4.5 Article

Comparison of on-ice and off-ice graded exercise testing in collegiate hockey players

Publisher

NATL RESEARCH COUNCIL CANADA-N R C RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/H09-129

Keywords

blood lactate; ice hockey; graded exercise test; NHL combine; specificity

Funding

  1. Michigan Tech summer
  2. Portage Sports Medicine Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to compare lactate thresholds (LT) and maximal aerobic capacities (VO(2max)) during sport-specific skating (on ice) and cycle ergometry (off ice) in collegiate hockey players. We hypothesized that VO(2max) and LT would be higher on ice. We also sought to determine if on-ice and off-ice VO(2max) values were correlated. Twelve collegiate hockey players performed both graded exercise protocols in randomized order to fatigue. Both protocols included 80 s of work during each stage, followed by 40 s of rest to allow for blood lactate sampling. VO(2max) was significantly higher on ice (46.9 +/- 1.0 mL.kg(-1).min(-1)) than office (43.6 +/- 0.9 mL.kg(-1).min(-1); p < 0.05). Maximal heart rate (HR(max)) was also higher on ice (192.2 +/- 1.8 beats.min(-1)) than off ice (186.0 +/- 1.5 beats.min(-1); p < 0.01). LT was drastically higher on ice than off ice as a percentage of VO(2max) (85.9% +/- 1.9% vs. 69.7% +/- 1.3%; p < 0.01) and HR(max) (90.1% +/- 1.3% vs. 79.4% +/- 1.6%; p < 0.01). Finally, no correlation existed between VO(2max) values off ice and on ice (r = -0.002; P = 0.99). Our results indicate that office VO(2max) and LT are not adequate predictors of on-ice VO(2max) and LT in collegiate hockey players. These findings challenge the use of cycle ergometry to assess aerobic capacity at events such as the National Hockey League Entry Draft combine. We suggest that hockey players be tested in a sport-specific manner, regardless of whether those tests are performed on ice or off ice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available