Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

Applied SciencesApplied Sciences
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

18 March 2026

9 Pages

Comparisons of Lower Limb Strength Characteristics Between Male and Female National Team Rugby Athletes

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
…
1
School of Physical Education, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
2
Department of Life Sciences, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan
3
School of Education and Welfare, Aichi Prefectural University, Nagakute 480-1198, Aichi, Japan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci.2026, 16(6), 2906;https://doi.org/10.3390/app16062906
This article belongs to the Collection Sports Performance and Health
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the gender differences in lower limb strength among Chinese national rugby team athletes, as well as the relationship between these variables. Twenty-seven athletes underwent countermovement jump (CMJ) and one-repetition maximum (1RM) squat tests, with relative strength calculated through bodyweight normalization. Results showed that male athletes had significantly higher CMJ height (p = 0.005) and absolute squat 1RM values (p < 0.001) compared to female athletes; male and female athletes showed significant differences in relative strength (p < 0.001). Correlation analysis indicated a positive relationship between CMJ height and absolute squat strength (p = 0.002), but no significant association with relative strength. The findings suggest a significant sex-based disparity in absolute lower limb strength among athletes of the Chinese national rugby team, with relative strength levels also exhibiting variations. When developing training programs, coaches and athletes should consider gender-specific differences in absolute strength.

1. Introduction

Rugby originated in 19th-century Britain and is a globally prevalent high-intensity contact sport characterized by frequent physical collisions and intermittent bouts of high-intensity activity. The discipline demands athletes possess exceptional qualities in speed, strength, coordination, and tactical execution [1]. To perform smoothly, lower limb strength, particularly relative explosive strength and maximal strength, serves as a critical physiological foundation supporting technical skill execution, tactical implementation, and injury prevention [2].
Preliminary research indicates that explosive strength is a core determinant of overall athletic performance in rugby, especially influencing agility and speed [3]. The countermovement jump (CMJ) is a key indicator of lower limb explosive capacity and correlates with several critical in-game actions, such as contested jump balls and rapid directional changes. Squat training, a common method for developing lower limb strength, is closely associated with enhancing explosive strength [4]. It not only improves maximal strength of the lower limb musculature but also enhances movement stability and coordination, thereby contributing to injury prevention mechanisms [4].
Furthermore, existing literature suggests that males generally outperform females in muscle strength and stability, whereas females tend to excel in flexibility and coordination. For instance, studies have demonstrated that male athletes significantly outperform females in various jump tests, including squat jump (SJ), CMJ, horizontal jump (HJ), tuck jump (TJ), and reactive strength index (RSI) [5]. Among collegiate basketball players, gender differences similarly manifest, with male athletes typically achieving higher CMJ heights than females [6]. This phenomenon is corroborated across multiple team sports such as soccer, basketball, and rugby, where male athletes consistently demonstrate superior vertical jump heights [7,8]. The rate of force development (RFD) in males is approximately 1.5 times greater than in females [7,8,9]. Notably, gender disparities in explosive strength are more pronounced among youth football players [7,10]. These sexual dimorphisms are rooted in differences in muscle architecture, such as pennation angles and fascicle lengths, which significantly influence the force–velocity relationship [11]. While males typically demonstrate a higher absolute peak power, females may rely on different coordination strategies during the eccentric-to-concentric transition of a jump [12,13].
Existing studies predominantly examined jump-based sports such as volleyball [14,15], with findings indicating that CMJ training positively influences jump performance and overall athletic capability in female volleyball athletes [16]. Additionally, some studies have identified a strong correlation between muscle strength, CMJ height, and peak power during squats in female athletes [17]. However, compared to male athletes, research focusing on female rugby players remains relatively limited. Recent rugby-specific evidence, including male and female cohorts, has highlighted substantial external load demands (e.g., total distance, high-speed running, and high-intensity acceleration/deceleration actions), reinforcing the relevance of lower-limb strength and jump profiling in elite athletes [18,19].
While sex-based differences in strength and power parameters in rugby players were well established across Western and global cohorts [5,7,8], the evidence specifically characterizing elite Chinese national-team rugby athletes under a unified testing framework remains scarce [18,19]. Due to genetic, environmental, and training system differences, Chinese athletes may present unique neuromuscular and morphological profiles that differ from their Western counterparts [3,18]. Such specificity justifies the present study’s focus on a Chinese national team to establish targeted normative data for refining gender-specific training paradigms within the local context.
Thus, this study aims to compare the performance of Chinese male and female national team rugby players in reverse vertical jumps and squat tests to elucidate gender differences in lower limb biomechanical characteristics. We hypothesized that males would demonstrate higher CMJ height and absolute 1RM. Given mixed evidence on body-mass-normalized strength in elite cohorts, we treated relative-strength differences as an exploratory outcome.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

A cross-sectional design with testing conducted was performed indoors in Nanjing in June 2024. A total of 27 Chinese rugby athletes were recruited, comprising 10 male and 17 female athletes. Participants were current Chinese national-team rugby athletes (male n = 10, female n = 17), rather than club-only or national-championship-level players. The participants underwent assessments of lower limb countermovement jump performance and muscular strength. Pre-test, paper-based questionnaires were used to collect basic data of all the participants through email. Inclusion criteria for the questionnaire were: (1) signed informed consent; (2) complete questionnaire responses without missing data; (3) active Chinese national-team registration during the testing period; (4) free from lower-limb injury in the previous 3 months; and (5) full participation in regular team training.
After screening, all the 27 athletes met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Participant characteristics are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Basic parameters of rugby athletes.

2.2. Testing Procedures

The study consisted of two parts: a questionnaire survey and physical performance tests of the lower limbs, including CMJ and maximal strength assessment via back squat.
First, questionnaires were used to collect anthropometric data collection, including gender, age, height, weight, and body mass index (BMI), calculated from height and weight measurements.
The second part comprised two tests: the CMJ and 1RM back squat. Among commonly used neuromuscular tests, the CMJ is a practical indicator of vertical impulse capacity and lower-limb neuromuscular function [20], whereas the back squat 1RM reflects maximal dynamic strength and has acceptable reliability when standardized protocols are used [21]. CMJ performance was measured using a force platform (ForceDecks VALD Performance, Australia). The back squat test involved recording the maximum load lifted in a standard squat (1RM). Relative strength was calculated by dividing each athlete’s 1RM (kg) by their body mass (kg), using the formula: relative strength = 1RM (kg)/body mass (kg).
To account for individual differences in body size and eliminate potential confounding effects on absolute strength performance, standardization based on body mass was applied as an adjustment that reflects the strength-to-weight ratio, providing a more equitable comparison of relative muscular capacity across athletes of varying physiques and a normalization that reduces the influence of body mass disparities on squat performance, particularly relevant in weight-bearing sports or activities demanding high strength efficiency [22].

2.3. Testing Protocol

Participants completed CMJ and 1RM back squat assessments following standardized protocols.

2.3.1. Countermovement Jump Test

Participants completed a standardized warm-up lasting 10 min, including light jogging and dynamic stretching. Testing was conducted indoors in June during the afternoon. Jump performance was measured using a force platform. Participants began in an upright stance with knees flexed at approximately 180°, then performed a controlled downward movement until the knees reached about 90°, immediately followed by an explosive upward jump. Each athlete completed three trials, with two-minute rest intervals between attempts. The jump height was recorded for each trial, and the average of the three was used for analysis.
CMJ Success Criteria: According to the description by Van Hooren and Zolotarjova (2017), the test required participants to start from a standing position, perform a quick jump after flexing the knees to approximately 90 degrees, ensuring stable foot contact with the ground and coordinated, stable movements during both take-off and landing to ensure the validity of the jump force assessment [20].
Jump Height Calculation: Jump height was calculated by measuring flight time using the formula h = (g × t2)/8, where g = 9.81 m/s−2 and tis the flight time. This method aligns with the procedures described by Sheppard et al. (2008) [23].

2.3.2. Squat Test

1RM Back Squat Protocol: The protocol followed the guidelines established by Todoroff (2017) and Esformes & Bampouras (2013) [4,24]. Participants performed the back squat by lowering their hips until the thighs were parallel to or below the horizontal plane, maintaining proper form. The load was progressively increased until the maximum weight successfully lifted for one complete repetition was determined, ensuring the safety and reliability of the test [4,24].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 27.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The Shapiro–Wilk test was performed to examine the normality of data distribution. If the data conform to a normal distribution (p > 0.05), independent samples t-test and Pearson correlation were performed. If the data deviate from normality (p ≤ 0.05), non-parametric tests including Mann–Whitney U test and Spearman correlation were performed.
Variables following a normal distribution (e.g., countermovement jump height, adjusted squat performance) were compared between groups using independent samples t-tests to examine gender differences. Non-normally distributed variables (e.g., raw squat 1RM) were analyzed using Mann–Whitney U tests.
Correlation method was selected according to distributional assumptions: Pearson for approximately normal variables and Spearman for non-normal variables. We reported one primary model per association and provided the alternative method as sensitivity analysis.
Effect sizes for between-group comparisons were calculated using Cohen’s d and interpreted as follows: trivial (<0.2), small (0.2–0.5), moderate (0.5–0.8), and strong (>0.8). Similarly, the Pearson correlation coefficient was interpreted based on the criteria by Schober et al. (2018): trivial (<0.1), small (0.1–0.3), moderate (0.3–0.5), and strong (>0.5) [25]. Two-sided significance level was set at p = 0.05.

3. Results

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare groups based on gender (male: 10 participants; female: 17 participants) (Table 1). Significant differences were observed across parameters: age (males: 23.10 ± 3.07 years vs. females: 19.35 ± 2.23 years; p = 0.004), height (males: 181.30 ± 6.57 cm vs. females: 167.00 ± 4.57 cm; p < 0.001), body weight (males: 87.71 ± 6.54 kg vs. females: 61.53 ± 5.21 kg; p < 0.001), and BMI (males: 26.72 ± 2.23 kg/m2 vs. females: 22.06 ± 1.81 kg/m2; p < 0.001).
As shown in Table 2, among national-level rugby athletes, significant differences between male and female were observed in measures of countermovement jump height (CMJ: 52.56 ± 5.55 cm vs. 46.23 ± 2.67 cm, p = 0.005, d = 1.60), back squat strength (201.00 ± 13.9 kg vs. 112.78 ± 10.03 kg, p < 0.001, d = 7.63), and relative strength (2.30 ± 0.22 kg vs. 1.86 ± 0.22 kg, p < 0.001, d = 2.03).
Table 2. Differences in lower limb jump performance and strength between male and female rugby players.
As shown in Table 3, a comparison of lower limb performance among national-level rugby players revealed a significant positive correlation between back squat performance and relative strength (r = 0.800, p < 0.01). Countermovement jump performance was also significantly correlated with back squat strength (r = 0.584, p < 0.01). However, there is no significant correlation between countermovement jump height and relative strength (r = 0.334, p > 0.05).
Table 3. Pearson correlation analysis of lower limb performance in rugby players.
As shown in Table 4, Spearman correlation analysis of lower limb performance in national-level rugby athletes revealed a highly significant positive correlation between back squat performance and relative strength (r = 0.838, p < 0.01). Conversely, the correlation between countermovement jump performance and back squat strength did not reach statistical significance (r = 0.361, p > 0.05). Furthermore, no significant correlation was observed between countermovement jump height and relative strength (r = 0.238, p > 0.05).
Table 4. Spearman correlation analysis of lower limb performance in rugby players.

4. Discussion

The novelty of this study is not the existence of sex differences, but the profiling of male and female Chinese national team rugby athletes under the same testing framework, and the simultaneous examination of CMJ, absolute squat 1RM (back squat strength), and body-mass-normalized strength within this elite cohort. The findings revealed significant gender differences in vertical jump performance, with male athletes exhibiting notably higher jump heights than females. After adjusting for body mass, the relative strength, as indicated by the 1RM derived from squats, also exhibits significant sex-based differences. The absolute squat 1RM (back squat strength) showed a clear gender disparity, with a positive correlation observed between absolute strength and vertical jump height. However, no significant association was found between vertical jump height and relative strength (1RM/body mass).
The results indicated that male athletes possessed significant advantages in body morphology and CMJ height, similar to prior research across various sports disciplines with similar biomechanical demands, such as soccer and basketball [6,7,9]. In these sports, it was well-documented that male athletes generally outperformed females in anthropometric measures such as height and weight. Moreover, the superior CMJ performance of males has been repeatedly confirmed [26].
From a physiological perspective, males typically exhibited higher lean body mass and greater muscle cross-sectional area, providing a foundational basis for enhanced vertical jump capacity [21]. Muscular structural differences, including larger fast-twitch fiber cross-sectional areas in males, may augment their force production during the concentric phase of jumping; conversely, females tend to demonstrate better relative concentric strength [8,24]. Additionally, advantages in muscle architecture parameters such as fascicle length and pennation angle [11,12] may enable males to recruit more motor units per unit time, resulting in higher peak forces during takeoff in CMJ.
Neurophysiological control also exhibits gender-specific differences. Males showed a marked advantage in rate of force development (RFD), allowing them to generate greater impulse within a given timeframe, thereby achieving higher takeoff velocities during acceleration phases. Even among strength-matched male and female basketball players, males displayed distinct force and power–time curve patterns characterized by higher peak forces and faster RFD [13]. Furthermore, cardiovascular support capacity differs between genders; studies indicated that during explosive actions such as dunking, males’ left ventricular stroke work increases 22–25% more rapidly than females [24], facilitating rapid cardiac power output to meet the high-energy demands of phosphagen system activation and sustaining blood flow to support high-intensity contractions of fast-twitch fibers [27].
Finally, sex-specific differences were evident in spinal motor control mechanisms. Males demonstrated more efficient neuromuscular regulation of trunk stability during dynamic tasks [28], which may enhance force transmission efficiency and optimize jump performance. The combined influence of muscular properties, neuromuscular control, cardiovascular support, and spinal motor mechanisms collectively underpin the biological basis for gender disparities observed in vertical jump performance. Because muscle architecture, neural drive, and cardiovascular variables were not directly measured, mechanistic explanations are presented as hypotheses rather than causal inferences.
The lack of significant correlation between relative strength and CMJ height in this study may point to the phenomenon of “conversion efficiency” in elite populations. According to Van Hooren and Zolotarjova [20], once a basic strength threshold is met, the efficiency of the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) and the stiffness of the muscle–tendon unit become more influential than raw force production. In national team athletes, the ability to rapidly transmit force through a stiffened connective tissue system during the transition phase of a CMJ may decouple jump height from simple body-mass-normalized 1RM values [20,23]. This implies that training for elite players should transition from pure hypertrophy and strength toward plyometric drills that enhance the utilization of stored elastic energy.
Regarding maximal strength, males showed substantially higher absolute squat 1RM than females (p < 0.001), and this between-sex difference remained significant after body-mass normalization (relative strength, p < 0.001). Thus, in this cohort, sex differences are present in both absolute and relative strength metrics, with larger between-group separation for absolute load. This pattern is consistent with prior evidence that sex-related differences in muscle morphology and force–time characteristics can persist even when strength is scaled to body mass [8,13].
Previous research supported these findings, showing positive correlations between squat performance and reverse jump ability among male rugby and volleyball athletes [23,24], emphasizing that absolute strength is a fundamental determinant of explosive strength. Greater absolute strength indicates a muscular system capable of generating higher force, which underpins higher explosive performance. More intriguingly, the height of the CMJ was not significantly correlated with body-mass-normalized relative strength (p = 0.088). This phenomenon clearly suggested that explosive strength (as measured by CMJ height) was not solely determined by relative strength. Once an athlete has established a solid foundation of relative strength, other factors increasingly influence their explosive performance.
This highlights the critical importance of technical and biomechanical efficiency. CMJ is a complex, multi-joint movement influenced significantly by the timing and coordination of force production across the ankle, knee, and hip joints, as well as the efficiency of energy transfer within the kinetic chain [25]. Optimal jumping technique maximizes elastic energy utilization, derived from the eccentric phase, and minimizes energy leakage. Male athletes may possess biomechanical advantages in jumping technique; for example, Johnson et al. [28] found that males demonstrated more efficient trunk stability and spinal control during dynamic tasks, facilitating effective force transfer from the lower limbs to the torso.
Therefore, the findings supported the perspective that absolute strength provides the foundation for explosive strength, while neuromuscular function, biomechanical technique, and high rate of force development collectively determine the efficiency of translating this potential into actual performance, such as jump height. Among Chinese national rugby players, once relative strength reaches a high level, the variation in “conversion efficiency”, rather than strength magnitude alone, may be the dominant factor influencing individual differences in explosive strength. This mechanism also explains why, within this cohort, CMJ height was not significantly correlated with strength metrics, as differences in explosive strength at this stage are more driven by neural control and technical factors. Mechanistic claims are now clearly identified as speculative and literature-based, not directly measured outcomes.

Limitations

Several limitations must be acknowledged. First, anthropometric data were self-reported rather than measured via standardized laboratory equipment, introducing potential reporting bias [3]. Second, the sample size was relatively small (n = 27) and unbalanced (10 males vs. 17 females), which limits statistical power and generalizability; no a priori power analysis was performed. Third, age differed significantly between sexes but was not controlled as a covariate, which may confound sex-based comparisons. Fourth, only ratio scaling (1RM/body mass) was used for strength normalization; allometric scaling could provide a more accurate correction for body size differences. Future research should consider allometric scaling or other advanced modeling techniques [29]. Finally, mechanisms proposed in this study (muscle architecture, neuromuscular drive, and cardiovascular parameters) were not directly measured and thus remain hypothetical interpretations based on literature rather than derived from directly observed data [11,13,19,28]. Prospective studies incorporating electromyography, muscle ultrasound, or cardiac output measurements would enrich mechanistic understanding.

5. Conclusions

Among Chinese national rugby team players, males demonstrated higher CMJ height, absolute squat 1RM, and body-mass-normalized relative strength than females in this cohort. Absolute strength was associated with CMJ performance, whereas relative strength was not significantly associated with CMJ in the primary correlation model. These findings are cross-sectional and should not be interpreted as causal. This study addresses that cohort-specific evidence gap and quantifies both absolute and body-mass-normalized strength alongside CMJ performance. Furthermore, explosive strength correlates with absolute strength but is not related to relative strength. These cross-sectional data support sex differences in CMJ and absolute/relative squat strength in this cohort; however, training recommendations regarding neuromuscular or technical interventions should be considered preliminary and require direct interventional evidence.

Author Contributions

X.Z. and L.Z. designed the study. B.L., Z.M., H.M., Q.L. and T.X. contributed to data acquisition. S.S. and C.L. conducted data analysis and interpretation. B.L., Z.M. and H.M. drafted the manuscript. X.Z., L.Z., K.I. and H.Z. checked and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study is supported by “Huazhong University of Science and Technology Double First-Class Funds for Humanities and Social Sciences (Project Number: 2026WKQN034)”, “The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Project Number: YCJJ20252421)”, “Teaching Research Projects of Huazhong University of Science and Technology (Grant No. 2024067)”, and “Huazhong University of Science and Technology Double First-Class Funds for Humanities and Social Sciences (Project Number: 2025WKQN011)”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study design, protocol, and risk were well known to the players and their legal guardians. This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Ethics Board of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China (Notification Number [2023] IEC (S172), 2023-11-23). This study followed the ethical principles of the Helsinki Declaration for human research. Written informed consent forms were obtained from all the participants and guardians of the minors.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the rugby sevens athletes and coaches for their participation and support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

  1. Duthie, G.; Pyne, D.; Hooper, S. Applied physiology and game analysis of rugby union. Sports Med. 2003, 33, 973–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  2. Duthie, G.M. A framework for the physical development of elite rugby union players. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2006, 1, 2–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Pienaar, C.; Coetzee, B. Changes in selected physical, motor performance and anthropometric components of university-level rugby players after one microcycle of a combined rugby conditioning and plyometric training program. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2013, 27, 398–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Todoroff, M. Dynamic deep squat: Lower-body kinematics and considerations regarding squat technique, load position, and heel height. Strength Cond. J. 2017, 39, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Thorpe, C.; Dobbin, N.; Twist, C.; Callaghan, M. Relationship Between Individual and Composite FMS™ Scores with the Anthropometric and Physical Characteristics of Elite Touch (Rugby) Players. J. Sci. Sport Exerc. 2024, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Philipp, N.M.; Cabarkapa, D.; Nijem, R.M.; Blackburn, S.D.; Fry, A.C. Vertical jump neuromuscular performance characteristics determining on-court contribution in male and female NCAA division 1 basketball players. Sports 2023, 11, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Castagna, C.; Castellini, E. Vertical jump performance in Italian male and female national team soccer players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2013, 27, 1156–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  8. de Araújo, M.C.; Baumgart, C.; Jansen, C.T.; Freiwald, J.; Hoppe, M.W. Sex differences in physical capacities of German Bundesliga soccer players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2020, 34, 2329–2337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Laffaye, G.; Wagner, P.P.; Tombleson, T.I. Countermovement jump height: Gender and sport-specific differences in the force-time variables. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014, 28, 1096–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  10. Mujika, I.; Santisteban, J.; Impellizzeri, F.M.; Castagna, C. Fitness determinants of success in men’s and women’s football. J. Sports Sci. 2009, 27, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Blazevich, A.J.; Sharp, N.C. Understanding muscle architectural adaptation: Macro-and micro-level research. Cells Tissues Organs 2006, 181, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Perez-Gomez, J.; Rodriguez, G.V.; Ara, I.; Olmedillas, H.; Chavarren, J.; González-Henriquez, J.J.; Dorado, C.; Calbet, J.A. Role of muscle mass on sprint performance: Gender differences? Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2008, 102, 685–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Rice, P.E.; Goodman, C.L.; Capps, C.R.; Triplett, N.T.; Erickson, T.M.; McBride, J.M. Force–and power–time curve comparison during jumping between strength-matched male and female basketball players. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2017, 17, 286–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Janssen, I.; Brown, N.A.T.; Munro, B.J.; Steele, J.R. Variations in jump height explain the between-sex difference in patellar tendon loading during landing. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2015, 25, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  15. Sattler, T.; Hadžic, V.; Derviševic, E.; Markovic, G. Vertical jump performance of professional male and female volleyball players: Effects of playing position and competition level. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 1486–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Ruffieux, J.; Wälchli, M.; Kim, K.M.; Taube, W. Countermovement jump training is more effective than drop jump training in enhancing jump height in non-professional female volleyball players. Front. Physiol. 2020, 11, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  17. Rousanoglou, E.N.; Georgiadis, G.V.; Boudolos, K.D. Muscular strength and jumping performance relationships in young women athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2008, 22, 1375–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  18. Ball, S.; Halaki, M.; Orr, R. Movement demands of rugby sevens in men and women: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2019, 33, 3475–3490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Tee, J.C.; Lambert, M.I.; Coopoo, Y. GPS comparison of training activities and game demands of professional rugby union. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2016, 11, 200–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Van Hooren, B.; Zolotarjova, J. The difference between countermovement and squat jump performances: A review of underlying mechanisms with practical applications. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2017, 31, 2011–2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Grgic, J.; Lazinica, B.; Schoenfeld, B.J.; Pedisic, Z. Test–retest reliability of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength assessment: A systematic review. Sports Med. Open. 2020, 6, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Tabaković, A.; Tabaković, M.; Atiković, A.; Mašić, S.; Hodžić, A. Relationship of absolute and relative lower extremities strength and the efficiency of vault performance in gymnastics. Sci. Gymnast. J. 2024, 16, 461–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Sheppard, J.M.; Cronin, J.B.; Gabbett, T.J.; McGuigan, M.R.; Etxebarria, N.; Newton, R.U. Relative importance of strength, power, and anthropometric measures to jump performance of elite volleyball players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2008, 22, 758–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  24. Esformes, J.I.; Bampouras, T.M. Effect of back squat depth on postactivation potentiation. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2013, 27, 2997–3000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Schober, P.; Boer, C.; Schwarte, L.A. Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth. Analg. 2018, 126, 1763–1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Caterisano, A.; E Moss, R.; Pellinger, T.K.; Woodruff, K.; Lewis, V.C.; Booth, W.; Khadra, T. The effect of back squat depth on the EMG activity of 4 superficial hip and thigh muscles. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2002, 16, 428–432. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  27. Lu, J.; Yin, L. Sex differences in left ventricular stroke work and cardiac power output per unit myocardium relate to blood pressure in apparently healthy adults. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0280143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  28. Johnson, S.T.; Kipp, K.; Hoffman, M.A. Spinal motor control differences between the sexes. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2012, 112, 3859–3864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Mangalam, M.; Isoyama, Y.; Ogata, H.; Nose-Ogura, S.; Kayaba, M.; Nagai, N.; Kiyono, K. Multi-scaling allometry in human development, mammalian morphology, and tree growth. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 19957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
A CNN-ViT Hybrid Architecture Res101-MViT-Ens for Accurate and Lightweight Automated Ocular Disease Diagnosis
Previous
Preliminary Assessment of the Neuroprotective Potential of the Above-Ground Parts of Two Carlina Species (Asteraceae)
Next