4.4 Article

OLYMPIC PREPARATION IN BRAZILIAN JUDO ATHLETES: DESCRIPTION AND PERCEIVED RELEVANCE OF TRAINING PRACTICES

期刊

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
卷 28, 期 6, 页码 1606-1612

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000300

关键词

martial arts; combat sports; competition; Olympics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to describe the training routines used by judo athletes and their perception concerning the relevance, effort made, concentration needed, and pleasure obtained during the training sessions conducted 6 months before their Olympic participation and to compare with medal winners and other competitors in these aspects. Sixty-one Olympic Brazilian judo athletes (men = 39; women = 22), representing 66.3% of all Brazilian participants in this Olympic sport (from 1964 to 2008), including 10 medal winners (9 men and 1 woman) answered a questionnaire concerning their training routines. Mann-Whitney and Student's t-test for independent samples were used. Judo medalists and nonmedalists in the Olympic Games did not differ in: (a) the age when they started to practice and to compete in judo, (b) the age when they competed in the Olympic Games, (c) hours of training per week and per training session and the number of training sessions per day in their preparation for this event, (d) frequency and time spent for performing judo-specific and general exercises and their perceived relevance, effort, pleasure, and concentration for these activities performed during the preparation for the Olympic Games. The only differences found were the groundwork (ne-waza) randori practice, which was less frequently performed by medal winners, and perceived relevance attributed to this activity, which was considered less relevant by the medal winners compared with non-medal winners. Thus, judo Olympic medal winners and nonmedalists did not differ in many training aspects in the final phase of their preparation to the Olympic Games.

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

4.4
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