Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: FIELD SPORTS & ANAEROBICS

Expand Messages
  • Duncan J Macfarlane
    To add to the debate about contributions of the energy systems to different sports I very very strongly recommend my students to rip out the page cited by Mel
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 27, 1998
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      To add to the debate about contributions of the energy systems to different
      sports I very very strongly recommend my students to rip out the page cited
      by Mel Siff - my copy is from Fox and Mathews textbook "Essential of
      Exercise Physiology" that contains the table "The predominant energy
      systems of different sports" (in fact I do not recommend this text at all).
      I my opinion its energy table is bizarre in the extreme. I must
      acknowledge that Dr Siff states that more recent texts have modified these
      figures - but it is a lot more than "somewhat" as he suggests! A far more
      sensible and intuitively correct table is found in "Better Coaching:
      Advanced coaches manual" 1991, Australian Coaching Council, ISBN
      0958985030. It's values really show to me how silly some of Fox and
      Mathews values are and why I think the F & M table should not be cited.
      Fox and Mathews claim a 1-mile running race is only 25% aerobic!! - whilst
      Better Coachings has the 1500m at 85% aerobic - a far more sensible figure
      (my understanding of the research on the time constant of oxygen uptake
      kinetics suggests that at the end of even 60s of vigorous exercise,
      potentially about 50% of the energy is derived aerobically - let's not get
      sidetracked on the details of this point as I only use it to show how rapid
      the kinetics of oxygen uptake are). In addition - F & M suggest Basketball
      and Volleyball have NO aerobic component at all!! (how they justified this
      is mindboggling to me) - whilst Better Coaching suggests 50% and 40%
      respectively, also, F & M suggest soccer is 20% aerobic, whilst Better
      Coaching suggests 50%. I think a large number of coaches and scientists
      would agree the Better Coaching table is far more sensible and in my
      opinion, one of the best I have come across.
      Although I provide only one example to counter some of the bizarre values
      cited by F & M, I really think their table is wildly inaccurate (but has
      unfortunately been replicated in other texts), and it is so far out that
      should not be used by coaches; I also agree with Evan Stilwell that
      accurate energy system figures are needed when making deductions about
      training.
      Duncan Macfarlane
      PE and Sports Science
      University of Hong Kong

      Mel Siff commented:
      >
      >If you consult Fox and Matthews 'Interval Training for Sports & General
      >Fitness', you will note that the 'aerobic' system contributes some 20% to the
      >energy needs of soccer. More recent texts may have modified those figures
      >somewhat, but 20% is still a long way off the 50% for offering a contribution
      >which is even equal to the two 'anaerobic' systems.

      Evan Stilwell commented:
      >>>I think it is responsible to at least get the correct energy system of a
      >sport if you are going to use that sport as an example to argue against
      >altitude training whether good or bad.
    • Duncan J Macfarlane
      Perhaps I could ask for some important advice that my also help other members - that is, what is the best on-line metabolic gas analysis system currently
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 29, 1998
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Perhaps I could ask for some important advice that my also help other
        members - that is, what is the best on-line metabolic gas analysis system
        currently available? We want to replace our ageing Quinton Q-Plex system
        and to purchase an accurate, reliable, user-friendly system that has low
        maintenance and other on-going costs.
        About 10 years ago (pre-Web era) I did went through a very lengthy
        exercise and found the Sensormedics 2900 system was considered the best
        available (great O2 & CO2 analysers, stable, probably the most vital part
        was its excellent ventilation measurement system, low maintenance, provided
        B x B and mixing chamber modes, automatic calibration, etc - its only
        downfall was the cardiac output system using CO2 rebreathing was hopeless
        as the curve-fitting programme was rather inept).
        I know its replacement model - Sensormedics Vmax system - has given
        persistent problems to some people - so that is out. We are currently
        impressed by the Jaeger Oxycon Champion system (as it suits adults and
        children - we must have paediatric-sized valves, and has a nice automated
        CO2 rebreathing system for cardiac output) - but we need feedback from
        users on this Jaeger system or whether other metabolic carts are better -
        eg. what about the current Quinton model or MedGraphics system?? Others??
        Can readers please send comments either to me or post them to this list -
        especially why any current models have either impressed them, or have
        provided major problems (please give reasons) or what model you would buy
        if you could. I will happily try and post a summary of the comments. I
        look forward to your responses.
        With thanks
        Dr Duncan Macfarlane
        PE and Sports Science Unit
        University of Hong Kong
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.