-
Konradsen Lemming posted an update 6 months, 1 week ago
To investigate whether providing athletes with a choice regarding the number of repetitions to complete in a potentiation protocol would enhance jumping performance compared with protocols in which the number of repetitions is predetermined.
Fifteen male basketball players completed 4 testing sessions separated by 72 hours. In the first session, individual optimum power loads in the barbell jump squat were determined. In the following 3 sessions, the athletes completed 3 sets of 3 potentiation protocols using optimum power load jump squats in a partly randomized order (1)The traditional condition included 6 repetitions per set, (2)the self-selected condition included a choice regarding the number of repetitions to complete per set, and (3)the imposed condition included the same number of repetitions per set as the self-selected condition, but the number was imposed on the athletes beforehand. The jumping performance was determined as jump squat test height and measured using a force platform before and 30seconds, 4minutes, and 8minutes after completing the protocols.
The self-selected condition led to superior jumping performance compared with the 2 other conditions across all post measures (P < .05; range 0.3-1.3cm). Compared with the traditional condition, the imposed condition led to superior jumping performance across all post measures (range 0.2-0.45cm), although not statistically significant at post 4minutes and post 8minutes.
Choice provision concerning how many repetitions to complete in a potentiation protocol is a useful performance-enhancing strategy. Improved potentiation-fatigue ratio and motivational factors are sought to explain these effects.
Choice provision concerning how many repetitions to complete in a potentiation protocol is a useful performance-enhancing strategy. Improved potentiation-fatigue ratio and motivational factors are sought to explain these effects.
A variety of intensity, load, and performance measures (eg,”power profile”) have been used to characterize the demands of professional cycling races with differing stage types. An increased understanding of the characteristics of these races could provide valuable insight for practitioners toward the design of training strategies to optimally prepare for these demands. However, current reviews within this area are outdated and do not include a recent influx of new articles describing the demands of professional cycling races.
To provide an updated overview of the intensity and load demands and power profile of professional cycling races. Typically adopted measures are introduced and their results summarized.
There is a clear trend in the research that stage type significantly influences the intensity, load, and power profile of races with more elevation gain typically resulting in a higher intensity and load and longer-duration power outputs (ie,>10min). Flat and semimountainous stages are characterimands of these races and differences between varying competition elements, a limited amount of research is available describing the “race-winning efforts” in these races, and this is proposed as an important area for future research. Finally, practitioners should consider the limitations of each metric individually, and a multivariable approach to analyzing races is advocated.
The genetic influence on the attainment of elite athlete status is well established, with a number of polymorphisms found to be more common in elite athletes than in the general population. learn more As such, there is considerable interest in understanding whether this information can be utilized to identify future elite athletes. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to compare the total genotype scores of 5 elite athletes to those of nonathletic controls, to subsequently determine whether genetic information could discriminate between these groups, and, finally, to suggest how these findings may inform debates relating to the potential for genotyping to be used as a talent-identification tool.
The authors compared the total genotype scores for both endurance (68 genetic variants) and speed-power (48 genetic variants) elite athlete status of 5 elite track-and-field athletes, including an Olympic champion, to those of 503 White European nonathletic controls.
Using the speed-power total genotype score, the elite speed-power athletes scored higher than the elite endurance athletes; however, using this speed-power score, 68 nonathletic controls registered higher scores than the elite power athletes. Surprisingly, using the endurance total genotype score, the elite speed-power athletes again scored higher than the elite endurance athletes.
These results suggest that genetic information is not capable of accurately discriminating between elite athletes and nonathletic controls, illustrating that the use of such information as a talent-identification tool is currently unwarranted and ineffective.
These results suggest that genetic information is not capable of accurately discriminating between elite athletes and nonathletic controls, illustrating that the use of such information as a talent-identification tool is currently unwarranted and ineffective.The Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) measures fundamental motor skills competency and is frequently used for eligibility determination of adapted physical education services in children with disabilities. The purpose of this study was to determine if the TGMD-3 is clinically sensitive to detect deficits in the fundamental motor skills of children with disabilities (i.e., intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, language and articulation disorders). Eighty-five children with disabilities and 85 matched controls (i.e., typically developing, individually matched on age, sex, ethnicity, and race) completed the TGMD-3. Mann-Whitney U tests identified significant differences in the total TGMD-3 scores for children with intellectual disability (p less then .001), autism spectrum disorder (p less then .001), and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (p = .032). No differences were identified for children with language and articulation disorders. Comparisons of subscales (i.