Dissertations and Theses @ UNI

Availability

Open Access Thesis

Keywords

Track and field athletes--Iowa--Cedar Falls; College students--Health and hygiene--Iowa--Cedar Falls; College students--Health and hygiene; Track and field athletes; Iowa--Cedar Falls; Academic theses;

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare four separate strength and speed qualities between Division I sprinters and jumpers and recreationally trained athletes. Nine Division I sprinters and jumpers and 9 recreationally active males participated in the study. Methods: Subjects performed 54.9-m timed trials. The 0-18.3 m (Split 1) time and 36.6-54.9 m (Split 2) time were recorded. Subjects performed multiple strength related tests. Back squat one repetition maximum ( 1 RM), 1 RM relative to body mass (}RM-Rel), peak power during jump squats with 10 and 30% of lRM (PPl0 and PP30), PP 10 and PP30 relative to body mass (PP 10-Rel and PP30-Rel), peak velocity during the jump squats (PVl0 and PV30), peak rate of force development (PRFD), peak force (PF) and PF relative to body mass (PF-Rel) during an isometric mid-thigh pull and reactive strength indices from three heights (RSI30, RSI45, RSI60) were recorded. Pearson product moment correlations were performed between Split 1, Split 2 and the strength variables. Recreationally active subjects were rank ordered by their Split 1 and Split 2 times and put into fast and slow groups. Independent t-tests compared strength variables between fast and slow recreationally active subjects. This process was repeated for the sprinter/jumper group. Alpha was set at p<0.05 for statistical tests. Results: PVl 0, PV30, RSI30, RSI45, RSI60, PP IO-Rel, PP30-Rel and PF-Rel were significantly related to Split 1. PV30, RSI30, RSI45 and RSI60 were significantly related to Split 2. The fast recreationally active subjects separated by Split 1 had significantly greater PVlO, PV30, PF, 1 RM-Rel, PP 10-Rel, PP30-Rel and PF-Rel. There were no significant differences between fast and slow recreationally active subjects separated by Split 2. There were no significant differences between fast and slow sprinters/jumpers separated by Split 1. There were no significant differences between fast and slow sprinters/jumpers separated by Split 2. Conclusions: These findings are in agreement with current research on sprint speed development. Small sample sizes may be partially responsible for the insignificant t-tests. Technique plays significant role in performance at both distances. Coaches should consider improving strength levels and technique when attempting to improve acceleration or maximal velocity sprinting.

Year of Submission

2006

Degree Name

Master of Arts

Department

School of Health, Physical Education, and Leisure Services

First Advisor

Robin Lund

Second Advisor

Forrest Dolgener

Third Advisor

Kevin Finn

Comments

If you are the rightful copyright holder of this thesis and wish to have it removed from the Open Access Collection, please submit a request to scholarworks@uni.edu and include clear identification of the work, preferably with URL.

Date Original

2006

Object Description

1 PDF file (100 leaves)

Language

en

File Format

application/pdf

Share

COinS