Força explosiva dos membros inferiores, velocidade e agilidade em futebol : estudo em atletas militares e profissionais
Miniatura indisponível
Data
2022
Autores
Título da revista
ISSN da revista
Título do Volume
Editora
Resumo
Introdução: A diferença no proposito e na rotina de treino de jogadores de futebol profissionais e amadores
são muito diferentes, motivo pelo qual os resultados também podem ser distintos. Logo, comparar essas duas
categorias de jogadores quanto a aptidão física seria interessante pois a higidez física dos militares destoa de muitos
atletas profissionais.
Objetivo: O presente estudo tem como objetivo comparar a capacidades motoras da potência dos membros
inferiores, da potência anaeróbia, da velocidade e da agilidade em jogadores de futebol, profissionais vs. amadores.
Metodologia: A amostra foi composta por 88 indivíduos do sexo masculino, atletas de futebol, sendo o G1
(n=45) amadores e o G2 (n=43) profissionais que disputam, respectivamente, os campeonatos das Forças Armadas e
Carioca, com a idade, altura e massa corporal de cada grupo testado (G2: 19.79 ± 3.67 anos; 177 ± 0.066 cm; 70.91 ±
10.0 kg; 22.54 ± 2.10 kg/m² vs G1: 25.40 ± 3.29 anos; 175 ± 0.064 cm; 79.60 ± 9.79 kg; 26.14 ± 3.15 kg/m²). Para
determinação dos parâmetros de força explosiva, velocidade, agilidade e potência anaeróbia os sujeitos realizaram,
respectivamente, os seguintes testes: salto vertical com o My Jump 2 App Squat Jump (SJ), Countermovment Jump
(CMJ), Abalakov (ABK) e Drop Jump Assimetry (DJAss),; sprints com o My Sprint App (5, 10, 15, 20, 25 & 30 m);
Illinois Test com o COD Test App; e o RAST com cronômetros.
Resultados: Na avaliação das capacidades motoras o G2 apresentou resultados significativos no tempo do
teste de Velocidade (5 m =1.361 ± 0.084 s; 10 m = 2.121 ± 0.098 s; 15 m = 2.789 ± 0.122 s; 20 m = 3.416 ± 0.146 s;
25 m = 4.020 ± 0.175 s; 30 m = 4.601 ± 0.222 s) em relação ao G1 (5 m =1.457 ± 0.095 s; 10 m = 2.280 ± 0.124 s; 15
m = 3.027 ± 0.156 s; 20 m = 3.710 ± 0.227 s; 25 m = 4.399 ± 0.274 s; 30 m = 5.082 ± 0.336 s). Os resultados obtidos
no SJ pelo G2 (33.99 ± 4.28 cm; 1767 ± 227.08 N; 3178.24 ± 385.34 W) foram considerados na maioria melhores
que o G1 (26.95 ± 4.26 cm; 1479.68 ± 254.84 N; 3203.86 ± 473.35 W), bem como no CMJ onde o G2 (37.03 ± 4.15
cm; 1872.39 ± 233.31 N; 3362.69 ± 378.63 W) também foram melhores que o G1 (30.03 ± 4.36 cm; 1555.70 ± 262.39
N; 3390.48 ± 480.18 W) e ainda no ABK o G2 (42.47 ± 3.94 cm; 2017.54 ± 300.23 N; 2947.51 ± 471.28 W)
apresentaram melhores performances quando comparados com o G1 (34.16 ± 4.97 cm; 1666.52 ± 287.26 N; 2151.02
± 437.62 W). Na Agilidade o G2 (16.74 ± 0.53 s; 3.62 ± 0.12 m/s) obteve um melhor desempenho do que G1 (18.91
± 0.65 s; 3.21 ± 0.12 m/s). Na Potência Anaeróbia máxima absoluta e relativa (G2: 615.86 ± 61.49 w; 8,66 ± 1,15
w.kg-1
vs. G1: 462.89 ± 91.18 w; 5.87 ± 1.10 w.kg-1
) e no Indice de Fadiga relativo (G2: 6.46 ± 1.30 w.s-1 vs G1: 4.23
± 1.78 w.s-1
) o G2 obteve resultados superiores, quando compara ao G1.
Conclusões: Em geral, o G2 (profissionais) teve um melhor desempenho nos testes das capacidades motoras
avaliadas em relação ao G1 (amadores), exceto nas seguintes variáveis: Potência no SJ e CMJ; IE no CMJ; Coeficiente
de braço no ABK; & na Assimetria no DJ, onde o não houve diferença significativas.
Introduction: The difference in the purpose and training routine of professional and amateur soccer players are very different, which is why the results can also be different. Therefore, comparing these two categories of players in terms of physical fitness would be interesting, since the physical health of military players is different from that of many professional athletes. Objective: This study aims to compare the motor skills of lower limb power, anaerobic power, speed and agility in professional vs. amateur soccer players. Methodology: The sample was composed by 88 male individuals, soccer players, being G1 (n=45) amateurs and G2 (n=43) professionals who dispute, respectively, the Armed Forces and Carioca championships, with age, height and body mass of each group tested (G2: 19.79 ± 3.67 years; 177 ± 0.066 cm; 70.91 ± 10.0 kg; 22.54 ± 2.10 kg/m² vs G1: 25.40 ± 3.29 years; 175 ± 0.064 cm; 79.60 ± 9.79 kg; 26.14 ± 3.15 kg/m²). To determine the parameters of strength, speed, agility and anaerobic power the subjects performed, respectively, the following tests: vertical jump with the My Jump 2 App Squat Jump (SJ), Countermovment Jump (CMJ), Abalakov (ABK) and Drop Jump Assimetry (DJAss); sprints with the My Sprint App (5, 10, 15, 20, 25 & 30 m); Illinois Test with the COD Test App; and RAST with stopwatches. Results: In the assessment of motor skills, G2 showed significant results in the time of the Speed test (5 m = 1.361 ± 0.084 s; 10 m = 2.121 ± 0.098 s; 15 m = 2.789 ± 0.122 s; 20 m = 3.416 ± 0.146 s s; 25 m = 4.020 ± 0.175 s; 30 m = 4.601 ± 0.222 s) in relation to G1 (5 m = 1.457 ± 0.095 s; 10 m = 2.280 ± 0.124 s; 15 m = 3.027 ± 0.156 s; 20 m = 3.710 ± 0.227 s; 25 m = 4.399 ± 0.274 s; 30 m = 5.082 ± 0.336 s). The results obtained in SJ by G2 (33.99 ± 4.28 cm; 1767 ± 227.08 N; 3178.24 ± 385.34 W) were considered mostly better than G1 (26.95 ± 4.26 cm; 1479.68 ± 254.84 N; 3203.86 ± 473.35 W), as well as in CMJ where G2 (37.03 ± 4.15 cm; 1872.39 ± 233.31 N; 3362.69 ± 378.63 W) were also better than G1 (30.03 ± 4.36 cm; 1555.70 ± 262.39 N; 3390.48 ± 480.18 W) and still in the ABK and G2 (42.47 ± 3.94 cm; 2017.54 ± 300.23 N; 2947.51 ± 471.28 W) presented better performances when compared to G1 (34.16 ± 4.97 cm; 1666.52 ± 287.26 N; 2151.02 ± 437.62 W). In Agility, G2 (16.74 ± 0.53 s; 3.62 ± 0.12 m/s) performed better than G1 (18.91 ± 0.65 s; 3.21 ± 0.12 m/s). In the absolute and relative maximum anaerobic power (G2: 615.86 ± 61.49 w; 8.66 ± 1.15 w.kg-1 vs. G1: 462.89 ± 91.18 w; 5.87 ± 1.10 w.kg-1 ) and in the relative Fatigue Index (G2: 6.46 ± 1.30 w.s -1 vs G1: 4.23 ± 1.78 w.s-1 ) G2 obtained superior results , when compared to G1 . Conclusions: In general, the players of G2 (professionals) had a better performance in the tests of the motor abilities evaluated in relation to the G1 (amateurs), except in the following variables: Power in the SJ and CMJ; IE in CMJ; Arm coefficient in ABK; & in DJ Asymmetry, where there was no significant difference.
Introduction: The difference in the purpose and training routine of professional and amateur soccer players are very different, which is why the results can also be different. Therefore, comparing these two categories of players in terms of physical fitness would be interesting, since the physical health of military players is different from that of many professional athletes. Objective: This study aims to compare the motor skills of lower limb power, anaerobic power, speed and agility in professional vs. amateur soccer players. Methodology: The sample was composed by 88 male individuals, soccer players, being G1 (n=45) amateurs and G2 (n=43) professionals who dispute, respectively, the Armed Forces and Carioca championships, with age, height and body mass of each group tested (G2: 19.79 ± 3.67 years; 177 ± 0.066 cm; 70.91 ± 10.0 kg; 22.54 ± 2.10 kg/m² vs G1: 25.40 ± 3.29 years; 175 ± 0.064 cm; 79.60 ± 9.79 kg; 26.14 ± 3.15 kg/m²). To determine the parameters of strength, speed, agility and anaerobic power the subjects performed, respectively, the following tests: vertical jump with the My Jump 2 App Squat Jump (SJ), Countermovment Jump (CMJ), Abalakov (ABK) and Drop Jump Assimetry (DJAss); sprints with the My Sprint App (5, 10, 15, 20, 25 & 30 m); Illinois Test with the COD Test App; and RAST with stopwatches. Results: In the assessment of motor skills, G2 showed significant results in the time of the Speed test (5 m = 1.361 ± 0.084 s; 10 m = 2.121 ± 0.098 s; 15 m = 2.789 ± 0.122 s; 20 m = 3.416 ± 0.146 s s; 25 m = 4.020 ± 0.175 s; 30 m = 4.601 ± 0.222 s) in relation to G1 (5 m = 1.457 ± 0.095 s; 10 m = 2.280 ± 0.124 s; 15 m = 3.027 ± 0.156 s; 20 m = 3.710 ± 0.227 s; 25 m = 4.399 ± 0.274 s; 30 m = 5.082 ± 0.336 s). The results obtained in SJ by G2 (33.99 ± 4.28 cm; 1767 ± 227.08 N; 3178.24 ± 385.34 W) were considered mostly better than G1 (26.95 ± 4.26 cm; 1479.68 ± 254.84 N; 3203.86 ± 473.35 W), as well as in CMJ where G2 (37.03 ± 4.15 cm; 1872.39 ± 233.31 N; 3362.69 ± 378.63 W) were also better than G1 (30.03 ± 4.36 cm; 1555.70 ± 262.39 N; 3390.48 ± 480.18 W) and still in the ABK and G2 (42.47 ± 3.94 cm; 2017.54 ± 300.23 N; 2947.51 ± 471.28 W) presented better performances when compared to G1 (34.16 ± 4.97 cm; 1666.52 ± 287.26 N; 2151.02 ± 437.62 W). In Agility, G2 (16.74 ± 0.53 s; 3.62 ± 0.12 m/s) performed better than G1 (18.91 ± 0.65 s; 3.21 ± 0.12 m/s). In the absolute and relative maximum anaerobic power (G2: 615.86 ± 61.49 w; 8.66 ± 1.15 w.kg-1 vs. G1: 462.89 ± 91.18 w; 5.87 ± 1.10 w.kg-1 ) and in the relative Fatigue Index (G2: 6.46 ± 1.30 w.s -1 vs G1: 4.23 ± 1.78 w.s-1 ) G2 obtained superior results , when compared to G1 . Conclusions: In general, the players of G2 (professionals) had a better performance in the tests of the motor abilities evaluated in relation to the G1 (amateurs), except in the following variables: Power in the SJ and CMJ; IE in CMJ; Arm coefficient in ABK; & in DJ Asymmetry, where there was no significant difference.
Descrição
Orientação: Luís Fernandes Monteiro
Palavras-chave
MESTRADO EM TREINO DESPORTIVO, REINO DESPORTIVO, VELOCIDADE, FUTEBOL, SPORTS COACHING, SPEED, FOOTBALL