| Literature DB >> 28158252 |
Matheus Hausen1,2, Pedro Paulo Soares1,2, Marcus Paulo Araújo1,2, Flávia Porto2,3, Emerson Franchini4, Craig Alan Bridge5, Jonas Gurgel1,2.
Abstract
Combat simulations have served as an alternative framework to study the cardiorespiratory demands of the activity in combat sports, but this setting imposes rule-restrictions that may compromise the competitiveness of the bouts. The aim of this study was to assess the cardiorespiratory responses to a full-contact taekwondo combat simulation using a safe and externally valid competitive setting. Twelve male national level taekwondo athletes visited the laboratory on two separate occasions. On the first visit, anthropometric and running cardiopulmonary exercise assessments were performed. In the following two to seven days, participants performed a full-contact combat simulation, using a specifically designed gas analyser protector. Oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]), heart rate (HR) and capillary blood lactate measurements ([La-]) were obtained. Time-motion analysis was performed to compare activity profile. The simulation yielded broadly comparable activity profiles to those performed in competition, a mean [Formula: see text] of 36.6 ± 3.9 ml.kg-1.min-1 (73 ± 6% [Formula: see text]) and mean HR of 177 ± 10 beats.min-1 (93 ± 5% HRPEAK). A peak [Formula: see text] of 44.8 ± 5.0 ml.kg-1.min-1 (89 ± 5% [Formula: see text]), a peak heart rate of 190 ± 13 beats.min-1 (98 ± 3% HRmax) and peak [La-] of 12.3 ± 2.9 mmol.L-1 was elicited by the bouts. Regarding time-motion analysis, combat simulation presented a similar exchange time, a shorter preparation time and a longer exchange-preparation ratio. Taekwondo combats capturing the full-contact competitive elements of a bout elicit moderate to high cardiorespiratory demands on the competitors. These data are valuable to assist preparatory strategies within the sport.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28158252 PMCID: PMC5291476 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171553
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Combat simulation setting.
Fig 2Gas analyser placement during the combat.
Cardiorespiratory and blood lactate responses to the simulated taekwondo combat (n = 12).
| Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 3 | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 42.8±3.8 | 42.3±5.5 | 42.3±5.6 | 44.8±5.0 | 0.78 | |
| (40.8–45.5) | (35.5–46.7) | (38.6–42.3) | (42.1–46.7) | (0.02 | |
| 85.5±6.4 | 84.4±8.4 | 84.1±7.9 | 89.1±6.2 | 0.83 | |
| (81.4–89.5) | (78.9–89.6) | (79.0–89.1) | (85.0–93.0) | (0.13 | |
| 38.1±4.7 | 36.5±5.1 | 35.3±3.4 | 35.9±3.9 | 0.71 | |
| (35.0–39.4) | (33.3–39.7) | (34.0–38.3) | (34.1–39.1) | (0.13 | |
| 74.4±6.9 | 73.0±8.1 | 72.6±8.0 | 73.1±6.0 | 0.70 | |
| (69.9–78.8) | (67.9–78.2) | (66.8–77.4) | (69.3–76.8) | (0.18 | |
| 181±10 | 187±14 | 189±13 | 190±13 | <0.01 | |
| (175–187) | (178–196) | (181–198) | (181–198) | (1.4 | |
| 94.5±6.0 | 96.0±3.0 | 97.0±3.0 | 98.0±3.2 | <0.01 | |
| (90.0–96.0) | (95.0–98.0) | (97.0–100.0) | (97.0–100.0) | (0.85 | |
| 173±1 | 179±11 | 179±19 | 177±10 | <0.01 | |
| (166–180) | (172–186) | (171–183) | (171–183) | (0.99 | |
| 89.0±6.0 | 91.7±5.0 | 93.5±5.0 | 93.0±5.0 | <0.01 | |
| (86.0–92.0) | (90.0–95.0) | (91.0–96.0) | (89.0–94.0) | (0.60 | |
| 8.4±3.5 | 10.6±3.4 | 12.3±2.9 | 12.6±2.8 | <0.01 | |
| (5.5–9.2) | (8.3–12.1) | (10.5–13.4) | (10.5–13.4) | (0.78 | |
| 6.7±1.7 | 8.8±2.5 | 10.8±2.8 | - | <0.01 | |
| (5.5–7.9) | (7.3–10.4) | (9.0–12.5) | - | (1.67 | |
| 2.7±1.6 | 1.3±1.2 | 0.8±1.5 | - | <0.01 | |
| (1.7–3.6) | (0.5–2.1) | (-0.1–1.7) | - | (0.73 |
Variables with the absence of asterisk (*) denotes parametric data, presented as mean ± standard deviation and 95% confidence interval (inferior limit—superior limit).
* Denotes non-parametric data, presented as median, interquartile range and 95% confidence interval (inferior limit—superior limit).
Repeated measures ANOVA and Bonferroni Post hoc test outcomes (comparison between rounds):
a Denotes significant different from round 1;
b Denotes significant different from round 2;
c Denotes significant different from round 3. Effect sizes are presented within parentheses, in p-value column:
Denotes Kendall’s W;
Denotes Cohen’s d Effect size.
Significant level of p < 0.05 adopted for all variables. During cardiopulmonary test, and HRPEAK were assessed to express the simulation cardiorespiratory responses in percentage of participants’ peak (e.g. %HR PEAK and ). Total column represents the sampling of the whole combat, with the subtraction of intervals.
Fig 3Heart rate (HR) and oxygen uptake () profiles during the combat simulation.
Mean values (± standard deviation) of and HR, sampled 20 seconds (HR averaged every 20s) across the simulation. p–Significance level for interactions, calculated with repeated measures ANOVA (time x round, or time x interval), and ES (effect size) was calculated with Cohen’s f.
Fig 4Percentage of time spent in specific heart rate intensity zones during the combat simulation.
Significant differences confirmed in Friedman test, with Dunn post-hoc (p<0.05). a Denotes significant different from the 95–100% zone. b Denotes significant different from the 90–94% zone. d Denotes significant different from the 80–84% zone. e Denotes significant different from the <80% zone.
Time-motion analysis of competition matches and combat simulations (n = 10).
| Round 1 | Round 2 | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comp | Simul | Comp | Simul | Comp | Simul | |
| 2.1±0.8 | 2.0±0.5 | 2.0±0.4 | 2.2±0.6 | 2.0±0.5 | 2.1±0.5 | |
| (1.7–2.6) | (1.6–2.5) | (1.6–2.3) | (1.9–2.6) | (1.7–2.4) | (1.7–2.5) | |
| 5.2±1.7 | 3.2±1.3 | 4.2±1.2 | 3.2±1.3 | 4.6±1.2 | 3.2±1.3 | |
| (4.1–6.2) | (2.2–4.2) | (3.4–5.0) | (2.3–4.2) | (3.7–5.5) | (2.3–4.1) | |
| 2.8±1.4 | 1.8±1.2 | 2.2±0.8 | 1.6±0.7 | 2.4±0.9 | 1.7±0.9 | |
| (1.9–3.7) | (0.9–2.7) | (1.7–2.7) | (1.0–2.1) | (1.8–3.1) | (1.0–2.3) | |
| 16±4 | 20±4 | 20±4 | 19±6 | 36±7 | 39±9 | |
| (14–19) | (17–22) | (16–23) | (16–23) | (31–1) | (33–46) | |
Comp—Competition Match. Simul—Combat Simulation. ET:PT ratio—Exchange Time/Preparation Time ratio. Total—Average of the two rounds. Variables presented as mean ± standard deviation, and 95% confidence interval (inferior limit—superior limit).
Two-way repeated-measures ANOVA (condition x round) outcome:
Denotes significant difference in condition (Competition match and Combat simulation) and round (Round 1 and Round 2).
Paired T-test outcome:
*Denotes significant difference for condition factor (Competition match and Combat simulation).
Significant level of p < 0.05 adopted for all variables.