Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Dec 16:6:380.
doi: 10.3389/fphys.2015.00380. eCollection 2015.

Comparison Between 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test and Multistage Field Test on Physiological Responses in Wheelchair Basketball Players

Thierry Weissland  1 , Arnaud Faupin  2 , Benoit Borel  3 , Pierre-Marie Leprêtre  4
Affiliations

Comparison Between 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test and Multistage Field Test on Physiological Responses in Wheelchair Basketball Players

Thierry Weissland et al. Front Physiol. .

Abstract

The intermittent nature of wheelchair court sports suggests using a similar protocol to assess repeated shuttles and recovery abilities. This study aimed to compare performances, physiological responses and perceived rating exertion obtained from the continuous multistage field test (MFT) and the 30-15 intermittent field test (30-15IFT). Eighteen trained wheelchair basketball players (WBP) (WBP: 32.0 ± 5.7 y, IWBF classification: 2.9 ± 1.1 points) performed both incremental field tests in randomized order. Time to exhaustion, maximal rolling velocity (MRV), VO2peak and the peak values of minute ventilation (V Epeak), respiratory frequency (RF) and heart rate (HRpeak) were measured throughout both tests; peak and net blood lactate (Δ[Lact(-)] = peak-rest values) and perceived rating exertion (RPE) values at the end of each exercise. No significant difference in VO2peak, VEpeak, and RF was found between both tests. 30-15IFT was shorter (12.4 ± 2.4 vs. 14.9 ± 5.1 min, P < 0.05) but induced higher values of MRV and Δ[Lact(-)] compared to MFT (14.2 ± 1.8 vs. 11.1 ± 1.9 km·h(-1) and 8.3 ± 4.2 vs. 6.9 ± 3.3 mmol·L(-1), P < 0.05). However, HRpeak and RPE values were higher during MFT than 30-15IFT(172.8 ± 14.0 vs. 166.8 ± 13.8 bpm and 15.3 ± 3.8 vs.13.8 ± 3.5, respectively, P < 0.05). The intermittent shuttles intercepted with rest period occurred during the 30-15IFT could explain a greater anaerobic solicitation. The higher HR and overall RPE values measured at the end of MFT could be explained by its longer duration and a continuous load stress compared to 30-15IFT. In conclusion, 30-15IFT has some advantages over MFT for assess in addition physical fitness and technical performance in WBP.

Keywords: aerobic fitness; basketball; evaluation; field test; wheelchair.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Correlation between VO2peak reached during MFT and 30-15IFT tests (r = 0.54, r2 = 0.71, P < 0.01).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Analysis of the individual difference by Bland-Altman method between MFT and 30-15IFT test and (A) peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) and (B) peak ventilation (VEpeak).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Individual wheelchair basketball players difference in peak heart rate and blood lactate values between continuous multistage field test (MFT) and 30-15 intermittent field test (30-15IFT) (n = 18). (A) Difference HR (bpm) and (B) Difference Δ[Lact−], respectively represented the difference in peak values of heart rate (bpm) and Δ blood lactate (peak-rest values [La−] mmol·L−1). A circle plots indicated a difference between MFT and 30-15IFT values in favor of MFT; a square worth the 30-15IFT.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Example data illustrating heart responses during 30-15IFT and MFT for participant 12 (three point, IWBF classification).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bernardi M., Guerra E., Di Giacinto B., Di Cesare A., Castellano V., Bhambhani Y. (2010). Field evaluation of paralympic athletes in selected sports: implications for training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 42, 1200–1208. 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181c67d82 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bland J. M., Altman D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1, 307–310. - PubMed
    1. Bloxham L. A., Bell G. J., Bhambhani Y., Steadward R. D. (2001). Time motion analysis and physiological profile of canadian world cup wheelchair basketball players. Sports Med. Train. Rehabil. 10, 183–198. 10.1080/1057831021039 - DOI
    1. Borg G. (1990). Psychophysical scaling with applications in physical work and the perception of exertion. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 16, 55–58. - PubMed
    1. Buchfuhrer M. J., Hansen J. E., Robinson T. E., Sue D. Y., Wasserman K., Whipp B. J. (1983). Optimizing the exercise protocol for cardiopulmonary assessment. J. Appl. Physiol. Respir. Environ. Exerc. Physiol. 55, 1558–1564. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources