Cargando…

The Anaerobic Power Assessment in CrossFit(®) Athletes: An Agreement Study

Anaerobic power and capacity are considered determinants of performance and are usually assessed in athletes as a part of their physical capacities’ evaluation along the season. For that purpose, many field tests have been created. The main objective of this study was to analyze the agreement betwee...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ponce-García, Tomás, Benítez-Porres, Javier, García-Romero, Jerónimo Carmelo, Castillo-Domínguez, Alejandro, Alvero-Cruz, José Ramón
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8392654/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34444626
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168878
_version_ 1783743554295693312
author Ponce-García, Tomás
Benítez-Porres, Javier
García-Romero, Jerónimo Carmelo
Castillo-Domínguez, Alejandro
Alvero-Cruz, José Ramón
author_facet Ponce-García, Tomás
Benítez-Porres, Javier
García-Romero, Jerónimo Carmelo
Castillo-Domínguez, Alejandro
Alvero-Cruz, José Ramón
author_sort Ponce-García, Tomás
collection PubMed
description Anaerobic power and capacity are considered determinants of performance and are usually assessed in athletes as a part of their physical capacities’ evaluation along the season. For that purpose, many field tests have been created. The main objective of this study was to analyze the agreement between four field tests and a laboratory test. Nineteen CrossFit(®) (CF) athletes were recruited for this study (28.63 ± 6.62 years) who had been practicing CF for at least one year. Tests performed were: (1) Anaerobic Squat Test at 60% of bodyweight (AST60); (2) Anaerobic Squat Test at 70% of bodyweight (AST70); (3) Repeated Jump Test (RJT); (4) Assault Bike Test (ABT); and (5) Wingate Anaerobic Test on a cycle ergometer (WG). All tests consisted of 30 s of max effort. The differences among methods were tested using a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and effect size. Agreement between methods was performed using Bland–Altman analysis. Analysis of agreement showed systematic bias in all field test PP values, which varied between −110.05 (AST60(PP)—WG(PP)) and 463.58 (ABT(PP)—WG(PP)), and a significant proportional error in ABT(PP) by rank correlation (p < 0.001). Repeated-measures ANOVA showed significant differences among PP values (F(1.76,31.59) = 130.61, p =< 0.001). In conclusion, since to our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the agreement between various methods to estimate anaerobic power in CF athletes. Apart from ABT, all tests showed good agreement and can be used interchangeably in CF athletes. Our results suggest that AST and RJT are good alternatives for measuring the anaerobic power in CF athletes when access to a laboratory is not possible.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8392654
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83926542021-08-28 The Anaerobic Power Assessment in CrossFit(®) Athletes: An Agreement Study Ponce-García, Tomás Benítez-Porres, Javier García-Romero, Jerónimo Carmelo Castillo-Domínguez, Alejandro Alvero-Cruz, José Ramón Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Anaerobic power and capacity are considered determinants of performance and are usually assessed in athletes as a part of their physical capacities’ evaluation along the season. For that purpose, many field tests have been created. The main objective of this study was to analyze the agreement between four field tests and a laboratory test. Nineteen CrossFit(®) (CF) athletes were recruited for this study (28.63 ± 6.62 years) who had been practicing CF for at least one year. Tests performed were: (1) Anaerobic Squat Test at 60% of bodyweight (AST60); (2) Anaerobic Squat Test at 70% of bodyweight (AST70); (3) Repeated Jump Test (RJT); (4) Assault Bike Test (ABT); and (5) Wingate Anaerobic Test on a cycle ergometer (WG). All tests consisted of 30 s of max effort. The differences among methods were tested using a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and effect size. Agreement between methods was performed using Bland–Altman analysis. Analysis of agreement showed systematic bias in all field test PP values, which varied between −110.05 (AST60(PP)—WG(PP)) and 463.58 (ABT(PP)—WG(PP)), and a significant proportional error in ABT(PP) by rank correlation (p < 0.001). Repeated-measures ANOVA showed significant differences among PP values (F(1.76,31.59) = 130.61, p =< 0.001). In conclusion, since to our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the agreement between various methods to estimate anaerobic power in CF athletes. Apart from ABT, all tests showed good agreement and can be used interchangeably in CF athletes. Our results suggest that AST and RJT are good alternatives for measuring the anaerobic power in CF athletes when access to a laboratory is not possible. MDPI 2021-08-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8392654/ /pubmed/34444626 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168878 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Ponce-García, Tomás
Benítez-Porres, Javier
García-Romero, Jerónimo Carmelo
Castillo-Domínguez, Alejandro
Alvero-Cruz, José Ramón
The Anaerobic Power Assessment in CrossFit(®) Athletes: An Agreement Study
title The Anaerobic Power Assessment in CrossFit(®) Athletes: An Agreement Study
title_full The Anaerobic Power Assessment in CrossFit(®) Athletes: An Agreement Study
title_fullStr The Anaerobic Power Assessment in CrossFit(®) Athletes: An Agreement Study
title_full_unstemmed The Anaerobic Power Assessment in CrossFit(®) Athletes: An Agreement Study
title_short The Anaerobic Power Assessment in CrossFit(®) Athletes: An Agreement Study
title_sort anaerobic power assessment in crossfit(®) athletes: an agreement study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8392654/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34444626
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168878
work_keys_str_mv AT poncegarciatomas theanaerobicpowerassessmentincrossfitathletesanagreementstudy
AT benitezporresjavier theanaerobicpowerassessmentincrossfitathletesanagreementstudy
AT garciaromerojeronimocarmelo theanaerobicpowerassessmentincrossfitathletesanagreementstudy
AT castillodominguezalejandro theanaerobicpowerassessmentincrossfitathletesanagreementstudy
AT alverocruzjoseramon theanaerobicpowerassessmentincrossfitathletesanagreementstudy
AT poncegarciatomas anaerobicpowerassessmentincrossfitathletesanagreementstudy
AT benitezporresjavier anaerobicpowerassessmentincrossfitathletesanagreementstudy
AT garciaromerojeronimocarmelo anaerobicpowerassessmentincrossfitathletesanagreementstudy
AT castillodominguezalejandro anaerobicpowerassessmentincrossfitathletesanagreementstudy
AT alverocruzjoseramon anaerobicpowerassessmentincrossfitathletesanagreementstudy