Abstracts
BOA-Final-lr
BOA-Final-lr
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Methods: Twelve nationally ranked male DC (15.6 ±1.1 yrs, 180.7 ± 9.6 cm, 69.8 ±11.7 kg) and 59 RS (15.2 ± 0.6 yrs, 176.3 ± 7.7cm, 62.4 ± 8.6<br />
kg) participated in the study. All subjects performed the standardized fitness test battery of the German Tennis Federation including strength,<br />
upper body power, speed, jumping ability and tennis specific endurance. A standardized interview was undertaken for data evaluation on training<br />
characteristics of a normal training week (out-of competition) including workload of tennis training (TT), physical training (PT), total training workload<br />
(TTW), ratio TT/PT and training history.<br />
Results: Significant differences (p< 0.05) were found in most of all physical performance test between DC and RS (hand grip: 55.2 vs 44.7 kg;<br />
back-extension: 40 vs 31 repetitions; countermovement jump: 40.7 vs 37.6 cm; serve velocity: 184.3 vs 171.2 km/h; medicine ball throw: forehand<br />
1457 vs 1282 cm, backhand 1372 vs 1233 cm). Training characteristics differed significantly (p< 0.05) between both groups. DC showed higher<br />
values in TTW (22.7 vs 14.4 h/wk), TT (15.1 vs 9.8 h/wk), PT (7.6 vs 4.5 h/wk); whereas no differences were found for ratio TT/PT and parameters<br />
of training history. In DC statistically significant relationship was found between TTW and tennis ranking (r= -0.78, p< 0.01).<br />
Discussion: Results obtained indicate a higher physical performance level, especially in the upper body power and strength, as well as higher<br />
training workloads in DC. Although sport specific technical skills are predominant factors, we can suggest that the increasing highly competitive<br />
nature of youth tennis require notably high demands of physical fitness for competing on elite level. Given this distribution of limiting performance<br />
factors, it is of great importance to organize the fitness training as efficient as possible saving time for technical/tactical training, nevertheless high<br />
training volumes are indispensable for elite performance level.<br />
116 Low Back Pain in German Elite Hockey Players<br />
D. Fett 1 * • K. Felker 1 • P. Platen 1<br />
1<br />
Ruhr-University Bochum, Department of Sports Medicine and Sports Nutrition, GER<br />
Introduction: Back pain (BP) and especially low back pain (LBP) is a frequent health problem in the general population, in sports and also in field<br />
hockey resulting in enormous costs for the health care system. Detailed data on prevalence of LBP in German sportsmen and women is rare.<br />
From a biomechanical perspective movements in field hockey are characterized by forward flexion and rotation of the trunk. The forward flexed<br />
posture must be maintained during most of the duration of a game or training session causing high spinal loads. This might be related with the<br />
development of pain in the lower back. The study aimed to determine the prevalence of LBP in German elite field hockey players to clarify<br />
associations between hockey-specific posture and pain generation.<br />
Methods: A self-reported standardized and validated questionnaire based on the Nordic questionnaire by Kuorinka et al. (1987) was send to all<br />
members of the A-, B-, C- and D-squad of the national hockey team and the members of the State-of-Northrhine-Westfalia junior hockey team.<br />
The questionnaire includes several items on BP and LBP. Lifetime, 12-month, 3-month and point prevalence of LBP were determined. 107 field<br />
hockey players (47.8%) responded (m=44, f=51; mean±SD: 19.3±4.5yrs., 174.1±9.2cm, 66.3±10.3kg). X2-statistics were used to determine<br />
differences in LBP between gender, and the pearson correlation coefficient was used for analyzing the effect of age.<br />
Results: The reported lifetime prevalence of LBP in field hockey players was 72.3%. The 12-month, 3-month and point prevalence of LBP were<br />
64.5%, 44.0% and 27.8%. Comparison of gender showed no significant differences. By analyzing the effect of the athletes age on prevalence of<br />
LBP, significant correlation were found for lifetime prevalence (r=0.28, p