Variation In Body Composition Over A Season In University Male And Female Ice Hockey Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Body mass (BM), body fat percentage (BF%) and fat free mass (FFM) are all important anthropometric measures in supporting on-ice performance in hockey players. University male and female ice-hockey players require substantial musculoskeletal performance to support on-ice competition. However, there remains a paucity of inquiry into the alterations of anthropometry over a season. PURPOSE: To examine variations in BM, BF% and FFM in female and male university ice-hockey players over a season. METHODS: A total of 19 female varsity athletes with an age (mean ± SD) of 20.3 ± 1.7 y and a total of 12 male ice-hockey players with an age of 22.8 ± 0.94 y from the same university volunteered to be participants over a six-month period. During the stud period, both teams performed two resistance training sessions per week, four on-ice training sessions and two games per week. Participants underwent a pre-season, mid-season, and post-season body composition assessment using a BOD POD to derive BM, BF% and FFM. Each analysis was standardized for a given time of day, where participants reported to a laboratory setting first thing in the morning on an empty stomach after emptying their bowels. Comparisons between indices of anthropometry were conducted using a one-way ANOVA. Post-hoc comparisons using a Bonferroni correction procedure were utilized. This study was approved by the research ethics review board of the University of Windsor. RESULTS: No significant changes in BM (kg) were observed over the course of the season in both males (pre 87.5 ± 8.4 ‘vs’ mid 85.8 ± 7.5 ‘vs’ post 87.2 ± 7.0, p = 0.84) and females (pre 65.2 ± 8.9 ‘vs’ mid 65.1 ± 8.6 ‘vs’ post 65.2 ± 8.7, p = 0.99). Changes in BF (%) were insignificant in both males (pre 13.9 ± 7.1 ‘vs’ mid 11.7 ± 6.4 ‘vs’ post 12.8 ± 5.4, p = 0.71) and females (pre 23.8 ± 6.3 ‘vs’ mid 23.2 ± 6.3 ‘vs’ post 22.9 ± 5.4). Alterations in FFM (kg) were insignificant in both males (pre 75.2 ± 8.3 ‘vs’ mid 75.7 ± 7.9 ‘vs’ post 76.1 ± 8.2, p = 0.97) and females (pre 49.3 ± 4.1 ‘vs’ mid 49.6 ± 4.2 ‘vs’ post 49.9 ± 4.6, p = 0.89). CONCLUSION: Alterations in body composition remained insignificant over the course of a season. Practitioners are encouraged to monitor the magnitude of exercise stress from both on-ice and off-ice to better understanding its influence on altering body composition over a season.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".