Movement and Health. 4th International Conference. Vaverka F (ed.), Palacký University, Olomouc 2005, s. 165.

FUNCTIONAL AND SOMATIC STATE IN GYMNASTS OF CZECH NATIONAL TEAM

Jan Novotný, Martina Novotná, Jan Novotný jr.

Faculty of Sports Studies of Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

INTRODUCTION

The performances in gymnastics depend to the muscle functional abilities, body components and somatotype. Top gymnasts need to have good strength and anaerobic capacity, and lower body mass (Åstrand P.O. et al., 2003; Harries M. et al., 2001; Hoffman J., 2002; Kjaer M. et al., 2003; Komadel L a kol., 1997; Kučera M. a kol., 1999; Máček M, Máčková J., 1997; Wilmore J.H., Costill D.L., 2004). The measuring methods of the dispositions are different (Armstrong N., van Nechrlen W., 2000; Docherty D. et al., 1996; Harries M. et al., 2001; Placheta Z. a kol., 1999; Riegerová J, Ulbrichová M., 1998).

OBJECTIVES

In our retrospective study we want to present results anthropological and functional monitoring of national gymnasts’ team, since 2001 to 2005. The sports medicine testing was made after a setting of Czech Olympic Committee. The aim of the study was to evaluate trends of selected functional and somatic personalities in women and men of gymnastic national team. To provide a reference values for evaluation of gymnasts. To individual assess during their preparation to competition.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We monitored two groups of gymnasts of Czech national team (71 measurements of women since 2001 to 2005, 49 measurements of men since 2002 to 2005). For testing of maximal handgrip strength was used piezoelectric EXAMO RECENS HG3E. A main indicator of anaerobic capacity is a gymnast’s total work on bicycle ergometer KETTLER Ergorace (continual load-power to exhaustion - 5W/kg in boys, 4 W/kg in girls; a modified anaerobic test by Placheta and Dražil). The somatic composition was calculated by Matiegka - 4 component model (1921), and somatotype by Heath and Carter - 3 component model (1967). The results were compared to Bláha´s (1986) reference values.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We present averages of anthropological and functional parameters in Tables No 1-5.

Age (Tab1): We can see a trend of higher age in the girls. In boys the age is not too variable.

Strength of handgrip to body mass (Tab 1) : The strength to body mass in girls is decreased in last years. In boys the value of the last year is a higher.

Table 1 Age and maximal handgrip strength

	Year	No	Age		Maximal handgrip strength
					right				left
			yrs		N		N/kg		N		N/kg
				s		s		s		s		s
GIRLS	2001	18	14,3	1,85	196	49	4,53	0,50	184	45,2	4,25	0,55
	2002	19	15,8	2,84	205	49	4,32	0,59	197	43,8	4,16	0,58
	2003	15	17,3	2,90	236	48	4,49	0,69	228	35,1	4,38	0,70
	2004	9	17,3	2,03	231	35	4,48	0,65	214	29,0	4,18	0,66
	2005	10	17,6	2,37	223	27	4,09	0,5	215	24,0	3,95	0,49
BOYS	2002	10	19,8	2,94	422	86,9	5,88	0,65	391	75,3	5,45	0,58
	2003	11	20,4	2,77	401	48,1	5,85	0,37	376	35,5	5,50	0,40
	2004	16	19,4	3,37	394	51,2	5,73	0,58	355	34,5	5,24	0,45
	2005	12	19,5	3,55	406	57,8	6,14	0,50	388	62,1	5,87	0,67

Time of loading to exhaustion on bicycle ergometer (Tab 2) : We cannot to compare our results to other authors, because in reference sources a similar test is not presented. The parameter shows a motivation to maximal performance, to exhaustion. Mainly girls have the better values in the last years.

Total work on ergometer to body mass (Tab 2) : A trend of increasing of this parameter of anaerobic capacity during the period is evident. We cannot to compare our results to other authors too.

The average of HR in rest, and HR_max (Tab 2): The higher HR_max and Total work to body mass in last years is an expression of better motivation to maximal work.

Table 2 Total time, work during loading to exhaustion, and heart rate on bicycle ergometer

	Year	No	Time		Total work				Heart rate
									rest		max
			s		J		J/kg		t/min		t/min
				s		s		s		s		s
GIRLS	2001	18	38	6,6	6567	1858	152	27	80	12,1	175	10,7
	2002	19	42	8,8	7889	2339	168	35	77	12,7	175	8,4
	2003	15	79	28,3	16710	6100	317	113	78	13,3	198	23,9
	2004	9	105	27,0	21976	6799	419	110	90	9,9	210	18,4
	2005	10	110	38,3	24320	9544	440	151	79	9,1	198	11,4
BOYS	2002	10	65	9,6	23232	4411	325	48	69	9,2	168	8,4
	2003	11	101	25,0	34678	8920	506	126	72	10,3	190	20,5
	2004	16	113	26,5	38506	9767	565	133	72	9,7	206	21,0
	2005	12	107	32,3	35334	11384	531	160	68	13,1	183	17,1

Body height, weight and body mass index (Tab 3): The higher figure and body mass index (BMI) of girls in last 3 years correspond to their age.

Table 3 Body height, weight and body mass index (BMI)

	Year	No	Height		Height to average of population		Weight		BMI to average of population		Body mass index
			cm		%		kg		%		kg/m2
				s		s		s		s		s
GIRLS	2001	18	150,8	8,26	94	3,6	43,5	9,54	111	9,6	18,8	2,36
	2002	19	155,0	7,25	95	3,5	47,4	8,83	106	7,9	19,6	2,13
	2003	15	159,6	4,75	97	2,8	52,6	7,14	104	9,3	20,6	2,10
	2004	9	158,6	3,01	96	1,6	51,9	7,18	105	10,6	20,6	2,38
	2005	10	161,0	3,78	98	2,4	54,7	5,97	104	11,7	21,1	2,17
BOYS	2002	10	172,5	6,39	97	3,2	71,3	7,21	106	6,2	23,9	1,41
	2003	11	172,3	4,98	97	2,3	68,6	6,48	101	6,0	23,1	1,58
	2004	16	172,0	4,27	98	2,8	67,8	5,92	103	7,9	23,1	1,29
	2005	12	171,2	5,12	97	3,5	66,0	7,47	100	7,4	22,5	2,16

Body composition (Tab 4) and somatotype (Tab 5): We can see variable components in boys and in girls too. The fat component and endomorphy in the boys and the girls are very unstable. A decreasing of the ectomorphy in the girls may have coherence to the higher age.

Table 4 Body composition

	Year	No	Skeleton				Muscles				Fat
			% of body mass		to average of population (%)		% of body mass		to average of population (%)		% of body mass		to average of population (%)
				s		s		s		s		s		s
GIRLS	2001	18	17,0	1,49	100	6,7	51,9	2,41	126	6,3	11,3	2,47	56	11,9
	2002	19	16,4	1,59	100	7,5	52,4	3,37	128	8,1	12,3	2,82	59	12,3
	2003	15	15,2	1,43	95	7,8	50,9	2,02	124	5,9	13,2	2,85	61	12,5
	2004	9	15,0	1,71	95	10,1	52,9	3,95	129	9,4	11,3	1,63	51	5,7
	2005	10	15,2	1,28	96	7,4	51,8	1,84	126	5,2	12,7	2,08	58	8,8
BOYS	2002	10	16,2	0,99	93	4,7	55,8	2,07	120	4,8	7,8	1,36	61	11,5
	2003	11	16,2	1,79	94	8,4	59,4	18,92	127	39,8	7,5	1,97	59	15,6
	2004	16	16,0	1,08	90	6,9	55,0	2,19	119	5,2	7,1	1,53	55	12,0
	2005	12	15,6	1,54	88	5,3	55,3	2,35	119	4,8	8,1	1,94	63	14,4

Table 5 Somatotype

	Year	No	Somatotype
			Endomorphy				Mesomorphy				Ektomorphy
			calculated		to average of population (%)		calculated		to average of population (%)		calculated		to average of population (%)
				s		s		s		s		s		s
GIRLS	2001	18	1,49	0,70	43	20,2	4,90	0,82	100	16,3	3,21	0,83	101	24,4
	2002	19	1,83	0,73	50	18,1	4,63	0,52	93	10,7	2,98	0,80	96	22,6
	2003	15	2,12	0,55	56	13,2	4,41	0,85	90	17,8	2,75	0,93	97	29,7
	2004	9	1,72	0,46	45	11,6	4,53	0,81	92	16,4	2,70	1,04	99	36,5
	2005	10	1,98	0,58	51	4,2	4,76	0,96	97	19,5	2,61	1,01	96	35,7
BOYS	2002	10	1,41	0,51	48	18,1	6,52	0,59	128	12,7	2,00	0,62	74	25,5
	2003	11	1,29	0,41	43	12,7	5,90	0,93	115	18,8	2,36	0,70	89	24,0
	2004	16	1,17	0,26	41	10,2	5,68	0,77	112	16,3	2,40	0,54	87	22,9
	2005	12	1,39	0,30	49	11,7	5,35	1,21	105	22,5	2,59	1,04	90	27,3

CONCLUSIONS

The average of the gymnast-women age, in course, is higher. In both group the anaerobic capacity increases. The somatic state probably corresponds to their gender, aging, and other factors. We provided average values facilitating the individual functional and somatic evaluation of gymnasts.

We hope to a multiple correlation analysis of the results and gymnasts competitive performances, in order to better knowledge of functional and somatic import for sport success.

REFERENCES

Åstrand P.O. et al. (2003). Textbook of Work Physiology. Human Kinetics, Champaign: 177-212.

Armstrong N., van Nechrlen W. (2000). Paediatric Exercise, Science, and Medicine. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 323-330.

Bláha P. et al. (1986) Antropometrie československé populace. ÚŠ ČS a ÚNZVS, Praha, 357 s.

Cinglová L. (2002). Vybrané kapitoly z tělovýchovného lékařství. Karolinum, Praha, 199 s.

Docherty D. et al. (1996). Measurement in Pediatric Exercise Science. Human Kinetics, Champaign, 344 pp.

Harries M. et al. (2001). ABC of Sport Medicine. BMJ Books, London: 29-32.

Heath, B.H., Carter, J.E.L. (1967). A modified somatotype method. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 27, 57-74.

Hoffman J. (2002). Physiological Aspects of Sport Training and Performance. Human Kinetics, Champaign, 343 pp.

Kjaer M. et al. (2003). Textbook of Sports Medicine. Blackwell Publishing, Malden: 451-461.

Komadel L a kol. (1997). Telovýchovnolekárske vademekum. SSTL, Bratislava, 237 s., ISBN 80-967806-3-8.

Kučera M. a kol. (1999). Sportovní medicína. Grada/Avicenum, Praha, 280 s.

Máček M, Máčková J. (1997). Fyziologie tělesných cvičení. PdF MU, Brno, 112 s., ISBN 80-210-1604-3.

Matiegka, J. (1921). The stesting of physical efficiency. Am. J. Anthrop. 4, 223-230.

Placheta Z. a kol. (1999). Zátěžová diagnostika v ambulantní a klinické praxi. Grada/Avicenum, Praha, 276 s.

Riegerová J, Ulbrichová M. (1998) Aplikace fyzické antropologie v tělesné výchově a sportu. VUP, 185 s.

Wilmore J.H., Costill D.L. (2004). Physiology of Sport and Exercise. Human Kinetics, Champaign, 726 pp.