strengthened ecological validity, focusing on CMJ variables provided reliable and meaningful early phase data under the applied constraints [28,29].

One of the most notable effects of the MPT was a significant increase in CMJ stiffness (Δ = +840.94 ± 1302.21 N/m; p = 0.002), despite a small but statistically significant decrease in jump height (Δ = –1.09 ± 3.45 cm; p = 0.03) after the intervention. Increased stiffness has been associated with improved efficiency of the stretch–shortening cycle (SSC), enhancing energy return and faster force transmission [30,31]. This aligns with the findings that elite sprinters exploit higher vertical stiffness to reduce ground contact time and maximize efficiency [32,33]. In contrast, ITG displayed reduced stiffness (Δ = –691.94 ± 1414.41 N/m; p = 0.002), potentially reflecting diminished elastic efficiency or altered tendon properties due to static loading [32].

The MPT group also maintained concentric peak force (Δ = –24.47 ± 143.13 N; p = 0.40), whereas the ITG showed a significant decrease (Δ = –66.18 ± 77.45 N; p = 0.003). This supports the notion that dynamic, movement-specific training sustains force production through enhanced motor unit recruitment and corticospinal excitability [33,34], echoing the evidence that neural factors are decisive for RFD and acceleration [26,35]. Moreover, MPT participants demonstrated shorter contraction times (Δ = –64.53 ± 190.32 ms), indicating improved neuromuscular coordination, whereas ITG athletes showed longer contraction times (Δ = +33.00 ± 127.84 ms; p = 0.04), suggesting delayed excitation–contraction coupling.

The absence of significant or consistent changes in the RFD warrants closer consideration. RFD is a recognized determinant of explosive performance in sprinting and jumping, particularly in the early phase of muscle contraction, where it is linked to acceleration ability and maximal velocity [36,37]. Propulsive RFD during the acceleration phase and vertical RFD during later steps are correlated with faster sprinting speeds and greater external power output [36]. While concentric RFD is especially relevant to sprint performance, CMJ-derived RFD reflects a composite of stretch–shortening cycle mechanics, technique, and neural drive, and therefore, may not capture isolated neural adaptations [8,16]. The relative stability of RFD in our findings may thus reflect both methodological constraints and a seasonal neuromuscular focus on efficiency and fatigue resistance, rather than maximal explosive force production. Future studies incorporating isometric RFD or sprint-specific assessments may provide a clearer picture of the underlying neural and muscular contributions [38,39].

Interestingly, the paradoxical decrease in jump height despite improved stiffness and contraction time in the MPT group may reflect adaptations favoring resilience and efficiency rather than maximal explosive height. Increased musculotendinous stiffness supports joint stability and energy recycling [39], whereas shorter contraction times enhance reactive strength capacities. High cumulative training loads during the competitive phase may further explain blunted jump performance, despite favorable neuromechanical changes [40].

In the ITG, concentric impulse normalized to body mass increased significantly (p = 0.004) without improvements in stiffness or jump height. This suggests a prolonged contraction duration rather than enhanced explosiveness [41]. Furthermore, ITG exhibited an increase in the eccentric-to-concentric force ratio (Δ = +1.99%, p = 0.006), indicating eccentric muscle dominance. While eccentric strength is critical for deceleration and injury prevention, an imbalance without concentric or elastic gains may impair SSC efficiency [42]. Conversely, the MPT group maintained a balanced eccentric–concentric integration, consistent with evidence linking eccentric–concentric coordination to sprinting performance and reduced injury risk [43,44,45,46].

The divergent group outcomes likely stemmed from differences in contraction exposure. ITG accumulated ~90 s of maximal isometric effort per session, promoting joint-specific strength but with limited transfer to dynamic CMJ tasks. However, accumulated 300–450 s of unilateral, multi-joint, dynamic repetitions per session, integrating eccentric, concentric, and reactive phases. This likely enhances tendon stiffness, neuromuscular coordination, and force transfer [47,48,49,50,51].

These findings align with current training guidelines: low-volume, heavy-load resistance training complemented by ballistic or plyometric work optimizes neural and elastic adaptations while limiting hypertrophy [52,53]. Avoiding failure preserves type IIx fibers, which are critical for speed [54,55,56,57], and periodization emphasizing strength–power conversion supports performance [57,58,59,60]. Within this framework, MPT emerges as more beneficial for speed- and power-oriented athletes, whereas isometric training retains value for rehabilitation, tendon tolerance, and preparatory phases.

Finally, effect size analysis contextualized the practical relevance of the adaptations. In track and field, a change of ~0.2 in Cohen’s d or ~0.3–0.5 SD is considered a Small Worthwhile Change (SWC) [61]. Effect sizes for stiffness, jump, and coordination variables in the MPT group (≈ 0.6–0.8) surpassed this threshold, suggesting meaningful competitive advantages. In contrast, RFD effect sizes remained below the SWC, indicating limited direct performance transfer despite neuromuscular relevance.

Together, these results underscore that movement-pattern training elicits superior adaptations in stiffness, coordination, and force preservation compared with isometric protocols. Isometric training provides complementary benefits when applied strategically within periodized plans, highlighting the importance of the context-specific integration of both methods.

Several limitations should be acknowledged when interpreting the present study’s findings. The eight-week intervention period may have been too short to fully capture tendon remodeling or long-term neural adaptations, which could emerge with longer exposure. Moreover, training loads were not entirely matched between groups, as differences in contraction mode and cumulative time under tension were inherent to the training protocols. Third, performance assessment relied solely on CMJ-derived force–time variables, which, although safe and reliable, have limited ecological validity in the absence of sprinting, maximal strength, or change-of-direction tests. In addition, no advanced neurophysiological (e.g., EMG decomposition, TMS) or imaging methods (e.g., ultrasound, MRI) were applied, which restricts mechanistic interpretation. Internal load markers, such as RPE, as well as potential modulators such as sleep, nutrition, menstrual cycle phase, and supplemental training, were not systematically controlled. Finally, body composition was measured only at baseline, as the study focused on neuromechanical outcomes rather than morphological changes. Taken together, these constraints call for cautious generalization and highlight the need for replication in larger and more homogeneous cohorts with broader testing batteries and direct neurophysiological assessments.

5. Conclusions

This study showed that an eight-week movement pattern-oriented training program (MPT) induced more favorable neuromechanical adaptations in competitive sprinters than isometric training (ITG). MPT enhanced stiffness, preserved concentric force, and improved contraction efficiency, whereas ITG was associated with reduced stiffness and concentric force and a shift toward eccentric dominance. These results suggest that dynamic, velocity-oriented training offers superior transfer to explosive tasks, such as sprinting and jumping, whereas isometric training, although less effective for CMJ performance, retains complementary value for joint stability, angle-specific strength, and tendon tolerance.

From a practical perspective, prioritizing movement-specific high-velocity training appears to be essential in the preparatory phase of sprint and power disciplines. Simultaneously, isometric exercises may serve as supplementary strategies in periodized programs, particularly for rehabilitation, controlled loading, and injury prevention. A balanced integration of both modalities, with MPT as the primary driver of explosive performance and isometrics as a supportive adjunct, may provide the most effective framework for long-term athlete development.

5.1. Practical Implications

The findings highlight that unilateral multi-joint dynamic exercises with progressive loading and maximal velocity execution can effectively enhance stiffness, neuromuscular coordination, and force transfer relevant to sprint performance. Coaches and practitioners should consider incorporating MPT-based strategies to improve the efficiency of the stretch–shortening cycle, contraction speed, and sustained force output. Although isometric protocols are less transferable to sprint-specific performance, they remain useful for targeted strength development, tendon resilience, and controlled training. Integrating both approaches in a periodized system may optimize performance while reducing the risk of injury.

5.2. Future Research Directions

Future investigations should extend the intervention duration to capture long-term tendon and neural adaptations and include sprint, maximal strength, and change-of-direction tests to strengthen ecological validity. Direct neurophysiological (e.g., EMG decomposition, TMS, H-reflex) and imaging assessments (e.g., ultrasonography, MRI) would help elucidate the underlying mechanisms. Internal load markers (RPE, recovery, sleep, and nutrition) should be monitored to contextualize adaptations. Moreover, sex-specific analyses are warranted because neuromuscular and tendon responses may differ between men and women. Exploring periodized or combined dynamic–isometric protocols could refine the best-practice integration for elite athletes. Finally, extending this research to team sports (e.g., soccer, basketball, and rugby) would broaden its translational value, given the shared reliance on repeated accelerations, decelerations, and multidirectional performance.