The Comparison of C1 paddling functional test and arm crank ergometry in canoe slalom elite athletes
Abstract
Background: Recently, there have been rising demands on the specifics of functional load testing, which should with its motor structure correspond or at least draw near the sport specialization. However, evaluation of specific forms of diagnostics is very pure in canoe slalom.
Objective: The aim of the study was to compare a physiological response based on results in graded functional test when paddling in a single-canoe (C1) and results reached in the standardized arm crank ergometry. Methods: The research sample consisted of 6 elite men Czech single-canoeists, members of Czech senior national team and the Czech national team up to 23 years.
Their average weight was 79.7+-6.6 kg, height 183.4+-6.6 cm and age 23.6+-3.9 years. Results: When comparing the result values of physiological indicators measured in both functional tests, we have found out significant differences (statistical and substantive) in variables: peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak; p=0.00; 15.1%), peak ventilation (VEpeak; p=0.06, 11.1%), heart rate (HR; p=0.02; 5.7%), respiratory rate (RR; p=0.18 ; 9.3%), tidal volume (VT; p=0.00; 18.8%) and respiratory exchange ratio (RER; p=0.26; 4.0%).
With the exception of respiratory rate, significantly lower values of all physiological variables were found in on-water testing (C1). Although there was a strong correlation between the VO2peak indicators (r=0.79) found between paddling and crank ergometry, this relationship cannot be considered significant (p=0.06) due to the small research sample.
Conclusions: The physiological responses of on-water testing and of crank ergometry are different. While VO2peak in arm crank ergometry was 54.2 ml.kg.min-1, in paddling on water it was only 46 ml.kg.min-1 (p=0,00).
Big inclusion of deep and surface abdominal muscles, which is necessary for technically efficient paddling, leads to lower ventilation, which is logical predisposition of VO2peak. To evaluate the paddling test and finding external validity of arm crank ergometry in C1 category, it would be suitable to realize testing with a bigger research sample in future studies.
Performance in C1 is probably more dependent on local strength endurance of upper limbs rather than on global respiratory fitness.