Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author: Vicky L. Goosey-Tolfrey x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Vicky L. Goosey-Tolfrey, Sonja de Groot, Keith Tolfrey, and Tom A.W. Paulson

Purpose: To confirm whether peak aerobic capacity determined during laboratory testing could be replicated during an on-court field-based test in wheelchair rugby players. Methods: Sixteen wheelchair rugby players performed an incremental speed-based peak oxygen uptake (V˙O2peak) test on a motorized treadmill (TM) and completed a multistage fitness test (MFT) on a basketball court in a counterbalanced order, while spirometric data were recorded. A paired t test was performed to check for systematic error between tests. A Bland–Altman plot for V˙O2peak illustrated the agreement between the TM and MFT results and how this related to the boundaries of practical equivalence. Results: No significant differences between mean V˙O2peak were reported (TM: 1.85 [0.63] vs MFT: 1.81 [0.63] L·min−1; P = .33). Bland–Altman plot for V˙O2peak suggests that the mean values are in good agreement at the group level; that is, the exact 95% confidence limits for the ratio systematic error (0.95–1.02) are within the boundaries of practical equivalence (0.88–1.13) showing that the group average TM and MFT values are interchangeable. However, consideration of the data at the level of the individual athlete suggests that the TM and MFT results were not interchangeable because the 95% ratio limits of agreement either coincide with the boundaries of practical equivalence (upper limit) or fall outside (lower limit). Conclusions: Results suggest that the MFT provides a suitable test at a group level with this cohort of wheelchair rugby players for the assessment of V˙O2peak (range 0.97–3.64 L·min–1), yet caution is noted for interchangeable use of values between tests for individual players.

Restricted access

Ian Rollo, George Homewood, Clyde Williams, James Carter, and Vicky L. Goosey-Tolfrey

This study investigated the influence of mouth rinsing a carbohydrate solution on self-selected intermittent variable-speed running performance. Eleven male amateur soccer players completed a modified version of the Loughborough Intermittent Shuttle Test (LIST) on 2 occasions separated by 1 wk. The modified LIST allowed the self-selection of running speeds during Block 6 of the protocol (75–90 min). Players rinsed and expectorated 25 ml of noncaloric placebo (PLA) or 10% maltodextrin solution (CHO) for 10 s, routinely during Block 6 of the LIST. Self-selected speeds during the walk and cruise phases of the LIST were similar between trials. Jogging speed was significantly faster during the CHO (11.3 ± 0.7 km·h−1) than during the PLA trial (10.5 ± 1.3 km · h−1) (p = .010); 15-m sprint speeds were not different between trials (PLA: 2.69 ± 0.18 s: CHO: 2.65 ± 0.13 s) (F(2, 10), p = .157), but significant benefits were observed for sprint distance covered (p = .024). The threshold for the smallest worthwhile change in sprint performance was set at 0.2 s. Inferential statistical analysis showed the chance that CHO mouth rinse was beneficial, negligible, or detrimental to repeated sprint performance was 86%, 10%, and 4%, respectively. In conclusion, mouth rinsing and expectorating a 10% maltodextrin solution was associated with a significant increase in self-selected jogging speed. Repeated 15-m sprint performance was also 86% likely to benefit from routinely mouth rinsing a carbohydrate solution in comparison with a taste-matched placebo.

Open access

Alannah K.A. McKay, Trent Stellingwerff, Ella S. Smith, David T. Martin, Iñigo Mujika, Vicky L. Goosey-Tolfrey, Jeremy Sheppard, and Louise M. Burke

Throughout the sport-science and sports-medicine literature, the term “elite” subjects might be one of the most overused and ill-defined terms. Currently, there is no common perspective or terminology to characterize the caliber and training status of an individual or cohort. This paper presents a 6-tiered Participant Classification Framework whereby all individuals across a spectrum of exercise backgrounds and athletic abilities can be classified. The Participant Classification Framework uses training volume and performance metrics to classify a participant to one of the following: Tier 0: Sedentary; Tier 1: Recreationally Active; Tier 2: Trained/Developmental; Tier 3: Highly Trained/National Level; Tier 4: Elite/International Level; or Tier 5: World Class. We suggest the Participant Classification Framework can be used to classify participants both prospectively (as part of study participant recruitment) and retrospectively (during systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses). Discussion around how the Participant Classification Framework can be tailored toward different sports, athletes, and/or events has occurred, and sport-specific examples provided. Additional nuances such as depth of sport participation, nationality differences, and gender parity within a sport are all discussed. Finally, chronological age with reference to the junior and masters athlete, as well as the Paralympic athlete, and their inclusion within the Participant Classification Framework has also been considered. It is our intention that this framework be widely implemented to systematically classify participants in research featuring exercise, sport, performance, health, and/or fitness outcomes going forward, providing the much-needed uniformity to classification practices.