{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03628750872295883, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03210048848569435, 'mean_word_length': 4.853061224489796, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluation of Peak Power Prediction Equations in Male Basketball Players

Duncan, MJ, Lyons, M, and Nevill, AM. Evaluation of peak power prediction equations in male basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1379-1381, 2008-This study compared peak power estimated using 4 commonly used regression equations with actual peak power derived from force platform data in a group of adolescent basketball players. Twenty-five elite junior male basketball players (age, 16.5 ± 0.5 years; mass, 74.2 ± 11.8 kg; height, 181.8 ± 8.1 cm) volunteered to participate in the study. Actual peak power was determined using a countermovement vertical jump on a force platform. Estimated peak power was determined using countermovement jump height and body mass. All 4 prediction equations were significantly related to actual peak power (all p < 0.01). Repeated-measures analysis of variance indicated significant differences between actual peak power and estimate peak power from all 4 prediction equations (p < 0.001). Bonferroni post hoc tests indicated that estimated peak power was significantly lower than actual peak power for all 4 prediction equations. Ratio limits of agreement for actual peak power and estimated peak power were 8% for the Harman et al. and Sayers squat jump prediction equations, 12% for the Canavan and Vescovi equation, and 6% for the Sayers countermovement jump equation. In all cases peak power was underestimated.