Changes In Fitness And Skating Performance In Elite Female Ice Hockey Players Over Nine Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on women's hockey has increased in the past ten years, but there are still many questions to be answered about their performance characteristics. No studies have investigated on and off-ice fitness and skating performance of female hockey players over a long period of time. PURPOSE: To examine changes in on-ice and off-ice fitness, and skating performance over nine seasons of play in elite female hockey players. Methods: The subjects in this study were players from the University of Alberta, Canada (n=84, age=20.9±2.5 yrs) measured over nine seasons of play (1999-2007). Off-ice fitness tests included vertical jump (VJ), sit-ups (SU), push-ups (PU), Leger Test (predicted VO2max) (Leger, 1988), and 40-yd dash (DASH). Skating performance tests included: 6.10-m acceleration (ACCEL), Cornering S-Turn agility (AGIL) and 44.80-m speed (SPEED). On-ice fitness was measured with the Modified Repeat Sprint Skate test (MRSS). Blood lactates were taken immediately after the MRSS and after 4-6 minutes of passive recovery. Anaerobic power estimates (anaerobic capacity and power) were derived from MRSS and SPEED (Watson & Sargeant, 1986) and peak anaerobic power from VJ (Sayers, 1998). An ANOVA was run using SPSS (Mac Version 11.0) with a significance level set a priori at p<0.05. RESULTS: Significant year-to-year differences from 2002/2003 to 2006/2007 (p<0.05) were found for PU, Leger test, ACCEL, MRSS, MRSS drop-off, post-MRSS recovery lactate. There was a trend for the players to improve their performance year-to-year. Vertical Jump, SU, post-MRSS lactate and lactate clearance, and anaerobic capacity and power estimates fluctuated from year to year and no clear trends were found in performance in these variables. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements may be a reflection of better training, skating skill enhancement, and/or coaching emphases, whereas non-significant changes may indicate maintenance of fitness and performance over time, given that the University of Alberta women's ice hockey team won seven Canadian Interuniversity Sport Championships in the nine-year period for which data are available.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".