This study aimed to investigate the validity of a boxing-specific test to predict anaerobic threshold (AT) using the heart rate deflection point (HRDP) in boxing athletes with mobile technology. Ten male boxing athletes performed the boxing-specific incremental test (TBOX). Maximal heart rate (HRMAX), HRDP, pace, maximal punch frequency (FPMAX), and punch frequency relative to HRDP (FPAT) were measured. Participants also performed an incremental running test on a treadmill (IT) as a reference test. Paired t-tests were performed to verify differences between the mean values of HRMAX and HRDP during TBOX and IT. Pearson linear correlation was applied to test correlations and the Bland and Altman visual analysis was used to verify the level of agreement. A significant level of p < 0.05 was adopted. The average HRDP was 174 ± 7 bpm, which corresponded to 92% of the observed HRMAX. FPAT and FPMAX presented values between 39 ± 4 and 73 ± 8 blows, respectively. No differences were found, and strong correlations were evidenced between TBOX and IT for HRMAX ( p = 0.281; r = 0.73) and heart rate response related to HRDP ( p = 0.096; r = 0.85). The 95% limits of agreement for the differences between TBOX and IT for HRMAX should be considered with bias by 2.1 ± 9.7 found between −7.65 and 11.85, as well as the 95% limits of agreement for the differences between TBOX and IT for HRDP with bias −2.3 ± 7.68 found between −9.98 and 5.38. HRMAX and HRDP obtained during TBOX leads us to infer that the test was well founded to estimate parameters associated with the aerobic power and aerobic capacity of boxing athletes. In addition, TBOX shows significant applicability for the aerobic assessment of boxers based on real competition movements and can be useful to determine and control training intensities.

Resumo-O Talk Test ou limiar de conversação é um método simples e não-invasivo para controle da intensidade de exercício. O pressuposto básico de tal método é que, em determinadas intensidades de exercício, o indivíduo não pode mais manter uma conversa confortável e que a ventilação e outras respostas fisiológicas estão associadas a essa inabilidade. Com isso, alguns limiares de transição fisiológica (LTF) podem ser determinados de maneira indireta através da dificuldade na fala. Estudos passaram a explorar esta alternativa, investigando a sua relação com variáveis fisiológicas e psicofísicas, bem como evidências de validade de aplicação para várias populações, principalmente, nas últimas duas décadas, quando se nota crescente atenção da comunidade científica. O objetivo desta revisão é trazer informações relevantes sobre os estudos que utilizaram o Talk Test como estimativa de limiares de transição fisiológica e intensidades de esforço em distintas populações. São apresentados aspectos como o controle fisiológico da fala em repouso e durante o exercício, contextualização do limiar de conversação, delineamentos metodológicos utilizados e as relações entre o Talk Test e os limiares de transição fisiológica. A revisão foi feita a partir de buscas de artigos referentes ao tópico na base de dados Medline, Lilacs e Sportsdiscuss, sendo complementado com a produção recente de nosso grupo de pesquisa. Conclui-se que o Talk Test pode predizer limiares fisiológicos e delimitar zonas de segurança para exercício aeróbio para diversas populações. No entanto, necessita-se de estudos que aprimorem o protocolo de fala para a comparação e associação com outras variáveis fisiológicas e psicofísicas. Palavras-chave: Exercício aeróbio; Limiar anaeróbio; Teste de esforço. Abstract-The Talk Test (TT) or conversation threshold is a simple and subjective method used to control exercise intensity by a no invasive manner. The basis of this method is that, for many exercise intensities, subjects are not able to maintain comfortable speech and ventilation and other physiological responses are associated to this inability. Thus, some physiological transition thresholds (LTF) can be predicted indirectly by speech difficult. Several studies have explored this alternative by investigating its relationship to physiological and psychophysical variables and evidence of validity for application in distinct populations. It occurred mainly at the 2 last decades which great attention have been given by the scientific community. The aim of this review is to make a discussion about the studies which used the Talk Test to estimate physiological transition thresholds and effort intensities in distinct populations. We present some aspects, such as physiological mechanisms of speech control during exercise, the context of talk test, the methodological alternatives applied, the hypothetical relationship between the talk test and physiological transition thresholds. The search for scientific articles related to this topic was done at the Medline, Lilacs e Sp...

No abstract

No abstract

Body mass is known to affect muscle strength and the outcome of some functional tests, so that heavier and taller people will be stronger than lighter and smaller ones. Ratio standard (RS) has been widely used to remove the body mass effect, despite long date criticism due to its inadequacy. Allometry (ALLO), in turn, has been applied as an efficient method for normalizing muscular strength. As the bench press (BP) is a well-recognized strength and conditioning exercise for older adults, the aim of the present study was to verify the influence of body mass on the performance assessment of a group of older men in the BP, by comparing the absolute, RS and ALLO approaches. Sixteen healthy old men (65.5±5.13 years old; 75.42±9.78Kg; 1.73±5.98m; 25.11±2.71 kg/m2; 24.76±4.10 %fat) volunteered to participate in the study. Maximum dynamic load was verified by individual one-repetition maximum (1-RM) tests. Comparisons of means revealed that significant 1-RM difference between lighter (54.9±8.85Kg) and heavier (66.2±8.86Kg) participants was identified only in absolute approach (p<0.05; ES=0.57). RS failed in completely remove the body mass effect, allowing correlation between normalized muscular strength and BM (r=0.23), in contraire of ALLO (r=0.03 and 0.06). Kendall's concordance coefficient revealed an absolute lack of agreement between approaches when compared their respective ordinal classifications (kw=0.003; p>0.05). In line with previous research, ALLO has shown to be the only suitable method to remove adequately the body mass effect and to provide appropriated performance scores for the older men evaluated in this study.