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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |