4.4 Article

Development of 11-to 16-year-olds' short-term power output determined using both treadmill running and cycle ergometry

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 119, 期 7, 页码 1565-1580

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-019-04146-1

关键词

Mean power; Multilevel modelling; Non-motorized treadmill test; Peak power; Wingate anaerobic test; Youth

资金

  1. Darlington Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeTo investigate the development of peak power output (PP) and mean power output (MP) during two different modes of exercise in relation to sex and concurrent changes in age, body mass, fat-free mass (FFM), maturity status and, in the case of MP, peak oxygen uptake (V O2).MethodsPP and MP were determined cycling against a fixed braking force (Wingate anaerobic test) and running on a non-motorized treadmill. Peak V O2 was determined using cycle ergometry and treadmill running. 135 (63 girls) students initially aged 11-14years were tested over 2days on three annual occasions. The data were analysed using multiplicative allometric modelling which enables the effects of variables to be partitioned concurrently within an allometric framework. Multiplicative models were founded on 301 (138 from girls) determinations of PP and MP on each ergometer.ResultsWith body mass controlled for, both PP and MP increased with age but maturity status did not independently contribute to any of the multiplicative allometric models. Boys' PP and MP were significantly (p<0.05) higher than girls' values on both ergometers. On both ergometers in both sexes, the most powerful morphological influence on PP and MP was FFM. Ergometer-specific peak O2 had a significant (p<0.05), additional effect in explaining the development of MP.ConclusionsThe development of short-term power output is sex specific but within sex multiplicative allometric models of running- and cycling-determined PP and MP were similar, suggesting that either mode of exercise can be used in future studies of short-term power output in youth.

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