Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Ashley Robinson x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Candi D. Ashley, Joe F. Smith, James B. Robinson and Mark T. Richardson

The purpose of this study was to use the Eating Disorders Inventory-2 (EDI-2) to compare disordered eating pathology between female intercollegiate athletes and a control group of nonathletic subjects enrolled in an advanced program of study. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures revealed no significant difference (NSD) (p > .05) between any of the athletic groups or the control group on any EDI-2 subscale, and there was no significant difference between “lean” sports, other sports, and the control group. There was also NSD on EDI-2 subscale scores on the basis of age. African Americans had significantly lower scores on the Body Dissatisfaction and Impulse Regulation subscales than white Americans. Chi-square analysis revealed NSD between any groups in percentage of respondents scoring above anorexic norms. The results did not indicate a greater amount of disordered eating in female athletes compared to nonathlete controls.

Restricted access

Samuel T. Orange, James W. Metcalfe, Ashley Robinson, Mark J. Applegarth and Andreas Liefeith

Purpose: To compare the effects of velocity-based training (VBT) vs percentage-based training (PBT) on strength, speed, and jump performance in academy rugby league players during a 7-wk in-season mesocycle. Methods: A total of 27 rugby league players competing in the Super League U19s Championship were randomized to VBT (n = 12) or PBT (n = 15). Both groups completed a 7-wk resistance-training intervention (2×/wk) that involved the back squat. The PBT group used a fixed load based on a percentage of 1-repetition maximum (1-RM), whereas the VBT group used a modifiable load based on individualized velocity thresholds. Biomechanical and perceptual data were collected during each training session. Back-squat 1-RM, countermovement jump, reactive strength index, sprint times, and back-squat velocity at 40–90% 1-RM were assessed pretraining and posttraining. Results: The PBT group showed likely to most likely improvements in 1-RM strength and reactive strength index, whereas the VBT group showed likely to very likely improvements in 1-RM strength, countermovement jump height, and back-squat velocity at 40% and 60% 1-RM. Sessional velocity and power were most likely greater during VBT compared with PBT (standardized mean differences = 1.8–2.4), while time under tension and perceptual training stress were likely lower (standardized mean differences = 0.49–0.66). The improvement in back-squat velocity at 60% 1-RM was likely greater following VBT compared with PBT (standardized mean difference = 0.50). Conclusion: VBT can be implemented during the competitive season, instead of traditional PBT, to improve training stimuli, decrease training stress, and promote velocity-specific adaptations.