4.6 Article

Selected physiological responses during batting in a simulated cricket work bout: A pilot study

期刊

JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN SPORT
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 581-584

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2007.08.001

关键词

Physiology; Batting; Cricket

资金

  1. United Cricket Board of South Africa (UCBSA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As limited research has focused on the physiological responses associated with cricket activity, the aim of this pilot study was to measure selected physiological responses during batting in a simulated high-scoring 1-day cricket game. Ten male university cricketers performed a batting specific work bout consisting of four sprints per over (six balls) for a seven over period. Testing was conducted outdoors with players wearing full batting gear. All experimentation was conducted under temperate environmental conditions. During the simulated work bout, a portable on-line metabolic system (the k4b(2)) was attached to the subjects for the continuous assessment of selected physiological variables including heart rate (HR), ventilation (F-B, V-T and V-E), oxygen uptake (Vo(2)) and metabolic carbon dioxide (V-CO2) production. Energy expenditure was calculated from the oxygen consumption responses and substrate use was calculated from the V-O2/V-CO2 responses. The results demonstrate that although the first over carried a statistically (p < 0.05) lower energetic cost than the remaining six overs, most physiological responses stabilised thereafter. This excluded the heart rate responses which increased significantly (p < 0.05) during the first three overs after which marginal increases were observed with no statistical difference between the last four overs (heart rate ranged from 149 +/- 19 bt min(-1) in the fourth over to 155 +/- 18 bt min(-1) in the last over). There was a mean energy expenditure of 2536 kJ h(-1) over the duration of the work bout. (c) 2007 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据