the load cells across the two platforms) was displayed in
front of the participant during the IMTP efforts, and a hori-
zontal marker was placed on the highest force obtained after
the ﬁrst maximum effort. In the ofﬂine analysis, the force
signals were low passﬁltered (10 Hz using a fourth-order
zero-lag Butterworthﬁlter) before summating the force out-
put from the two platforms to derive overall force produced.
The instantaneous highest force during maximum efforts
was identiﬁed as the measure of gross IMTP peak force (i.e.,
including body weight). Force while the WSM was standing
upright on the platform at rest (i.e., body weight) was also
subtracted from the peak instantaneous force to calculate
net IMTP peak force.
Analysis and Comparative Data
Muscle volumes, patellar tendon CSA, and patellar tendon
moment arm measurements assessed on both legs of the
WSM were averaged to provide unilateral criterion values;
this facilitated comparisons with various untrained, resist-
ance-trained, and athletic groups previously investigated in
published works from our laboratory (10, 11, 13– 15; Table 1).
IMTP and CMJ values were predominantly compared with
existing research literature with the highest comparable male
data [e.g., IMTP gross peak force: (18– 25); IMTP net peak force:
(26– 31); CMJ performed with an arm swing on a force plat-
form (32– 38)]. Where the numerical values (means and SD)
from previously published studies were not reported, they
were extracted using online software (WebPlotDigitizer, ver-
sion 4.6, https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer). For IMTP
peak force in cases where it was not clearly stated that body
weight was subtracted from gross IMTP peak force, measures
were assumed to be gross IMTP peak force. Muscle and ten-
don morphologyﬁgures display means ± SD as well as indi-
vidual participant data for comparative populations, as these
values are from published research from our laboratory. IMTP
peak force and CMJ outcomeﬁgures display only means ± SD
values for comparative populations, as we relied on published
values from the literature where individual participant values
were not typically available.
RESULTS
Participant Descriptives and Anthropometrics
The WSM was 30.6 yr old and 1.90 m tall and his body
mass was 172 kg upon reporting for the laboratory visit. The
age, height, and body mass of participants from the compar-
ative datasets featured in our previously published research
are presented in Table 1. Age, height, and body mass for
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1000012000
Untrained controls (n=39) (14)
Physically active college students (n=25) (38)
International gymnasts (n=5) (37)
Collegiate athletes* (n=69) (36)
Professional Australian rules footballers (n=14) (35)
Varsity rugby union players (n=18) (34)
Professional basketballers (n=10) (33)
Professional basketballers (n=13) (32)
WSM
CMJ peak power (W)
C
0 2 04 06 08 0
Physically active college students (n=25) (38)
Professional basketballers (n=10) (33)
Professional Australian rules footballers (n=14) (35)
Untrained controls (n=39) (14)
Professional basketballers (n=13) (32)
Varsity rugby union players (n=18) (34)
Collegiate athletes* (n=69) (36)
International gymnasts (n=5) (37)
WSM
CMJ height (cm)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Strength-trained population* (n=13) (25)
College athletes* (n=11) (24)
Experienced weightlifters (n=5) (18)
International level weightlifters (n=9) (23)
Competitive weighlifters (n=31) (19)
Competitive powerlifters (n=14) (22)
Competitive weightlifters (n=4) (21)
Sub-elite weightlifters (n=10) (20)
WSM
Gross IMTP peak force (N)
A
D
B
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Resistance-trained population (n=8) (31)
Collegiate rugby union athletes (n=15) (30)
Collegiate weightlifters (n=8) (29)
International Rugby union backs (n=14) (27)
Special Forces Selection Candidates (n=59) (28)
International rugby union forwards (n=15) (27)
Collegiate baseball players (n=28) (26)
Collegiate soccer players (n=23) (26)
WSM
Net IMTP peak force (N)