Development of tables for classifying judo athletes according to maximal isometric strength and muscular power, and comparisons between athletes at different competitive levels

• Published in: Sport sciences for health 2018-12, Vol.14 (3), p.607-614
• Main Authors: Branco, Braulio Henrique Magnani, Andreato, Leonardo Vidal, Ribeiro, Eugenio Diniz, de Oliveira, Humberto Garcia, Almeida, Felipe Natali, Junior, Nelson Nardo
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Athletes; Human Physiology; Martial arts; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Metabolic Diseases; Muscle strength; Olympic games; Original Article; Performance evaluation; Physical fitness; Sports Medicine
• ISSN: 1824-7490; 1825-1234
• DOI: 10.1007/s11332-018-0469-7

The objectives of this study were to develop normative tables to classify judo athletes by maximal isometric strength and muscular power, and to compare performance at different competitive levels. 102 male athletes performed tests of maximal isometric handgrip strength (MIHS), scapular humeral traction (MISHT), lumbar traction (MILT), lower body traction (MILBT), plyometric push-up (PPU), countermovement jump (CJ) and squat jump (SJ). Performance was classified as: ≤ 10th percentile = very poor, 11–25th percentile = poor, 26–75th percentile = regular, 76–90th percentile = good and > 90th percentile = excellent. Classification relative to body mass [isometric (kg/kg) and power (cm kg)] was as follows: MIHS—very poor: ≤ 0.81; poor: 0.82–0.96; regular: 0.97–1.51; good: 1.52–1.79; excellent: ≥ 1.80, MILT—very poor: ≤ 1.14; poor: 1.15–1.41; regular: 1.41–2.0; good: 2.0–2.5; excellent: ≥ 2.6, MILBT—very poor: ≤ 1.15; poor: 1.16–1.44; regular: 1.45–2.15; good: 2.16–2.62; excellent: ≥ 2.63, MISHT—very poor: ≤ 0.34; poor: 0.35–0.41; regular: 0.42–0.62; good: 0.63–0.73; excellent: ≥ 0.74, PPU—very poor: ≤ 635.4; poor: 635.5–901.9; regular: 902.0–1801.4; good: 1801.5–2369.7; excellent: ≥ 2369.8, SJ—very poor: ≤ 1690.7; poor: 1690.8–1990.3; regular: 1990.4–3387.9; good: 3388.0–4029.4; excellent: ≥ 4029.5 and CJ—very-poor: ≤ 1775.4; poor: 1775.5–2195.4; regular: 2195.5–3667.2; good: 3667.3–4208.3; excellent: ≥ 4208.4. State athletes had lower MISHT ( p  = 0.015) than international athletes and lower CJ than national athletes ( p  = 0.05). International athletes showed better PPU performance than others ( p