Literature DB >> 25963378

Energetics (and kinematics) of short shuttle runs.

Paola Zamparo1, Francesca Bolomini, Francesca Nardello, Marco Beato.   

Abstract

PURPOSES: The energy cost of shuttle running (C netSR), over distances of 10-20 m, was reported to increase with the shuttle speed and to decrease with the shuttle distance. The aims of this study were to assess C netSR over a shorter distance (5 m), at different speeds, and to estimate the energy cost based on a simple kinematic analysis (C netK).
METHODS: Ten subjects (six basketball players, BP; four non-basketball players, NBP) performed ten shuttle runs (SR) with 30 s of passive recovery in-between, over a distance of 5 + 5 m (with a 180° change of direction); these experiments were repeated at different speeds (range 2-3.5 m s(-1)). The values of average (v mean) and maximal (v max) speed during each run were determined by means of kinematic analysis and C netK was calculated as: 0.96[Formula: see text]. C netSR was calculated based on data of oxygen uptake, blood lactate concentration and distance covered.
RESULTS: The relationships between C (J m(-1) kg(-1)) and v (m(.)s(-1)) are well described by C netK (all subjects) = 11.76v - 13.09, R (2) = 0.853; C netSR (BP) = 11.94v - 12.82, R (2) = 0.636; and C netSR (NBP) = 14.09v - 14.53, R (2) = 0.738. Hence C netSR ≈ C netK in BP, whereas C netSR > C netK in NBP (un-familiar with this specific motor task). DISCUSSION: The calculations proposed in this study allow to estimate C of short SR based on simple measures of v max and can be utilized to develop training protocols in basketball as well as in other team sports (characterized by repeated sprints over short distances).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25963378     DOI: 10.1007/s00421-015-3180-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol        ISSN: 1439-6319            Impact factor:   3.078


  23 in total

1.  Activity profile and physiological requirements of junior elite basketball players in relation to aerobic-anaerobic fitness.

Authors:  Nidhal Ben Abdelkrim; Carlo Castagna; Imed Jabri; Tahar Battikh; Saloua El Fazaa; Jalila El Ati
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.775

2.  Sprint running: a new energetic approach.

Authors:  P E di Prampero; S Fusi; L Sepulcri; J B Morin; A Belli; G Antonutto
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.312

3.  Mechanical work and efficiency in level walking and running.

Authors:  G A Cavagna; M Kaneko
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1977-06       Impact factor: 5.182

4.  The energy cost of shuttle running.

Authors:  Antonio Buglione; Pietro Enrico di Prampero
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2013-01-09       Impact factor: 3.078

Review 5.  The energetics of anaerobic muscle metabolism: a reappraisal of older and recent concepts.

Authors:  P E di Prampero; G Ferretti
Journal:  Respir Physiol       Date:  1999-12-01

6.  Measured and estimated energy cost of constant and shuttle running in soccer players.

Authors:  Tom Gerardus Antonia Stevens; Cornelis Johannes De Ruiter; David Van Maurik; Chris Joannes Wilhelmus Van Lierop; Geert Jozef Peter Savelsbergh; Peter Jan Beek
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 5.411

7.  Energetics of shuttle runs: the effects of distance and change of direction.

Authors:  Paola Zamparo; Ivan Zadro; Stefano Lazzer; Marco Beato; Luigino Sepulcri
Journal:  Int J Sports Physiol Perform       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 4.010

8.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Walking and running in the red-legged running frog, Kassina maculata.

Authors:  A N Ahn; E Furrow; A A Biewener
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 3.312

10.  External, internal and total work in human locomotion.

Authors:  P A Willems; G A Cavagna; N C Heglund
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 3.312

View more
  7 in total

1.  Mechanical work and efficiency of 5 + 5 m shuttle running.

Authors:  Paola Zamparo; Gaspare Pavei; Francesca Nardello; Davide Bartolini; Andrea Monte; Alberto E Minetti
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2016-07-29       Impact factor: 3.078

2.  Associations Between Variations in Accumulated Workload and Physiological Variables in Young Male Soccer Players Over the Course of a Season.

Authors:  Hadi Nobari; Ana Ruivo Alves; Filipe Manuel Clemente; Jorge Pérez-Gómez; Cain C T Clark; Urs Granacher; Hassane Zouhal
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 4.566

3.  The Reliability of Technical and Tactical Tagging Analysis Conducted by a Semi-Automatic VTS in Soccer.

Authors:  Marco Beato; Mikael Jamil; Gavin Devereux
Journal:  J Hum Kinet       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 2.193

4.  Implementing Flywheel (Isoinertial) Exercise in Strength Training: Current Evidence, Practical Recommendations, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Marco Beato; Antonio Dello Iacono
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 4.566

5.  Comparison of Physiological and Perceptional Responses to 5-m Forward, Forward-Backward, and Lateral Shuttle Running.

Authors:  Chong Gao; Xiaolu Wang; Guochao Zhang; Li Huang; Mengyuan Han; Bo Li; George P Nassis; Yongming Li
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-02-17       Impact factor: 4.566

6.  Comparison of VO2peak from the Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run (PACER) and treadmill in children.

Authors:  Corey Selland; Matthew D Vukovich; Jessica R Meendering
Journal:  J Exerc Sci Fit       Date:  2022-01-12       Impact factor: 3.465

7.  The Training of Short Distance Sprint Performance in Football Code Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Ben Nicholson; Alex Dinsdale; Ben Jones; Kevin Till
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2021-06       Impact factor: 11.136

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.