Total amount: € 0,00
HOW TO ORDER
THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS
A Journal on Applied Physiology, Biomechanics, Preventive Medicine,
Sports Medicine and Traumatology, Sports Psychology
Indexed/Abstracted in: Chemical Abstracts, CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,111
ORIGINAL ARTICLES EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOMECHANICS
The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2016 April;56(4):383-91
Do isokinetic angular velocity and contraction types affect the predictors of different anaerobic power tests?
Aysegul YAPICI 1, Gulin FINDIKOGLU 2, Ugur DUNDAR 1 ✉
1 School of Sport Sciences and Technology, University of Pamukkale, Denizli, Turkey; 2 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, University of Pamukkale, Denizli, Turkey
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the most important predictor isokinetic muscle strength determined by different angular velocities and contraction types (i.e. concentric and eccentric) for selected anaerobic power tests in volleyball players.
METHODS: Twenty male and ten female amateur volleyball players participated in this study. Selected anaerobic power tests included Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT), squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ). Peak torque values were obtained at 60, 120, 240˚/s for concentric contraction of quadriceps (Qconc) and Hamstring (Hconc) and at 60˚/s for eccentric contraction of quadriceps (Qecc) and Hconc.
RESULTS: Moderate to good correlations (r:0.409 to r:0.887) were found between anaerobic tests and isokinetic data including peak torque and total work of both Hconc and Qconc at 60, 120, 240°/s and Qecc at 60°/s (P<0.05). Qconc measured at each of 60, 120, 240°/s was found to be the only significant predictor for anaerobic tests in linear regression models (P<0.05). Correlation coefficient s for Qconc increased with increasing velocity for each of the anaerobic tests. Correlation coefficient of Qconc was highest for CMJ followed by SJ and WAnT at the same angular velocity. As a distinctive feature, both Qecc and Hconc at 60˚/s were significantly predictors for CMJ and SJ.
CONCLUSIONS: Qconc peak torque was the single significant predictor for WAnT, SJ and CMJ and strength of the relation increases with increasing angular velocity. However, both Qecc and Hconc were significant indicators for CMJ and SJ. Training with higher isokinetic angular velocities and with eccentric contraction is desirable in a training program that has a goal of improving anaerobic performance in volleyball players.