No description available.

published_or_final_version / abstract / toc / Clinical Psychology / Master / Master of Social Sciences

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The purposes of this study were to determine if (1) RE is adversely affected by intense interval bouts of 10 x 400-m, and (2) if there is an interaction effect between RE and recovery duration during the workouts. Twelve highly trained male runners (VO$ rm sb{2max} = 72.5 pm 4.3 ml cdot kg sp{-1} cdot min sp{-1}$) performed 3 interval workouts of 10 x 400-m with a minimum of 4 days between runs. Recovery between repetitions was randomly assigned at 60, 120 or 180 s. The velocity for each 400-m run was determined from a treadmill VO$ rm sb{2max}$ test. The average running velocity was 357.9 $ pm$ 9.0 $ rm m cdot min sp{-1}$. Following the workout, rating of perceived exertion (RPE) increased significantly (p $<$ 0.01) as recovery duration decreased (14.4 at 180 s; 16.1 at 120 s; 17.7 at 60 s recovery). Prior to and following each workout, RE was measured at speeds of 200 and 268 $ rm m cdot min sp{-1}$. Changes from pre to post RE tests in VO$ sb2$, HR, and RER were similar for the three recovery conditions. Averaged across conditions, VO$ sb2$ increased significantiy (p $<$ 0.01) pre to post tests (38.5 to 40.5 $ rm ml cdot kg sp{-1}min sp{-1}$ at 200 $ rm m cdot min sp{-1}$ and from 53.1 to 54.5 $ rm ml cdot kg sp{-1}min sp{-1}$ at 268 $ rm m cdot min sp{-1}$) HR increased (124 to 138; and 151 to 157 bpm) and RER decreased (0.90 to 0.78; and 0.93 to 0.89) at 200 and 268 $ rm m cdot min sp{-1}$, respectively (p $<$ 0.01). This study showed that RE can be perturbed after a high-intensity interval workout and that changes in VO$ sb2$, HR and RER were independent of the recovery duration between repetitions.

The biomechanics of running on level surfaces has been extensively researched, but there is limited knowledge on the biomechanical adaptations of curvilinear running. The purpose of this study was to investigate the electromyographic activity (EMG) of the lower leg muscles while running at two speeds (3.8 and 7.0 m/s) under three conditions (straight-away, flat curve, and banked curve of 11 degrees). Seven male elite track runners participated. Surface electrodes were placed bilaterally on the tibialis anterior (TA), peroneus longus (PL), and gastrocnemius lateralis (GL) muscles. In general, there was greater EMG activity and body lean at the higher speeds for each muscle (p&lt; 0.05); however minimal differences in EMG between the three surface running conditions (except for the second peak of TA). No bi-lateral asymmetry in muscle activation occurred during curved running, whether flat or banked. Future study should address more proximal segment and trunk muscular adaptations.

Objective. This study investigated the effect of cycling position (upright vs. recumbent) and seat position on the oxygen cost of cycling. / Experimental design. A two-factor ANOVA with repeated measures was used to examine the effect of cycling position (Monark 814E, Lifecycle 9100 R, and Lifecycle 9500 RHR ergometers) and seat position (optimum and +/-1 setting) on VO2 and HR. / Participants. Subjects were 10 male physical education students (age = 24 +/- 2.1 years, height = 178.8 +/- 4.8 cm, weight = 76.2 +/- 7.8 kg). / Interventions. Each subject was tested at three 5-minute workloads (55, 137, and 186 Watts) in a random order on the three ergometers. These workloads corresponded with manual settings of 1, 3, and 5 on the Lifecycle ergometers. The cycling protocols for the Lifecycle ergometers were performed with the seat set at 107% of the symphysis pubis measurement and at seat positions of +/-1 setting from the so-called "optimum" setting. / Measures. Physiological response was assessed by continuously monitoring VO2 and HR. / Results. At the optimum seat setting, the VO2 was significantly higher at the three workloads on the Monark compared to both Lifecycle ergometers. Seat positions of +/-1 setting from the recommended setting did not affect VO2. The HR response was non-significant for cycling position and seat position. / Conclusions. The results indicate that the Lifecycle ergometers (9100 R and 9500 RHR) underestimate oxygen consumption and indirectly underestimate energy expenditure. Seat positions of +/-1 setting from the recommended setting on the Lifecycle ergometers did not affect the VO 2.

No description available.