Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Similarity of basic skating skills (not puck handling) of the test compared to those of a hockey game
The mean score obtained for question one in all five tests as well as the significant differences are represented in Figure 4.15. Both running tests yielded lower ratings than the three skating tests. Logically the laboratory treadmill test was rated as being the least specific of all the tests because it was conducted in a laboratory environment and the modality was running and not skating. Any type of skating would be more specific to the hockey player than any running protocol. Within the skating tests, FAST scores were lower than the MS20MST and SMAT scores. The MS20MST and SMAT obtained the highest subjective rating of test similarity with regard to basic skating skill as compared to the game of ice-hockey, and are the best tests to mimic skating skill. The 20 MST is however more specific for ice-hockey than treadmill running as it is a field test and the nature of the test is stop-and-go, which is similar to hockey, even though it is not skating. The higher rating of the MS20MST and SMAT tests is due to the fact that they are skating tests, and have stop-and-go nature (which is similar to the game of ice-hockey). The FAST was rated more specific than the two running tests (because it is skating), but not as specific as the two skating tests (because it is continuous and curvilinear), which may in fact be more appropriate for speed skating and figure skating than ice-hockey.
Resemblance between maximal intensity of the test & maximal intensity of a hockey game
Mean responses to question two are presented in Figure 4.16. SMAT and MS20MST again obtained the highest subjective rating with regard to the similarity of the intensity of test to the intensity of the ice-hockey game followed by the 20 MST, and then FAST and the treadmill. There were significant differences between the treadmill and the MS20MST (p≤0.01) and between the treadmill and the SMAT (p≤0.01). There were also significant differences between the FAST and MS20MST (p≤0.01), as well as between the FAST and SMAT (p≤0.01). This is to be expected as the MS20MST and SMAT are similar in nature.
General Discussion
The validation of the three new ice-skating field tests has been done as follows:
1. with medium to large groups of subjects, with a wide range in maximal speed and/or O2 max values (fitness levels),
2. with homogeneous skating ability (stop, start, turning, and cross-over skating)
3. with subjects of the same gender (males), age (adults), and specialty category (hockey), and
4. with equipment specific to the specialty and test (full equipment for MS20MST and SMAT, and only helmet, stick and gloves for the FAST).
Skating velocity can be termed maximal aerobic skating velocity (MASV) or the functional maximal aerobic power (FMAP), and along with O2 max, can be considered the “performance score” that can serve as a guideline for monitoring individual training intensity and a means to evaluate the aerobic effect of a particular program (Leone et al., 2007). However, this is true only if subjects reach steady state O2 at each stage which is probably not the case in all the protocols used in this study, due to the differences in maximal speed obtained in the MS20MST and SMAT). Léger, Seliger & Bassard (1979) reported that hockey players had lower coefficients of variation for the maximal skating speeds (3.4-4.8%) than for their O2 max (11.0-15.1%). The MS20MST had the lowest maximal skating speed, and although this correlated with the treadmill speed, it is questionable whether this is favourable. Although the MS20MST is specific for ice-hockey, with it’s frequent stop and go, the distance of the test (shorter distance than SMAT, therefore requiring more stop-and-go), causes rapid muscular fatigue, and limits subjects from attaining higher maximal speed. The nature of the task (skating) must be specific to the sport, but must not be done at the expense of the obtained score (final velocity or O2 max). Thus, with regards to maximal speed, the SMAT allows higher maximal speed, while maintaining a ice-hockey specific
nature.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION & AIM
1.1. Introduction
1.2. Recent Developments in the Field of Ice-Skating
1.3. Statement of the Problem
1.4. Aim of the Study
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Locomotion on Ice, Development of Skates, Skating Sport History, and Surface
2.2 Basic Rules and Requirements in Ice-Hockey
2.3 Bioenergetics, Energy cost & Efficiency
2.4 Aerobic Assessment/ Bioenergetic Aptitude Assessment (Including Aerobic and Anaerobic)
2.4.5Off-Ice Non Skating Tests
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1. Subjects
3.2. Ethical Considerations
3.3. Study Design
3.4. Procedures and Instrumentation
3.5. Maximal Multistage Laboratory Treadmill Running Test
3.6. Field Tests
3.7. Statistical Analysis and Treatment of Data
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS & DISCUSSION
4.1 Subject Characteristics and Experimental Conditions
4.2 Comparison of Different Variables in All Five Tests
4.3 Assessing and Comparing the Validity of Each Test
4.4 Qualitative Analysis: Determining Which Test is Rated by Ice-Hockey Players as Being Best Suited as the Most Functional Using the Likert Scale
4.5 General Discussion
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Conclusions & Recommendations for Practice
Future Research
REFERENCES
