4.4 Article

Reliability of Alpine Ski Racing-Specific Field Test: The 80s-Slide-Test

期刊

出版社

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2019-0696

关键词

physiological test; slide board; test reliability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that the 80s-slide-test demonstrated strong reliability for total push-offs number, peak oxygen uptake, mean oxygen uptake, peak heart rate, and mean heart rate in well-trained alpine ski racers. Additionally, changes in blood lactate levels, fatigue index, and perceived exertion were moderately reliable. This suggests that the 80s-slide-test is a reliable and easily applicable tool for trainers working with well-trained alpine ski racers.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the test-retest reliability of the 80s-slide-test in well-trained alpine ski racers. Methods: The sample consisted of 8 well-trained alpine ski racers (age = 17.8 [0.7] y old; height = 1.80 [0.09] m; body mass = 72.1 [9.5] kg) who performed a lab-based maximal graded test on cycle ergometer and three 80s-slide-tests in 4 separate essions. The 80s-slide-test consisting of maximal push-offs performed for 80s on a 8-ft slide board. Oxygen uptake ((V)Over dotO(2)) and heart rate (HR) were recorded continuously. Blood lactate ([La](b)) was determined immediately prerun, followed by 3 minutes postrun. Three minutes after the completion of the session, the subjects were asked to indicate their rate of perceived exertion using Borg scale ranging from 6 to 20. Total and every 10s mean push-offs number were assessed by camera. Typical errors of measurement, intraclass correlation coefficients, and smallest worthwhile change were calculated. Results: The 80s-slide-test showed strong reliability for total push-offs number, (V)Over dotO(2peak), (V)Over dotO(2mean), HRpeak, and HRmean. Delta[La](b), fatigue index, and the rate of perceived exertion were moderately reliable. Conclusion: The 80s-slide-test is a reliable test for well-trained alpine ski racers and can be used easily by trainers.

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