Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Louise Croft x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Louise Croft, Suzanne Dybrus, John Lenton and Victoria Goosey-Tolfrey

Purpose:

To examine the physiological profiles of wheelchair basketball and tennis and specifically to: (a) identify if there are differences in the physiological profiles of wheelchair basketball and tennis players of a similar playing standard, (b) to determine whether the competitive physiological demands of these sports differed (c) and to explore the relationship between the blood lactate [Bla] response to exercise and to identify the sport specific heart rate (HR) training zones.

Methods:

Six elite athletes (4 male, 2 female) from each sport performed a submaximal and VO2 peak test in their sport specific wheelchair. Heart rate, VO2, and [Bla] were measured. Heart rate was monitored during international competitions and VO2 was calculated from this using linear regression equations. Individual HR training zones were identified from the [Bla–] profile and time spent within these zones was calculated for each match.

Results:

Despite no differences in the laboratory assessment of HRpeak, the VO2peak was higher for the basketball players when compared with the tennis players (2.98 ± 0.91 vs 2.06 ± 0.71; P = .08). Average match HR (163 ± 11 vs 146 ± 16 beats-min–1; P = .06) and average VO2 (2.26 ± 0.06 vs 1.36 ± 0.42 L-min-1; P = .02) were higher during actual playing time of basketball when compared with whole tennis play. Consequently, differences in the time spent in the different training zones within and between the two sports existed (P < .05).

Conclusions:

Wheelchair basketball requires predominately high-intensity training, whereas tennis training requires training across the exercise intensity spectrum.

Restricted access

Ian Rollo, Lewis James, Louise Croft and Clyde Williams

The purpose of the current study was to investigate the influence of ingesting a carbohydrate-electrolyte (CHO-E) beverage ad libitum or as a prescribed volume on 10-mile run performance and gastrointestinal (GI) discomfort. Nine male recreational runners completed the 10-mile run under the following 3 conditions: no drinking (ND; 0 ml, 0 g CHO), ad libitum drinking (AD; 315 ± 123 ml, 19 ± 7 g CHO), and prescribed drinking (PD; 1,055 ± 90 ml, 64 ± 5 g CHO). During the AD and PD trials, drinks were provided on completion of Miles 2, 4, 6, and 8. Running performance, speed (km/hr), and 10-mile run time were assessed using a global positioning satellite system. The runners’ ratings of perceived exertion and GI comfort were recorded on completion of each lap of the 10-mile run. There was a significant difference (p < .10) in performance times for the 10-mile race for the ND, AD, and PD trials, which were 72:05 ± 3:36, 71:14 ± 3:35, and 72:12 ± 3.53 min:s, respectively (p = .094). Ratings of GI comfort were reduced during the PD trial in comparison with both AD and ND trials. In conclusion, runners unaccustomed to habitually drinking CHO-E beverages during training improved their 10-mile race performance with AD drinking a CHO-E beverage, in comparison with drinking a prescribed volume of the same beverage or no drinking.