Search

This is a registration for a systematic review protocol aiming at identifying and analyzing, using a holistic approach based on the Glazier's Grand Unified Theory (GUT) (2017), the factors that influence the performance in short trail running. The objective of this systematic literature review is to produce a set of integrated findings to inform on factors that influence the performance in short trail running. The protocol has been written following PRISMA checklist for protocol (Moher et al., 2015).

Apenas uma investigação se interessou pelo desenvolvimento de uma escala pictórica que avalia a competência aquática percebida em crianças (1). Esta ferramenta possui um número limitado de skills aquáticos (i.e. 6 skills) e visa apenas crianças entre os 4 e os 5 anos. Portanto, o desenvolvimento de uma ferramenta mais completa e apropriada para crianças dos 4 aos 8 anos revela ser pertinente. Assim, um grupo de investigadores decidiu desenvolver essa nova ferramenta intitulada Escala Pictórica da Competência Aquática Percebida (EPCAP) (2). Foi objetivo deste estudo realizar a validação preliminar de face da EPCAP em crianças com idades entre os 4 e os 8 anos. 50 crianças Belgas (meninas n=25) dos 4 aos 8 anos de idade (6.1±1.4 anos) participaram no estudo. As crianças foram entrevistadas individualmente para avaliar a compreensão de 17 situações aquáticas que compõem o instrumento desenvolvido (2). A entrevista incluiu 4 questões de compreensão global sobre cada situação aquática composta respectivamente por uma sequência de progressão com 3 imagens. A maioria das crianças identificou corretamente as situações (82%) e conseguiu sequenciar as 3 imagens correspondentes (91%). Os resultados mostraram um aumento da compreensão em função da idade (4 anos, 50%; 5 anos, 73%; 6 anos, 83%; 7 anos, 89%; e 8 anos, 96%). A descrição das imagens por parte das crianças permitiu evidenciar os elementos que conduziam à incompreensão da situação ou à dificuldade na sua sequência - situações 5 e 6 (flutuar); situação 12 (mergulho de cabeça); a situação 16 (saída da água) e as situações 15, 16 e 17 (mudanças de direção). Os resultados sugerem que a compreensão da atual versão da EPCAP é satisfatória a partir dos 5 anos. As imagens das situações aquáticas que geraram incompreensão e/ou dificuldade na sequência de progressão foram propostas para revisão em conformidade, sendo recomendado proceder à validação de face da futura versão da EPCAP., Motricidade, Vol. 17 No. S1 (2021): Proceedings of the XLIII Technical and Scientific Congress of the Portuguese Association of Swimming Technicians

Additional file 1. PRISMA P checklist.

Additional file 2. Example search strategy for Medline.

Additional file 3. Data extraction template – Quantitative and Qualitative

Additional file 4. Modified Effective Public Health Practice Project 444 (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool and Dixon-Woods (2004) Checklist.

During the last two decades there have been growing interests on recommendations for children’s physical activity. The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the first global international recommendations for children in 2010, focusing on children and youth aged 5-17 year olds. The recommendations were based on the dose-response relationship between the frequency, duration, intensity, type and amount of physical activity needed for prevention of non-communicable diseases. There remains however, at time of writing, (2019) a gap in the recommendations, as the WHO did not offer global recommendations for those children under the age of 5 (early years). An international policy and practice analysis, (not previously undertaken), of ten sample countries, was completed of current national physical activity practices. Also an international comparison of early years’ education settings were examined, specifically for those under the age of 5, to investigate current curricula, as well as the qualifications, knowledge and understanding of those supporting children’s learning in different cultural contexts. The sample of ten countries (Belgium, China, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Norway, United Kingdom and United States of America) questioned whether the global daily physical activity recommendations (WHO, 2010) are costumed and used for to the early years’ age group on a national level or if they need to be adjusted. The analysis revealed that eight countries have developed their own national recommendations for children below the age of 5, while only two countries do not have any early years’ specific physical activity recommendations. National authorities seem to be the most common executive sources behind the recommendations. The content of physical activity for children under the age of 5, mostly included the total amount and intensity of physical activity. The total daily amount of physical activity in these ten countries varies between 60 minutes moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity up to 180 min total light to moderate intensity physical activity and for some countries the daily recommendations are only from age 1 year, not between birth and 1 year, this age range remains unsupported. The conclusions from the analysis of national recommendations, underlined the need to see the global recommendations be developed for the younger age group, to support all countries. It is proposed a need for universally new recommendations to go beyond just physical activity intensity levels and to consider how young children’s development can be supported in a versatile way by physically active play. Also age specific recommendations are offered for appropriate and purposeful physical activity to support early years and school aged children’s overall development. The findings also suggest educational recommendations for staff members of early childhood education and care settings to know appropriate and age specific recommendations to ensure they are able to support young children to reach the national and global recommendations. Research recommendations are also proposed.

The objective of this study was to analyse the changes on gross motor development after five (T5), ten (T10) and 30 (T30) months of swimming or soccer practice. The study sample consists of 33 preschool-aged boys (4.8±0.5 yrs.): 11 soccer practitioners; 11 swimming practitioners; 11 controls (no previous involvement in sports). The Test of Gross Motor Development–Second Edition was used to assess common gross motor skills (locomotion, object control skills). Both experimental groups improved significantly in their gross motor quotient and the standard scores for locomotion and object control skills between T5 and T10. At T10, all soccer practitioners have already reached the maximum descriptive rating for the gross motor quotient. Between T10 and T30, swimming practitioners were able to improve the standard scores for object control skills. Main results showed a positive impact of swimming and soccer participation in motor proficiency., Motricidade, Vol 12 No 4 (2016)

The Sorensen test has been extensively studied and is a rapid, simple, and reproducible evaluation of the trunk extensor muscles [1]. It is often considered as a fatigue test because fatigue-related electromyographic (EMG) parameters change throughout the test [2]; however, only recently it has been confirmed that this test induces a decrease of trunk extensor force during a maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) [3], which best characterises muscle fatigue. The main aim of this study was to investigate the correlation between the decrease in MVC torque of the trunk extensors induced by the Sorensen test and the changes in fatigue-related EMG.

Die Förderung der motorischen Kompetenzen als notwendige Bedingung um einen körperlich aktiven Lebensstil zu entwickeln ist.ein international anerkanntes Ziel des Sportunterrichts (Lounsbery & McKenzie, 2015). Motorische Kompetenzen werden dabei als motorische Leistungsdispositionen verstanden, welche von aufgabenspezifischen Anforderungen in der Sport- und Bewegungskultur abgeleitet werden. Für die Evaluation des Sportunterrichts müssen die Testitems situationsspezifisch und jahrgangsspezifisch formuliert sein sowie eng mit den (curricularen) Zielen des Sportunterrichts verknüpft sein.

International audience; Aims of the study: The aim of the present study was to explore the interest of inertial load-velocity and load-power relationships for establishing resistance training zones.Materials and methods: Thirty-five subjects went twice at the laboratory. The first session was used to determine bench press one repetition maximal (1RM) while the second session was used to determine load-velocity and load-power relationships by the means of an inertial dynamometer. For each subject, four major training zones (maximal velocity, power-velocity, strength-power, maximal strength), defined from the 1RM, were compared to the corresponding training zones defined from inertial load-velocity and load-power relationships.Results: Training zones defined from the 1RM are significantly different (P < 0,001) from the ones based on load-velocity and load-power relationships. According to load-power and load-velocity relationships results, maximal bench press velocity should be trained from 0 to 23% of the 1RM; power-velocity should be trained from 25 to 54% of the 1RM; strength-power should be trained from 54 to 82% of the 1RM and maximal strength should be trained with superior loads. Such muscular profiles defined with inertial dynamometers allow a more acute and individualised prescription for power-velocity resistance training.; Objectifs: Cette étude a pour objectif d’explorer l’intérêt des relations inertielles charge–vitesse et charge–puissance dans l’identification des zones d’entraînement musculaire.Méthodes: Trente-cinq sujets sont venus à deux reprises au laboratoire. La première séance a permis de définir la répétition maximale (1RM) en développé couché alors que la seconde a permis de définir les profils musculaires charge–vitesse et charge–puissance à partir d’un dynamomètre inertiel. Quatre zones d’entraînement (vitesse maximale, puissance–vitesse, puissance–force et force maximale) habituellement définies à partir du 1RM ont été comparées aux zones d’entraînement objectivées pour chaque individu à partir des relations charge–vitesse et charge–puissance.Résultats: Les zones d’entraînement obtenues lorsque l’on se base sur les relations charge–vitesse et charge–puissance diffèrent significativement (p < 0,001) de celles établies sur base du seul 1RM. Les résultats montrent que de 0 à 23 % du 1RM, on travaille la vitesse ; de 25 à 54 % du 1RM, on travaille la puissance–vitesse ; de 54 à 82 % du 1RM, on travaille la puissance-force et au-delà, on travaille la force maximale. Des différences interindividuelles ont été constatées. L’établissement de ces profils inertiels permet une définition précise et individualisée de l’entraînement de la vitesse et de la puissance musculaire.

International audience; Aims of the study: The aim of the present study was to explore the interest of inertial load-velocity and load-power relationships for establishing resistance training zones.Materials and methods: Thirty-five subjects went twice at the laboratory. The first session was used to determine bench press one repetition maximal (1RM) while the second session was used to determine load-velocity and load-power relationships by the means of an inertial dynamometer. For each subject, four major training zones (maximal velocity, power-velocity, strength-power, maximal strength), defined from the 1RM, were compared to the corresponding training zones defined from inertial load-velocity and load-power relationships.Results: Training zones defined from the 1RM are significantly different (P < 0,001) from the ones based on load-velocity and load-power relationships. According to load-power and load-velocity relationships results, maximal bench press velocity should be trained from 0 to 23% of the 1RM; power-velocity should be trained from 25 to 54% of the 1RM; strength-power should be trained from 54 to 82% of the 1RM and maximal strength should be trained with superior loads. Such muscular profiles defined with inertial dynamometers allow a more acute and individualised prescription for power-velocity resistance training.; Objectifs: Cette étude a pour objectif d’explorer l’intérêt des relations inertielles charge–vitesse et charge–puissance dans l’identification des zones d’entraînement musculaire.Méthodes: Trente-cinq sujets sont venus à deux reprises au laboratoire. La première séance a permis de définir la répétition maximale (1RM) en développé couché alors que la seconde a permis de définir les profils musculaires charge–vitesse et charge–puissance à partir d’un dynamomètre inertiel. Quatre zones d’entraînement (vitesse maximale, puissance–vitesse, puissance–force et force maximale) habituellement définies à partir du 1RM ont été comparées aux zones d’entraînement objectivées pour chaque individu à partir des relations charge–vitesse et charge–puissance.Résultats: Les zones d’entraînement obtenues lorsque l’on se base sur les relations charge–vitesse et charge–puissance diffèrent significativement (p < 0,001) de celles établies sur base du seul 1RM. Les résultats montrent que de 0 à 23 % du 1RM, on travaille la vitesse ; de 25 à 54 % du 1RM, on travaille la puissance–vitesse ; de 54 à 82 % du 1RM, on travaille la puissance-force et au-delà, on travaille la force maximale. Des différences interindividuelles ont été constatées. L’établissement de ces profils inertiels permet une définition précise et individualisée de l’entraînement de la vitesse et de la puissance musculaire.