Estimating Muscle Fiber-Type Composition in Elite Athletes: A Survey on Current Practices and Perceived Merit

Author:

Lievens Eline1ORCID,Van de Casteele Freek1ORCID,De Block Fien1ORCID,Van Vossel Kim1ORCID,Vandenbogaerde Tom2,Sandford Gareth N.2ORCID,Bellinger Phillip3ORCID,Minahan Clare34ORCID,Bourgois Jan G.1,Stellingwerff Trent25ORCID,Mujika Iñigo67ORCID,Derave Wim1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

2. Canadian Sport Institute Pacific, Victoria, BC, Canada

3. Griffith Sports Science, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia

4. Australian Institute of Sport, Australian Sports Commission, Canberra, ACT, Australia

5. Exercise Science, Physical & Health Education, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada

6. Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine and Nursing, University of the Basque Country, Leioa, Basque Country

7. Exercise Science Laboratory, School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Finis Terrae, Santiago, Chile

Abstract

Purpose: To gather information on practices and perceptions of high-performance experts regarding their athletes’ muscle fiber-type composition (MFTC) and its estimation. Methods: A questionnaire on the noninvasive versus invasive estimation of MFTC was completed by 446 experts including coaches and sport-science/sports-medicine staff. Moreover, the perceived importance of MFTC for training and performance optimization was assessed. Differences between sport types (individual and team sports) were analyzed using chi-square tests. Results: Forty percent of the experts implemented MFTC assessment in pursuit of performance optimization, while 50% did not know their athletes’ MFTC but expressed a desire to implement it if they would be able to assess MFTC. Ten percent did not perceive value in MFTC assessment. Only 18% of experts believed that their athletes would undergo a muscle biopsy, leading to the adoption of alternative noninvasive techniques. Experts primarily relied on their experience to estimate MFTC (65%), with experts working in individual sports using their experience more frequently than those working in team sports (68% vs 51%; P = .009). Jump tests emerged as the second-most commonly employed method for estimating MFTC (56%). When only considering experts who are currently using MFTC, 87% use MFTC to individualize training volume and 84% to individualize training intensity. Conclusions: Experts value MFTC assessment primarily to individualize training but mainly rely on noninvasive methods to estimate MFTC. Some of these methods lack scientific validity, suggesting a continuing need for education and further research in this area.

Publisher

Human Kinetics

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3