Messias Leonardo H D, Ferrari Homero G, Reis Ivan G M, Scariot Pedro P M, Manchado-Gobatto Fúlvia B
Laboratory of Applied Sport Physiology, School of Applied Sciences Department of Sport Sciences, University of Campinas , São Paulo; Brazil.
J Sports Sci Med. 2015 Mar 1;14(1):188-93. eCollection 2015 Mar.
The purpose of this study was to analyze if different combinations of trials as well as mathematical models can modify the aerobic and anaerobic estimates from critical velocity protocol applied in canoe slalom. Fourteen male elite slalom kayakers from Brazilian canoe slalom team (K1) were evaluated. Athletes were submitted to four predictive trials of 150, 300, 450 and 600 meters in a lake and the time to complete each trial was recorded. Critical velocity (CV-aerobic parameter) and anaerobic paddling capacity (APC-anaerobic parameter) were obtained by three mathematical models (Linear1=distance-time; Linear 2=velocity-1/time and Non-Linear = time-velocity). Linear 1 was chosen for comparison of predictive trials combinations. Standard combination (SC) was considered as the four trials (150, 300, 450 and 600 m). High fits of regression were obtained from all mathematical models (range - R² = 0.96-1.00). Repeated measures ANOVA pointed out differences of all mathematical models for CV (p = 0.006) and APC (p = 0.016) as well as R² (p = 0.033). Estimates obtained from the first (1) and the fourth (4) predictive trials (150 m = lowest; and 600 m = highest, respectively) were similar and highly correlated (r=0.98 for CV and r = 0.96 for APC) with the SC. In summary, methodological aspects must be considered in critical velocity application in canoe slalom, since different combinations of trials as well as mathematical models resulted in different aerobic and anaerobic estimates. Key pointsGreat attention must be given for methodological concerns regarding critical velocity protocol applied on canoe slalom, since different estimates were obtained depending on the mathematical model and the predictive trials used.Linear 1 showed the best fits of regression. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge and considering practical applications, this model is the easiest one to calculate the estimates from critical velocity protocol. Considering this, the abyss between science and practice may be decreased. Coaches of canoe slalom may simply apply critical velocity protocol and calculate by themselves the aerobic and anaerobic estimates.Still considering practical application, the results of this study showed the possibility of calculating the critical velocity estimates by using just two trials. These results are extremely relevant regarding saving time and easy applicability of this protocol for canoe slalom.
本研究的目的是分析不同的测试组合以及数学模型是否会改变激流回旋皮划艇临界速度测试中的有氧和无氧评估结果。对巴西激流回旋皮划艇队（K1）的14名男性精英皮划艇运动员进行了评估。运动员们在湖中进行了4次预测性测试，距离分别为150米、300米、450米和600米，并记录了完成每次测试的时间。通过三种数学模型（线性1=距离-时间；线性2=速度-1/时间；非线性=时间-速度）得出临界速度（CV-有氧参数）和无氧划桨能力（APC-无氧参数）。选择线性1来比较预测性测试组合。标准组合（SC）被视为这4次测试（150米、300米、450米和600米）。所有数学模型均获得了较高的回归拟合度（范围 - R² = 0.96 - 1.00）。重复测量方差分析指出，所有数学模型在CV（p = 0.006）、APC（p = 0.016）以及R²（p = 0.033）方面存在差异。从第一次（1）和第四次（4）预测性测试（分别为150米 = 最低；600米 = 最高）获得的估计值与SC相似且高度相关（CV的r = 0.98，APC的r = 0.96）。总之，在激流回旋皮划艇临界速度测试的应用中必须考虑方法学方面的问题，因为不同的测试组合以及数学模型会导致不同的有氧和无氧评估结果。要点在应用于激流回旋皮划艇的临界速度测试中，必须高度关注方法学问题，因为根据所使用的数学模型和预测性测试会得到不同的估计值。线性1显示出最佳的回归拟合度。此外，据我们所知并考虑实际应用，该模型是从临界速度测试中计算估计值最简单的模型。考虑到这一点，可以缩小科学与实践之间的差距。激流回旋皮划艇教练可以简单地应用临界速度测试并自行计算有氧和无氧评估结果。仍考虑实际应用，本研究结果表明仅使用两次测试就有可能计算临界速度估计值。这些结果对于节省时间以及该测试在激流回旋皮划艇中的易于适用性具有极其重要的意义。
