Modelling anaerobic peak power assessed by the force-velocity test among late adolescents.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the concurrent contributions of body size, estimates of whole-body composition, and appendicular volume in addition to participation in competitive basketball to explain inter-individual variance in anaerobic peak power output during late adolescence. The study also tested non-participation versus participation in basketball as an independent predictor of peak power output. METHODS: The sample of this cross-sectional study was composed of 63 male participants (basketball: n=32, 17.0±0.9 years; school: n=31, 17.4±1.0 years). Anthropometry included stature, body mass, circumferences, lengths, and skinfolds. Fat-free mass was estimated from skinfolds and lower limbs volume predicted from circumferences and lengths. Participants completed the force-velocity test using a cycle ergometer to determine peak power output. RESULTS: For the total sample, optimal peak power was correlated to body size (body mass: r=0.634; fat-free mass: r=0.719, lower limbs volume: r=0.577). The best model was given by fat-free mass and explained 51% of the inter-individual variance in force-velocity test. The preceding was independent of participating in sports (i.e., the dummy variable basketball vs. school did not add significant explained variance). CONCLUSION: Adolescent basketball players were taller and heavier than school boys. The groups also differed in fat-free mass (school: 53.8±4.8 kg; basketball: 60.4±6.7 kg), which was the most prominent predictor of inter-individual variance in peak power output. Briefly, compared to school boys, participation in basketball was not associated with optimal differential braking force. Higher values in peak power output for basketball players were explained by a larger amount of fat-free mass.

Modelling anaerobic peak power assessed by the force-velocity test among late adolescents

SUMMARY OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the concurrent contributions of body size, estimates of whole-body composition, and appendicular volume in addition to participation in competitive basketball to explain inter-individual variance in anaerobic peak power output during late adolescence. The study also tested non-participation versus participation in basketball as an independent predictor of peak power output. METHODS: The sample of this cross-sectional study was composed of 63 male participants (basketball: n=32, 17.0±0.9 years; school: n=31, 17.4±1.0 years). Anthropometry included stature, body mass, circumferences, lengths, and skinfolds. Fat-free mass was estimated from skinfolds and lower limbs volume predicted from circumferences and lengths. Participants completed the force-velocity test using a cycle ergometer to determine peak power output. RESULTS: For the total sample, optimal peak power was correlated to body size (body mass: r=0.634; fat-free mass: r=0.719, lower limbs volume: r=0.577). The best model was given by fat-free mass and explained 51% of the inter-individual variance in force-velocity test. The preceding was independent of participating in sports (i.e., the dummy variable basketball vs. school did not add significant explained variance). CONCLUSION: Adolescent basketball players were taller and heavier than school boys. The groups also differed in fat-free mass (school: 53.8±4.8 kg; basketball: 60.4±6.7 kg), which was the most prominent predictor of inter-individual variance in peak power output. Briefly, compared to school boys, participation in basketball was not associated with optimal differential braking force. Higher values in peak power output for basketball players were explained by a larger amount of fat-free mass.

Agreement between mechanical and digital skinfold callipers.

Background: Skinfold callipers are often used in clinical practice to estimate subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness. Recently, LipoTool emerged as a potential digital system to measure skinfolds, however comparisons with competing equipment are lacking. Aim: The aim of this study was to test the agreement between two competing skinfold callipers (digital and mechanical). Methods: The sample included 22 healthy male adult participants. A certified observer measured eight skinfolds twice using different skinfold callipers (digital and mechanical). Differences between equipment were tested using Wilcoxon signed rank test The distribution of error was examined using the normality test Results: Differences between skinfold callipers were significantly in five skinfolds: triceps (Z = -3.546; P < 0.001), subscapular (Z = -3.984; P < 0.001), suprailiac (Z = 3.024; P = 0.002), supraspinale (Z = 3.885; P < 0.001), abdominal (Z z = -2.937; P = 0.003), thigh (Z = -2.224; P = 0.026) and calf (Z = -2.052; P = 0.040). Differences between callipers were constant. Conclusions: Mechanical and digital callipers tended to record different values of skinfold thickness. Clinical examination should consider equipment-related variation in fat mass estimation.