. Players’ agility performance was determined 1 week before the beginning of the data collection using the agility T test to explore the influence of agility performance on the distance covered between STL and COD intermittent running at a similar load. Agility T Test Players’ COD ability was determined 1
Mohamed S. Fessi, Fayçal Farhat, Alexandre Dellal, James J. Malone, and Wassim Moalla
Alex Brun and Michelle A. Sandrey
], posterolateral [PL], and posteromedial [PM] directions), and time to complete the agility T test. Participants A total of 20 active male and female participants were recruited for the study. Of those 20, 19 (11 females and 9 males) completed the study (20.56 [1.5] y, 171.70 [8.6] cm, 72.23 [12.9] kg). Eligible
Martina A. Maggioni, Matteo Bonato, Alexander Stahn, Antonio La Torre, Luca Agnello, Gianluca Vernillo, Carlo Castagna, and Giampiero Merati
terms of anthropometrics, maximal aerobic power assessment ( V ˙ O 2 max ), squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test level 1 (Yo-Yo IR1), agility T test, line drill test, 5-/10-/20-m sprints, 20-m shuttle run, and technical assessment. Methodology Anthropometric
Iván Peña-González, José M. Sarabia, Alba Roldan, Agustín Manresa-Rocamora, and Manuel Moya-Ramón
the participants were evaluated for their anthropometrics (body weight and height), and their physical performance was evaluated by a physical performance test battery composed by a countermovement jump test (CMJ); a 5-, 10-, and 20-m linear sprint; a modified agility T-test (MAT); and a dribbling
Alejandro Muñoz, Álvaro López-Samanes, Alberto Pérez-López, Millán Aguilar-Navarro, Berta Moreno-Heredero, Jesús Rivilla-García, Pablo González-Frutos, José Pino-Ortega, Esther Morencos, and Juan Del Coso
without opposition), a countermovement jump (CMJ), an isometric handgrip strength test (IHS), a modified version of the agility T test (MATT), and a 30-m sprint test (SV). A 5-minute resting period was set among test to allow recovery. One week before the onset of the experiment, a familiarization
Juan Del Coso, Alberto Pérez-López, Javier Abian-Vicen, Juan Jose Salinero, Beatriz Lara, and David Valadés
There are no scientific data about the effects of caffeine intake on volleyball performance. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a caffeine-containing energy drink to enhance physical performance in male volleyball players. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized experimental design was used. In 2 different sessions separated by 1 wk, 15 college volleyball players ingested 3 mg of caffeine per kg of body mass in the form of an energy drink or the same drink without caffeine (placebo). After 60 min, participants performed volleyball-specific tests: standing spike test, maximal squat jump (SJ), maximal countermovement jump (CMJ), 15-s rebound jump test (15RJ), and agility T-test. Later, a simulated volleyball match was played and recorded. In comparison with the placebo drink, the ingestion of the caffeinated energy drink increased ball velocity in the spike test (73 ± 9 vs 75 ± 10 km/h, P < .05) and the mean jump height in SJ (31.1 ± 4.3 vs 32.7 ± 4.2 cm, P < .05), CMJ (35.9 ± 4.6 vs 37.7 ± 4.4 cm, P < .05), and 15RJ (29.0 ± 4.0 vs 30.5 ± 4.6 cm, P < .05). The time to complete the agility test was significantly reduced with the caffeinated energy drink (10.8 ± 0.7 vs 10.3 ± 0.4 s, P < .05). In addition, players performed successful volleyball actions more frequently (24.6% ± 14.3% vs 34.3% ± 16.5%, P < .05) with the ingestion of the caffeinated energy drink than with the placebo drink during the simulated game. A caffeine-containing energy drink, with a dose equivalent to 3 mg of caffeine per kg body mass, might be an effective ergogenic aid to improve physical performance and accuracy in male volleyball players.
Mohamed Ali Nabli, Nidhal Ben Abdelkrim, Imed Jabri, Tahar Batikh, Carlo Castagna, and Karim Chamari
To examine the relation between game performance, physiological responses, and field-test results in Tunisian basketball referees.
Computerized time–motion analysis, heart rate (HR), and blood lactate concentration [La–] were measured in 15 referees during 8 competitive games (under-19-y-old Tunisian league). Referees also performed a repeated-sprint test (RSA), Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test level 1 (YYIRTL1), agility T-test, and 30-m sprint with 10-m lap time. Computerized video analysis determined the time spent in 5 locomotor activities (standing, walking, jogging, running, and sprint), then grouped in high-, moderate-, and low-intensity activities (HIAs, MIAs, and LIAs, respectively).
YYIRTL1 performance correlated with (1) total distance covered during the 4th quarter (r = .52, P = .04) and (2) distance covered in LIA during all game periods (P < .05). Both distance covered and time spent in MIA during the 1st quarter were negatively correlated with the YYIRTL1 performance (r = –.53, P = .035; r = –.67, P = .004, respectively). A negative correlation was found between distance covered at HIA during the 2nd half (3rd quarter + 4th quarter) and fatigue index of the RSA test (r = –.54, P = .029). Mean HR (expressed as %HRpeak) during all game periods was correlated with YYIRTL1 performance (.61 ≤ r < .67, P < .01).
This study showed that (1) the YYIRTL1 performance is a moderate predictor of game physical performance in U-19 basketball referees and (2) referees’ RSA correlates with the amount of HIA performed during the 2nd half, which represents the ability to keep up with play.
João Ribeiro, Luís Teixeira, Rui Lemos, Anderson S. Teixeira, Vitor Moreira, Pedro Silva, and Fábio Y. Nakamura
Purpose : The current study aimed to compare the effects of plyometric (PT) versus optimum power load (OPL) training on physical performance of young high-level soccer players. Methods : Athletes were randomly divided into PT (horizontal and vertical drills) and OPL (squat + hip thrust exercises at the load of maximum power output) interventions, applied over 7 weeks during the in-season period. Squat and countermovement jumps, maximal sprint (10 and 30 m), and change of direction (COD; agility t test) were the pretraining and posttraining measured performance variables. Magnitude-based inference was used for within- and between-group comparisons. Results : OPL training induced moderate improvements in vertical squat jump (effect size [ES]: 0.97; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.32–1.61) and countermovement jump (ES: 1.02; 90% CI, 0.46–1.57), 30-m sprint speed (ES: 1.02; 90% CI, 0.09–1.95), and COD performance (ES: 0.93; 90% CI, 0.50–1.36). After PT training method, vertical squat jump (ES: 1.08; 90% CI, 0.66–1.51) and countermovement jump (ES: 0.62; 90% CI, 0.18–1.06) were moderately increased, while small enhancements were noticed for 30-m sprint speed (ES: 0.21; 90% CI, −0.02 to 0.45) and COD performance (ES: 0.53; 90% CI, 0.24–0.81). The 10-m sprint speed possibly increased after PT intervention (small ES: 0.25; 90% CI, −0.05 to 0.54), but no substantial change (small ES: 0.36; 90% CI, −0.40 to 1.13) was noticed in OPL. For between-group analyses, the COD ability and 30-m sprint performances were possibly (small ES: 0.30; 90% CI, −0.20 to 0.81; Δ = +1.88%) and likely (moderate ES: 0.81; 90% CI, −0.16 to 1.78; Δ = +2.38%) more improved in the OPL than in the PT intervention, respectively. Conclusions : The 2 different training programs improved physical performance outcomes during the in-season period. However, the combination of vertically and horizontally based training exercises (squat + hip thrust) at optimum power zone led to superior gains in COD and 30-m linear sprint performances.
Bethany L. Anderson, Rod A. Harter, and James L. Farnsworth II
, countermovement jump, drop jump, agility t test, and 10-yard sprint. Sit-and-reach, countermovement jump, standing long jump, pro-agility test, 1RM bench press, and 37-m sprint. Sit-and-reach and countermovement jump. Goniometry for active hip flexion and hip abduction, squat jump, agility t test, PainTest
Peter A. van de Hoef, Jur J. Brauers, Maarten van Smeden, Frank J.G. Backx, and Michel S. Brink
matched based on distances, number of repetitions, and directional changes. When the outcomes of sprint tests were reported as an average speed, this was converted to time to complete the test. For agility, data from the agility t test and the zigzag change of direction (zigzag COD) were combined in the