4.4 Article

Aerobic and anaerobic determinants of repeated sprint ability in team sports athletes

期刊

BIOLOGY OF SPORT
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 207-212

出版社

INST SPORT
DOI: 10.5604/20831862.1150302

关键词

maximal anaerobic shuttle; running test; Wingate test; maximal oxygen uptake; intermittent sports

资金

  1. Ministere de l'Enseignement Superieur et de la Recherche Scientifique, Tunisia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to examine in team sports athletes the relationship between repeated sprint ability (RSA) indices and both aerobic and anaerobic fitness components. Sixteen team-sport players were included (age, 23.4 +/- 2.3 years; weight, 71.2 +/- 8.3 kg; height, 178 +/- 7 cm; body mass index, 22.4 +/- 2 kg.m(-2); estimated VO(2)max, 54.16 +/- 3.5 mL.kg(-1).min(-1)). Subjects were licensed in various team sports: soccer (n = 8), basketball (n = 5), and handball (n = 3). They performed 4 tests: the 20 m multi-stage shuttle run test (MSRT), the 30-s Wingate test (WingT), the Maximal Anaerobic Shuttle Running Test (MASRT), and the RSA test (10 repetitions of 30 m shuttle sprints (15 + 15 m with 180 degrees change of direction) with 30 s passive recovery in between). Pearson's product moment of correlation among the different physical tests was performed. No significant correlations were found between any RSA test indices and WingT. However, negative correlations were found between MASRT and RSA total sprint time (TT) and fatigue index (FI) (r = -0.53, p < 0.05 and r = -0.65, p < 0.01, respectively). No significant relationship between VO(2)max and RSA peak sprint time (PT) and total sprint time (TT) was found. Nevertheless, VO(2)max was significantly correlated with the RSA FI (r = -0.57, p < 0.05). In conclusion, aerobic fitness is an important factor influencing the ability to resist fatigue during RSA exercise. Our results highlighted the usefulness of MASRT, in contrast to WingT, as a specific anaerobic testing procedure to identify the anaerobic energy system contribution during RSA.

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