4.6 Article

Effect of oral contraceptive cycle phase on performance in team sport players

期刊

JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN SPORT
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 190-195

出版社

SPORTS MEDICINE AUSTRALIA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2007.10.005

关键词

Oral contraceptives; Sports; Oestrogens; Progestins; Muscle strength

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to examine whether common team sport performance variables (anaerobic power, reactive strength and repeat sprint ability) are affected by acute hormonal fluctuation within a monophasic oral contraceptive (OC) cycle. Ten female team sport athletes completed performance tests at three time points of a single OC cycle, during the consumption phase (CONS), early (WITH1) and late in the withdrawal phase (WITH2). Tests included drop jumps (30 cm and 45 cm heights), a counter movement jump, a 10s cycle sprint test and a 5x 6s repeated sprint cycle test. Resting endogenous serum oestradiol and progesterone concentrations were also measured. No significant differences were observed between phases for the counter movement jump and cycle tests (total work and peak power). Reactive strength measured from the 30cm drop height was significantly lower during WITH2 (162 +/- 38 cm s(-1)) compared to both CONS (177 +/- 44 cm s(-1)) and WITH1 (178 +/- 40 cm s(-1)) (p < 0.05). Reactive strength measured from the 45 cm drop height was significantly higher in CONS (178 +/- 48 cm s(-1)) compared to both WITH1 and WITH2 (161 +/- 39 cm s(-1) and 158 +/- 29 cm s(-1), respectively) (p < 0.05). Serum oestradiol levels were greater during WITH2 compared to both WITH1 and CONS (p < 0.05) but there was no difference in serum progesterone levels. The results demonstrate that for female team sport athletes, only reactive strength varied significantly throughout an OC cycle, possibly due to the action of hormones on neuromuscular timing and the stretch-shortening cycle. (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