| Literature DB >> 35010456 |
Pablo González-Frutos1, Millán Aguilar-Navarro1, Esther Morencos1, Javier Mallo2, Santiago Veiga2.
Abstract
Force-velocity profile (FVP) and repeated-sprint ability (RSA) tests are indicators of physical capacities in most team sport players. The purpose of this study was to examine the stride kinematics during a repeated-sprint ability (RSA) test and to analyze the relationship between Bosco's force-velocity profile (FVP) and RSA performance in elite female field hockey players. Thirteen elite-female players performed both RSA (six 30 m maximal sprints) and jumping (CMJ weighted and body weight) tests. Sprinting time fatigue indexes during a 30 m RSA test were correlated with step frequency fatigue indexes (r > 0.7; p < 0.01). CMJ50 showed a large relationship with sprint time fatigue indexes. FV50 showed a very large relationship with sprint time fatigue indexes (r > 0.7; p < 0.01), and a large relationship with the step frequency fatigue indexes (r > 0.5; p < 0.05). This study highlighted two possible ways to improve fatigue indexes in RSA, with the aim of maximizing the distances covered at high-intensities during the matches: (a) strength training and (b) focusing on step frequency during speed training.Entities:
Keywords: monitoring and evaluation of training; sport performance analysis; team sports; training methods
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35010456 PMCID: PMC8750594 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19010196
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Jumping and RSA test protocols.
Figure 2Evolution of step kinematics during RSA in elite female field hockey players. (*) Different from the first repetition at p < 0.05; (#) different from the last repetition at p < 0.05.
Percentage changes in relation to the first repetition of the stride kinematics during RSA in elite female field hockey players. (*) Different from the first repetition at p < 0.05.
| Variables | Repetition | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| Sprint Time | 1.0 ± 0.4% | 2.1 ± 0.5% * | 3.2 ± 0.6% * | 3.5 ± 0.8% * | 4.1 ± 0.5% * |
| Step Frequency | −1.6 ± 0.4% | −3.3 ± 0.5% * | −3.9 ± 0.7% * | −4.4 ± 0.8% * | −4.0 ± 0.6% * |
| Step Length | 0.6 ± 0.4% | 1.3 ± 0.5% | 0.9 ± 0.5% | 1.1 ± 0.5% | 0.1 ± 0.5% |
Figure 3Evolution of step kinematics during the 10 m sections for the RSA test in elite female field hockey players. (*) Different from the rest of sections at p < 0.05; (¥) Different from the second section at p < 0.05.
Relationships between the best, mean, worst, FImean, and FIworst parameters within the step kinematics (sprint time, step frequency, and step length) during the RSA test in elite female field hockey players. Bold: Different from the first repetition at p < 0.05.
| Variables | Sprint Time | Step Frequency | Step Length | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameters | Best | Mean | Worst | FImean | FIworst | Best | Mean | Worst | FImean | FIworst | Best | Mean | Worst | FImean | FIworst | |
| best | r |
|
| −0.060 | −0.060 |
|
| −0.041 | −0.163 |
|
| 0.314 | 0.313 | |||
|
|
|
| 0.846 | 0.846 |
|
| 0.894 | 0.594 |
|
| 0.297 | 0.298 | ||||
| mean | r |
| 0.170 | 0.161 |
| −0.298 | −0.409 |
| 0.281 | 0.286 | ||||||
|
|
| 0.579 | 0.599 |
| 0.323 | 0.165 |
| 0.353 | 0.344 | |||||||
| worst | r | 0.298 | 0.317 | −0.412 | −0.526 | 0.223 | 0.200 | |||||||||
|
| 0.323 | 0.292 | 0.162 | 0.065 | 0.465 | 0.511 | ||||||||||
| FImean | r |
|
|
| ||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||
Relationships between step frequency parameters (best, mean, worst, FImean, and FIworst) with sprint time and step length parameters (best, mean, worst, FImean, and FIworst) during the RSA test in elite female field hockey players. Bold: Different from the first repetition at p < 0.05.
| Sprint Time | Step Length | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Step Frequency | Best | Mean | Worst | FImean | FIworst | Best | Mean | Worst | FImean | FIworst | |
| best | r | −0.352 | −0.380 | −0.389 | −0.131 | −0.152 |
|
|
| −0.195 | −0.242 |
|
| 0.238 | 0.200 | 0.189 | 0.670 | 0.620 |
|
|
| 0.524 | 0.426 | |
| mean | r | −0.268 | −0.343 | −0.380 | −0.337 | −0.343 |
|
|
| −0.185 | −0.237 |
|
| 0.376 | 0.251 | 0.201 | 0.260 | 0.252 |
|
|
| 0.545 | 0.436 | |
| worst | r | −0.234 | −0.328 | −0.377 | −0.420 | −0.423 |
|
|
| −0.185 | −0.217 |
|
| 0.442 | 0.273 | 0.204 | 0.153 | 0.149 |
|
|
| 0.545 | 0.476 | |
| FImean | r | −0.246 | −0.060 | 0.049 |
|
| 0.359 | 0.357 | 0.362 | 0.009 | 0.048 |
|
| 0.417 | 0.846 | 0.873 |
|
| 0.228 | 0.232 | 0.224 | 0.976 | 0.877 | |
| FIworst | r | −0.170 | 0.012 | 0.119 |
|
| 0.426 | 0.420 | 0.424 | 0.078 | 0.067 |
|
| 0.579 | 0.969 | 0.698 |
|
| 0.147 | 0.153 | 0.149 | 0.800 | 0.827 | |
Figure 4Relationships (r) between (a) CMJ, (b) CMJ50, and (c) FV50 and the best, mean, worst, FImean, and FIworst parameters of step kinematics during the RSA test. Statistical correlation at p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**) or p < 0.001 (***).