-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
The comparison of results in C1 paddling functional test and in arm crank ergometrics in canoe slalom elite athletes
Jan Busta, Milan Bílý, Lenka Kovářová, Martin Říha
Jazyk angličtina Země Česko
- Klíčová slova
- kanoistika,
- MeSH
- ergometrie metody normy statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- sportovní výkon * MeSH
- sporty MeSH
- techniky cvičení a pohybu normy MeSH
- vodní sporty MeSH
Background: Recently, there have been rising demands on the specifics of functional load testing, which should with its motor structure correspond or at least draw near the sport specialization. However, evaluation of specific forms of diagnostics is very pure in canoe slalom. Objective: The aim of the study was to compare a physiological response based on results in graded functional test when paddling in a single canoe (C1) and results reached in the standardized arm crank ergometrics. Methods: The research sample consisted of 6 elite Czech single canoeists, members of Czech senior national team and the Czech national team up to 23 years. Their average weight was 79.7±6.6 kg, height 183.4±6.6 cm and age 23.6±3.9 years. Results: When comparing the result values of physiological indicators measured in both functional tests, we have found out significant differences (statistical and substantive) in variables: VO2peak (p=0.00; 15.1%), VEpeak (p=0.06, 11.1%), HR (p=0.02; 5.7%), RR (p=0.18; 9.3%), VT (p=0.00; 18.8%) and RER (p=0.26; 4.0%). With the exception of respiratory rate, significantly lower values of all physiological variables were found in on-water testing (C1). Although there was a strong correlation between the VO2peak indicators (r=0.79, p=0.06) found between paddling and crank ergometrics, this relationship cannot be considered significant (p=0.06) due to the small research sample. Conclusions: To evaluate on-water testing and to determine the external validity of arm crank ergometrics for C1 diagnostics, it is necessary to test a bigger research sample. Therefore, it is a pilot study. However, the results indicate that the physiological load requirements in the C1 category are different from those of the kayak category (K1). Although C1 paddlers reached similar VO2peak values in the arm crank ergometrics as kayakers, in the on-water test they reached about 10 ml.kg.min-1 lower oxygen uptake compared to kayakers (Busta, Bílý, Suchý, & Kovářová, 2017).
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
LIteratura
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc19008299
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20210301131827.0
- 007
- cr|cn|
- 008
- 190305s2018 xr a fs 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 0_
- $a 10.5817/StS2018-2-2 $2 doi
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $d ABA008 $e AACR2 $b cze
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xr
- 100 1_
- $a Busta, Jan $7 jo20211100377 $u Faculty of physical education and sport, Charles University
- 245 14
- $a The comparison of results in C1 paddling functional test and in arm crank ergometrics in canoe slalom elite athletes / $c Jan Busta, Milan Bílý, Lenka Kovářová, Martin Říha
- 504 __
- $a LIteratura
- 520 9_
- $a Background: Recently, there have been rising demands on the specifics of functional load testing, which should with its motor structure correspond or at least draw near the sport specialization. However, evaluation of specific forms of diagnostics is very pure in canoe slalom. Objective: The aim of the study was to compare a physiological response based on results in graded functional test when paddling in a single canoe (C1) and results reached in the standardized arm crank ergometrics. Methods: The research sample consisted of 6 elite Czech single canoeists, members of Czech senior national team and the Czech national team up to 23 years. Their average weight was 79.7±6.6 kg, height 183.4±6.6 cm and age 23.6±3.9 years. Results: When comparing the result values of physiological indicators measured in both functional tests, we have found out significant differences (statistical and substantive) in variables: VO2peak (p=0.00; 15.1%), VEpeak (p=0.06, 11.1%), HR (p=0.02; 5.7%), RR (p=0.18; 9.3%), VT (p=0.00; 18.8%) and RER (p=0.26; 4.0%). With the exception of respiratory rate, significantly lower values of all physiological variables were found in on-water testing (C1). Although there was a strong correlation between the VO2peak indicators (r=0.79, p=0.06) found between paddling and crank ergometrics, this relationship cannot be considered significant (p=0.06) due to the small research sample. Conclusions: To evaluate on-water testing and to determine the external validity of arm crank ergometrics for C1 diagnostics, it is necessary to test a bigger research sample. Therefore, it is a pilot study. However, the results indicate that the physiological load requirements in the C1 category are different from those of the kayak category (K1). Although C1 paddlers reached similar VO2peak values in the arm crank ergometrics as kayakers, in the on-water test they reached about 10 ml.kg.min-1 lower oxygen uptake compared to kayakers (Busta, Bílý, Suchý, & Kovářová, 2017).
- 650 12
- $a sportovní výkon $7 D054874
- 650 _2
- $a ergometrie $x metody $x normy $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D016552
- 650 _2
- $a sporty $7 D013177
- 650 _2
- $a vodní sporty $7 D000073678
- 650 _2
- $a techniky cvičení a pohybu $x normy $7 D026241
- 653 10
- $a kanoistika
- 700 1_
- $a Bílý, Milan $7 jn20000400345 $u Faculty of physical education and sport, Charles University
- 700 1_
- $a Kovářová, Lenka, $d 1979- $7 xx0145358 $u Faculty of physical education and sport, Charles University
- 700 1_
- $a Říha, Martin $7 xx0233647 $u Faculty of physical education and sport, Charles University
- 773 0_
- $t Studia sportiva $x 1802-7679 $g Roč. 12, č. 2 (2018), s. 18-25 $w MED00173478
- 856 41
- $u https://journals.muni.cz/studiasportiva/ $y domovská stránka časopisu - plný text volně přístupný
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b online $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20190305061116 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20210227131821 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1381875 $s 1046555
- BAS __
- $a 3 $a 4
- BMC __
- $a 2018 $b 12 $c 2 $d 18-25 $i 1802-7679 $m Studia Sportiva $x MED00173478
- LZP __
- $c NLK197 $d 20210227 $a NLK 2019-03/vt