Course:KIN 500.

From UBC Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Special Topics in Cardiovascular Physiology
[[
Assessment in High Performance Hockey
|200px|center]]
KIN 500
Section: 001
Instructor: Dr. Darren Warburton
Email: darren.warburton@ubc.ca
Office: 128 Osborne Unit #2
Office Hours:
Class Schedule:
Classroom:
Important Course Pages
Syllabus
Lecture Notes
Assignments
Course Discussion


Physiological Assessment in High Performance Hockey

This wiki page was created to fulfill a requirement for a graduate level course, KIN 500: Special Topics in Cardiovascular Physiology. This page was created in collaboration with Dr. Darren Warburton. This page aims to address off-ice assessments that are used to quantify performance fitness required for high performance hockey. Various physiological attributes contribute to successful sport and athletic performance with the combined interaction of the aerobic and anaerobic energy pathways, muscular strength and power, flexibility, and balance being important to success of ice hockey athletes. [1] The National Hockey League (NHL) has a yearly combine which aims to assess the top draft eligible hockey players in order to predict future success in the NHL. The NHL combine consists of fitness testing, medical evaluation, psychological evaluation, and interviews. As of 2014, there are four body composition tests and 11 individual fitness tests. These assessments attempt to quantify athletic attributes necessary for success at the highest level of hockey, such as strength, speed, power, aerobic and anaerobic fitness, flexibility and agility. This section will focus on four of these assessments; (1) vertical jump (2) speed (3) the Wingate anaerobic test (4) agility test.

Original Contributors - Date Published April 8th 2014

  • Nick Held
  • Andrew Jeklin
  • David Kim
  • Mark Rice

Background

In elite sports, athletes are continuously being evaluated to ensure that they are in a peak physical condition and able to compete at the highest level possible. Having a set of evaluation tools that allow trainers, coaches, and athletes to understand where an athletes strengths and weaknesses are, can be a very valuable in order help an athlete perform at the highest level possible.

In the fast paced and physically demanding sport of ice hockey, success requires an athlete to have a combination of speed, strength, and endurance [2]. At a professional level, games are 60 minutes in length divided up into three – 20 minute periods for regulation time. The average shift in professional men’s ice hockey is approximately 30-60 s [3] with star players averaging 23 minutes of playing time in a game [4]. During the playing time of a game, athletes are involved in high intensity, all out shifts, which require a highly trained anaerobic system to produce energy during the short, high energy shifts, and a strong aerobic base to ensure recovery when resting between shifts [5].

Evaluating ice hockey athletes can be done in a number of ways including specific tests that entail both on- and off-ice testing. However, due to the limitation that ice hockey is played on a surface that makes it necessary to have skates, some evaluation criteria must be done in an off-ice setting, such as in a laboratory or on a field. Fortunately, there are off-ice testing protocols and equipment that allow trainers, coaches, athletes, and researchers to gain more knowledge into the physical profile of an ice hockey athlete.

NHL Combine

The NHL combine uses an array of off-ice testing protocols in order to quantify performance fitness. [6] The NHL combine was first held in 1994. Today, the combine consists of fitness testing, medical evaluation, psychological evaluation, and interviews. As of 2014, there are four body composition tests and 11 individual fitness tests. These tests include standing height, wingspan, body weight, skinfold body fat measurements, grip strength, bench press, curl-ups, standing long jump, vertical jump, pull-ups, single leg squats, pro agility test, sit and reach, wingate test and VO2 max test. Tests that have been removed are push-ups, upper body push and pull strength, and seated medicine ball throw. The medical evaluation consists of a health questionnaire, examination by a physician, photographs of the player, an eye test, two hand/eye coordination tests and an echocardiogram test. A Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is also completed. [7]

The following sections will provide further insight into four of these assessments; (1) vertical jump (2) speed (3) the Wingate anaerobic test (4) agility test.

The Wingate Anaerobic Test

A Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT) is a ergometer test requiring maximal effort for 30, 60 or even 90 seconds. For the purpose of this description the WAnT will refer to an all-out 30 s test, which is the same duration used in the NHL Combine. The WAnT measures lower-body peak power; anaerobic capacity; and the reduction of power, known as fatigue index. The WAnT is a 30 s all-out exhaustive ergometry test where the athlete pedals against a resistance that is set at a certain percentage of his or her body weight. [8] The resistance is typically set at 7.5% of the individuals body weight, however the NHL combine uses a load of 9.0% of individual body mass. [2] The power output is measured throughout the test by the number of revolutions the athlete can achieve on the ergometer during those 30 s. The peak power recorded is the maximal power output achieved for 5 s of the test, usually the first 5 seconds. The anaerobic capacity, or average power, is recorded and averaged over the entire 30 s of the test. The lowest power output is an average of the lowest 5 s seen during the test, usually the last 5 seconds. Finally, the difference in power output from the highest to lowest is recorded as the fatigue index. [8]

Energy Demand

An anaerobic activity is defined as energy expenditure that uses anaerobic metabolism that lasts less than 90 s, utilizing an exhaustive effort. Two major energy sources are required during the WAnT. The first is the adenosine triphosphate-phosphocreatine (ATP-PCr) system, which last for 3 to 15 s during maximal effort. The second system is anaerobic glycolysis, which can be sustained for the remainder of the all-out effort. In addition to these two targeted systems, the aerobic system has a contribution as well. Therefore, the WAnT measures the muscles’ ability to work using both the ATP-PCr, the glycolytic system and the aerobic system. [8] Over an entire 30 second Wingate test, aerobic contribution was 16%, glycolytic contribution was 56% and ATP-PC contribution was 28%. [9]

Anaerobic metabolism is critical and necessary in exercise when the body's energy demands exceed the body’s ability to produce ATP aerobically. However, if a cell is using anaerobic metabolism, it does not necessarily mean that the cell is lacking oxygen. Anaerobic metabolism simply means that ATP is being produced by non-aerobic processes. Cells use anaerobic metabolism when the ATP demands of the cell exceed the rate at which aerobic metabolism is producing ATP. While anaerobic metabolism is less efficient at ATP production than aerobic metabolism, both major anaerobic energy systems are capable of producing ATP much faster than aerobic metabolism. During high intensity exercise aerobic metabolism is simply not producing ATP fast enough to meet the cell's ATP demands. That is why anaerobic metabolism is required during high intensity exercise, such as the WAnT. There are two major anaerobic energy systems that allow skeletal muscle reveals to rapidly produce ATP; the ATP-PC and anaerobic glycolysis. The ATP-PC system provides ATP very rapidly but can only do so for short periods of time (5 to 15 s) due to the limited amount of stored ATP and PC. Anaerobic glycolysis also provides ATP rapidly but is limited to around 90 s. [10]

Wingate Equipment

The WAnT is typically completed on a cycle erogmeter using software that allows the collection and analysis of anaerobic power, anaerobic capacity and fatigue index. Some cycle ergometers that are popular in research and an applied setting are the Monark Wingate Testing Ergometer 849; the Velotron system including the frame, flywheel and load generator; and the Fleisch ergometer. Each system has many similarities and differences (eg. set up, resistance applied, etc.), so it is important to use the system that the individual is most familiar with.

Protocol

There are many variations in protocol in the literature for completing Wingate tests. Potteiger et al, used the following protocol with elite hockey players when comparing Wingate results to on-ice skating performance. All athletes performed a 5 min warmup of low intensity cycling with the flywheel resistance equal to 1 kp and pedal speed equal to 60 rpm. At minutes 1-4, athletes performed a submaximal (75-90% of maximal effort) sprint of 5 s duration. After completing the warmup, athletes were given a 5 min recovery period before performing the test. Anaerobic power and capacity were measured using a calibrated Monark computerized cycle ergometer (Model 894E) with the flywheel resistance set at 7.5% of individual body mass. When the cadence reached 120 rpm, the computerized cycle ergometer automatically dropped the weight loaded pan, and the resistance on the flywheel was increased. In this study, the athlete was allowed to rise out of the cycle ergometer seat to a standing position during the test. It is common that athletes remain seated during the entire test for the test to be valid, however some research has shown no difference in peak or mean power in elite level speed skaters during performance of a Wingate test when in the standing or seated position. Power output was recorded in 1-second intervals during the entire 30-second test. The following variables are commonly calculated from the collected data: peak power, peak power per kilogram body mass, average power, average power per kilogram body mass, and fatigue index from the formula: ([power drop/peak power] x 100). [1] During the NHL combine, the athletes are required to remain seated during the test, and a resistance equal to 9.0% of the individuals body mass is used. [2] Although protocols may differ in some aspects, each protocol is made up of the same components including warm-up, recovery interval, acceleration period, Wingate test, and cool down period.

Wingate Results and On-Ice Performance

Many studies have been completed to determine if off-ice testing is able to accurate predict successful on-ice performance. Some studies have reported significant correlations between maximum skating speed and peak power derived from Wingate testing. [6] A study by Burr et al on 853 hockey players concluded that peak anaerobic power, measured with a 30 s Wingate test, was a statistically significant variable in a multivariate model for future success in terms of draft entry position. [6] Potteiger et al, found that on-ice sprint time could be accurately predicted by peak power derived from a Wingate test using a cycle ergometer. [6] In addition, on-ice skating times were also significantly correlated with Wingate anaerobic power and capacity measure. Specifically, First Length Skate-Fastest was correlated to Percent Fatigue and First Length Skate- Average was correlated to Wingate Peak Power per kg. The subjects with the best First Length Skate- Average skating times were those subjects that produced the greatest peak power per kilogram body mass during the Wingate test. [1] Farlinger et al reported significant correlations between on-ice sprints (30m) and off-ice measures of relative and mean Wingate peak power, as wel as broad jump and vertical jump. [6]

Results and Normative Data

At the 2014 NHL combine, as reported by www.topendsports.com, William Nylander had the best average power output at 11.6 Watts/kg and the best peak power output 17.5 Watts/kg. Christian Dvorak had the best fatigue index score with 37.3 Watts/kg.

A study by Zupan et al measured the peak power and anaerobic capacity of men and women NCAA athletes. With the results of the Wingate tests, the authors classified each athlete from elite to poor, depending on his or her score. The aim of this study was allow any NCAA athlete to complete an WAnT and compare themselves to other athletes on a scale from poor to elite. [8]

http://youtu.be/NHnbUU4jUBI

Sprint Testing

Sprint testing is a maximal effort running assessment that uses the anaerobic energy system. This short duration test can measure acceleration, agility and most frequently, measures the time it takes to complete a specific distance. Sprint testing has been made popular and known to the general population through the National Football League (NFL) combine. The 40-yard sprint is the centerpiece of the scouting combine held to evaluate college recruits [11]. Although the 40-yard sprint is the main attraction to the NFL combine, it appears that it does not have strong scientific basis for its existence [11] as most plays in football are no longer than 5-10 yards. Sprint testing is also measured in a number of other sports including soccer, rugby, field hockey and ice hockey; in which significant correlations have been found with regards to on-ice testing in ice hockey. Sprint testing is a physiological performance test and is measured using sophisticated equipment and the results of the test can be used to compare athletes and/or develop training programs.

Timing Gates

Electronic photocells, commonly referred to as timing lights or timing gates, are used in a range of tests measuring sprint speed, agility, and running pace [12]. A photocell or timing gate is an electronic evaluation tool that measures the time it takes for an athlete to pass between two or more points of interest, often at a specific distance. Most photocells work by using an infrared light beam sent from an emitter to a receiver [13]. This forms the “gate” that the athlete will pass through [14]. Once the beam of the gate is broken by the athlete passing through, time starts and continues to elapse until the athlete breaks the plane of another gate.

Electronic photocells have long been considered the gold standard for timing because they are more precise and eliminate human error and user bias when compared with manual timing [12], where manual timing refers to the use of digital hand held stop watches. Limited experimental data has suggested that hand held timing devices often result in differences in timing, with approximately 0.04 – 0.24 second discrepancies between the two timing devices [15] and that hand held times are often produce faster times than electronic photocell timing.

Electronic photocells have been shown to be more accurate than manual timing, however, photocell timing can encounter significant errors because of false signals [14]. A timing light system can vary from a single, dual, and three-beam reflector unit. Research has shown that single beam systems can be triggered early by a swinging arm, and may produce measurement errors of up to 80 milliseconds, and that three beam systems are not necessary for accuracy [14]. Timing errors that occur most frequently are:

• Athletes with longer limbs may encounter greater errors

• Athletes who over stride or outstretch their arms toward the gates might increase the likelihood of false signals and record faster spring times

• When timing short splits, errors can be compounded when false signals may occur at some gates and not others [12]

Protocol

There are various protocols in the use of timing gates and no one set of instructions remains consistent between manufacturers. Starting position varies from athletes setting up behind the first gate, athletes setting up with an athletic stance, athletes setting up with a sprinters stance to athletes setting up 30cm behind the first gate [15][14][12][16]. The height of timing gates are commonly set up to knee, shoulder and hip height. Research has indicated the lower the gates are set up, the faster the times will be compared to those timing gates which are set up higher. This is due to different body parts breaking the light beam at different times and indicating that the legs break the beams prior to the upper body [14].

Brower Timing Gates

Brower Timing Gates are designed for various athletic timing applications including ski racing, track and field, sprint timing, cycling, hockey and a variety of other activities requiring a wireless timing system [17]. The TC-wireless timing system enables athletes and coaches to measure time, speed, count repetitions, input test data and save it all in the TC-Timer memory. The TC-System can send radio transmissions up to one thousand feet and is accurate to the thousandth of a second. It is also equipped with five different radio frequencies allowing multiple Brower systems to be used in the same area. A basic timing system comes with a wireless hand-held receiver, photocells with tripods and a carrying bag. Optional parts include a display board and additional photocells.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=har0YirYJKE

Sprint Results and On-Ice Performance

Many studies have been performed on the sprinting relationship between off-ice speed and on-ice speed in hockey players. Behm et al (2005) [18] found that 40-yard sprint times off ice we significantly correlated with maximum skating speed in junior level hockey players. As well, Bracko & George (2001) [19] found the strongest off-ice fitness variable to predict skating performance was the 40-yard dash in female hockey players and Farlinger, Kruisselbring, & Fowles (2007) [20] found the 30 – meter sprint most predictive of sprint skating in competitive hockey players.

Results and Normative Data

Percentile Ranks for 40 y (36.6m) Sprint Times (s) in Male Youth

Farlinger et al. (2007) [20] reported the mean (sd) time for off-ice 30-meter sprinting in competitive hockey players (Bantam AA – Varsity) to be 4.67 s (0.22) and an on-ice 35-meter sprint time to be 5.14 s (0.21). Additionally, Bracko & George (2001) [19] reported women’s hockey athletes between the ages of 8-16 y to have a mean time of 7.19 s (0.70) in the 40-yard off-ice sprint, and a time of 7.56 s (0.50) in the 44.8-meter on-ice sprint.

Agility Test

In the vast majority of sports, agility is considered one of the chief assets that a player must have to achieve elite performance. Agility is composed of a variety of factors, including the ability to produce speed, maintain balance, change direction, accelerate and decelerate, and react to stimuli. In the field of sport sciences, there have been inconsistencies and a lack of consensus in the use of the term agility. Researchers previously considered agility solely as something physical, such as the ability to move and change direction rapidly. However, there has been growing emphasis on the role of cognitive function in the tasks and sports that require agility. For example, Chelladurai (1976) stated the importance of enhancing cognitive function by including temporal and spatial uncertainty in agility training (further discussed below).[21] More recently, Young and others (2002) further emphasized the cognitive features of agility, such as perceptual and decision-making factors.[22] With respect to the two major components of agility (physical and cognitive), Sheppard and Young (2005) proposed a new definition: “a rapid whole body movement with change of velocity or direction in response to a stimulus”.[23] Therefore, a comprehensive definition of agility would acknowledge the physical aspects (e.g., strength and conditioning), technical aspects (e.g., biomechanics), and cognitive aspects (e.g., attention, decision-making, motor learning).[24]

Types of Agility

According to Chelladurai (1976) and Sheppard (2006), agility can be classified as simple, temporal, spatial, or universal.[25][26] In simple agility, there is no temporal or spatial uncertainty. For example, in a figure skater’s routine, the initiation of the activity is dependent on whether the athlete is ready or not. Then, the activity is carried out with movements that are already pre-planned by the athlete. In temporal agility, there is temporal but no spatial uncertainty. For example, as an athlete is getting ready to sprint and waiting to hear the starter’s pistol, he or she already knows to which direction to sprint. However, the athlete does not know when the pistol will be fired. In spatial agility, there is spatial but no temporal uncertainty. For example, in tennis, as an athlete is ready to receive a serve, he or she knows when the ball will come because the opponent’s serving motion will be visual. However, the athlete cannot anticipate where the ball is going to land. In universal agility, there is both temporal and spatial agility. For example, in football or ice hockey, during either offensive or defensive play, an athlete cannot predict when or where the opponent is going to move.

Agility in Ice Hockey

Agility is crucial in ice hockey because athletes are required to change direction repeatedly with speed and accuracy. Also, as mentioned above, ice hockey requires both temporal and spatial uncertainty because an athlete cannot anticipate when or where the opponent is going to move (Chelladurai (1976), Sheppard (2006)).[27][28] There are various types of drills (off-ice and on-ice) that assess agility. Many studies have shown that off-ice training for agility tends to translate well into on-ice performance (Farlinger, Bracko, Krause).[29][30][31] The two major types of off-ice agility drills that have been utilized by NHL Combine are pro-agility test and hexagon agility test. The pro-agility test (also known as the 5-10-5 agility test) evaluates the ability to change direction with speed, produce power, and accelerate and decelerate. The reliability of the test has been established (Stewart).[32] The hexagon agility test (also known as the bilateral lower extremity jumping) evaluates agility in terms of foot speed, power, and balance. The reliability of the test has been established (Beekhuizen),[33] and it is shown to be a good predictor of on-ice skating performance (Farlinger).[34]

Protocol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwdH8HzWHMU

Pro-Agility Test

Arrow 1 shows that sprinting occurs from the middle (starting) line to the left over a distance of 15 ft. Arrow 2 shows that change of direction occurs and sprinting is to the right over a distance of 30 ft. Arrow 3 shows that change of direction occurs again and sprinting is to the left over a distance of 15 ft (back to the starting line).

The equipment needed to perform the pro-agility test includes a measuring tape, something to mark on the ground, and a stopwatch (or timing gates). The instructions are as follows: 1) Mark three lines on the ground that are separated by 15 ft (4.5 m). 2) The testee gets ready at the center of the middle (starting) line, touching the line with one hand. 3) The tester runs the stopwatch as the testee sprints 15 ft in the direction of the hand that touched the starting line (i.e., if the right hand touched the starting line, the sprint occurs to the right), touching the next line with the same hand. 4) The testee then sprints 30 ft in the opposite direction, touching the next line with the opposite hand. 5) The testee then sprints 15 ft back towards the starting line (passing through the line), and the tester pauses the stopwatch. 6) The testee repeats Step 2~5, starting in the opposite direction, touching the lines with opposite hands.

Hexagon Agility Test

(1) shows that jumping has occurred from the centre of the hexagon to the other side, and back to the centre. The same motion applies to (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6), which is a clockwise direction. Three consecutive revolutions are required, and also in a counterclockwise direction.

The equipment needed to perform the hexagon agility test includes a measuring tape, a protractor, something to mark on the ground, and a stopwatch. The instructions are as follows: 1) Create a hexagon on the ground with each side measuring 24 in (60.9 cm) and meeting at an angle of 120°. 2) The testee walks into the center of the hexagon facing one side. 3) On the command ‘go’, the tester runs the stopwatch, and the testee jumps across the front line, landing on the other side on both feet, and jumps back into the center of the hexagon, landing on both feet. 4) The testee repeats Step 3 for the next five sides, making 3 consecutive revolutions. 5) At the last leap into the center of the hexagon, the tester pauses the stopwatch. 6) Step 3~5 is done again in the opposite direction.

Results and Normative Data

Percentile Ranks for the Pro-Agility Test in NCAA Division I College Athletes
Pro-Agility Test Results for College Football Players Participating in the NFL Combine
Normative Data (National Norms) for the Hexagon Agility Test

Vertical Jump

For decades vertical jump has been a widely used tool for athletes, coaches, and health care professionals as an objective measurement of muscular power of the lower extremity [35][36]. Although vertical jump is commonly regarded has a highly valid and reliable predictor of peak leg power, there is on-going debate amongst coaches, scouts, and strength and conditioning specialists as to the ability to use such scores in predicting on ice performance [37]. Albeit, there continues to be support that vertical jump scores can be effective off-ice tool that can accurately predict on ice skating speed [20][2][36][37]. Vertical jump is an important skill contributing to high performance in elite sport, especially hockey, and is a measureable coordinated activity that can also serve as an important indicator in monitoring the effectiveness of an athlete’s improvements in training programs [2]. Owing to its simplicity, cost effectiveness, and correlation to on-ice skating speed, vertical jump will continue to be a popular test used in professional ice hockey for assessing peak leg power [35].[2][37].

Types of Jumps

As the test grew in popularity, multiple variations and tools have been developed. This includes dynamic counter movements, or the traditional, a simple squat jump. However, it should be noted that a growing body of literature has also highlighted the importance of measuring a standing horizontal jump component [20][2][36][37]. Currently, the National Hockey League (NHL) combine assesses both the standing vertical jump and a standing horizontal jump. The act of skating requires a horizontal power component, particularly during the acceleration phase, and large portions of the game require short bouts of acceleration [20]. The horizontal long jump is a complex maneuver that requires players to combine components of vertical leg power, horizontal leg power, and a complex motor scheme[38]. In fact, it may be a superior tool to test a player’s overall hockey-related athletic ability then vertical jump [38]. However, for the purposes of the vertical jump, the NHL uses the Vertec Standing Jump Protocol in the combine. After a review of leg power rankings on various devices and the limitations of each, it was suggested that the Vertec Standing Jump Protocol was the most suitable. The Vertec Standing Jump Protocol requires full-body coordination, is not easily biased by participant maneuvers, and showed the highest correlation with the NHLED selection order[2].

How to Measure Vertical Jump

As mentioned above, the tool widely used by the National Hockey League (NHL) combine is the Vertec (Vertec, Sports Imports, Hilliard, OH) [35]. Validity of Two alternate Systems for Measuring Vertical Jump Height. Journal of Strength and Conditioning, 21(4), 1296-1299.</ref>[39]. The vertec uses a telescoping pole that comprises movable plastic vanes arranged in 1.27 cm (0.5) inch increments that can be adjusted to the subjects standing reach. It is the design of the telescoping pole that allows this device to avoid the limiting effects of a wall or chalkboard seen in some other used protocols [2]. There are various ways to calculate vertical jump distance using the Vertec, however, we recommend that you set the lowest plastic vane to your athlete’s standing reach in which both their feet are flat on the ground and their dominant hand is extended above their head. This is a standing jump test so ensure that your athlete does not take a step or pre-jump. Instruct your athlete to squat, bend at the knees, hips, and ankles while simultaneously bringing his arms behind him. However, it is important that the athlete pause at the bottom of his squat so be sure to count “one-one thousand” at which time the athlete will only then jump vertically to displace the highest possible plastic vane. The difference between the standing reach and jump distance is the vertical jump height. You should give your athlete 3 trials, be sure to push aside all the vanes that are below the highest one displaced, this allows the athlete to visually target the previous jump height. Lastly, be sure to allow your athlete 30s rest time between trials.

Once you have calculated the average standing jump height you can easily convert the scores into peak leg power using the following simple steps and Sayers formula.

1) Convert vertical jump height from inches to cm 2) Ensure that weight is in kg 3) Use the following formula for Sayers Peak Leg Power 4) Use normative data table to rate performance


Sayers Peak Leg Power (watts) = [(60.7 * Vertical Jump Height)] + (45.3 * Weight) - 2055

Vertical Jump and Hockey

Ice hockey is a dynamic, fast paced sport that is characterized by players repeatedly performing high-intensity, short-duration bursts of maximal power [6]. As a physically demanding contact sport, hockey requires participants to have excellent physical capabilities, musculoskeletal strength, and well-developed aerobic and high-energy systems [2]<[37]. Like many intermittent sports, this ability to produce energy through anaerobic metabolism in relatively short but intense shifts, 30 to 60s in an ice hockey game, is crucial for success at the elite level [6]. Research continues to demonstrate[2][6][37] that athletes who have the ability to produce more of this explosive leg power during the vertical jump during off-ice testing have both increased acceleration and overall top speed on the ice. However, off-ice tests, including the Vertical Jump, continue to be debated as adequate predictors of talent in future hockey players and have not been shown to distinguish draft status [20][2]. As mentioned previous, literature continues to demonstrate that vertical jump scores correlate to skating performance [35][20][2][6][36][37]. Skating is an essential skill that requires the combination of speed, strength, power, and balance [20]. Mascaro et al suggested that vertical jump power was the strongest predictor of on-ice skating (r=.85). However, more recent studies by Bracko and George suggested that 40-yd sprint times were in fact the strongest predictors of on-ice linear speed, however, they did demonstrate that vertical jump power was a in fact a significant predictor of on-ice skating performance [6]. Off-ice testing has been shown to predict performance on the ice[20]. Critics will argue that although top skating speed is an important aspect of the game, very little game time is actually spent at top speeds therefore other aspects of skating such as acceleration and agility should not be ignored. Albeit, coaches and strength and conditioning experts should be interested in techniques to develop the skating skills and power of there athlete’s, as it is an integral part of the game.

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 Potteiger, J., Smith, D., Maier, M., & Foster, T. (2010). Relationship between body composition, leg strength, anaerobic power, and on-ice skating performance in division I menʼs hockey athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(7), 1755-1762.
  2. 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 Burr, Jamie F., Jamnik, Veronica K., Dogra, Shilpa, & Gledhill, Norman (2007). Evaluation of Jump Protocols to Assess Leg Power and Predict Hockey Playing Potential. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(4), 1139-1145.
  3. Ransdell, Lynda B., & Murray, Teena (2011) A Physical Profile of Elite Female Ice Hockey Players from the USA. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(9), 2358-2363.
  4. National Hockey League (2015) . Retrieved from http://www.http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?navid=nav-sts-indiv.com
  5. Gledhill, N. & Jamnik, V. (2007) Detailed Assessment Protocols for NHL Entry Draft Players. York University, Toronto.
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 Nightingale, S., Miller, S., & Turner, A. (2013). The usefulness and reliability of fitness testing protocols for ice hockey players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27(6), 1742-1748.
  7. Top End Sports (2014) NHL draft combine testing. Retrieved from http://www.topendsports.com/sport/icehockey/nhl-draft.htm
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Zupan, M., Arata, A., Dawson, L., Wile, A., Payn, T., & Hannon, M. (2009). Wingate anaerobic test peak power and anaerobic capacity classifications for men and women intercollegiate athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(9), 2598-2604.
  9. Smith, J., & Hill, D. (1991). Contribution of energy systems during a wingate power test. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 25(4), 196-199.
  10. Schwirian, C. (2010). Lab V anaerobic metabolism. Ohio University, 1-20.
  11. 11.0 11.1 Brechue, William F., Mayhew, Jerry L., & Fontaine, C. Piper (2010). Characteristics of Sprint Performance in College Football Players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(5), 1169-1178.
  12. 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 Earp, Jacob E., & Newton, Robert U (2012). Advances in Electronic Timing Systems: Considerations for Selecting an Appropriate Timing System. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(5), 1245-1248.
  13. Yeadon, M.R., Kato, T., & Kerwin, D.G (1999). Measuring Running Speed Using Photocells. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17(3), 249-257.
  14. 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 Cronin, John B., & Templeton, Rebecca L. (2008). Timing Light Height Affects Sprint Times. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(1), 318-320.
  15. 15.0 15.1 Hetzler, Ronald K., Stickley, Christopher D., Lundquist, Kelly M., & Kumura, Iris F (2008) Reliability and Accuracy of Handheld Stopwatches Compared with Electronic Timing in Measuring Sprint Performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(6), 1969-1976.
  16. Waldron, Mark., Worsfold, Paul., Twist, Craig., & Lamb, Kevin (2011). Concurrent Validity and Test-Retest Reliability of a Global Positioning System (GPS) and Timing Gates to Assess Sprint Performance Variables. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29(15), 1613-1619.
  17. Brower Timing Systems (2015) . Retrieved from http://www.browertiming.com
  18. Behm, David G., Wahl, Michael J., Button, Duane C., Power, Kevin E., & Anderson, Kenneth G (2005). Relationship Between Hockey Skating Speed and Selected Performance Measures. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(2), 326-331.
  19. 19.0 19.1 Bracko, Michael R., & George, James D (2001). Prediction of Ice Skating Performance With Off-Ice Testing in Women's Ice Hockey Players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15(1), 116-122.
  20. 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.7 20.8 Farlinger, Chris M., Kruisselbrink, L. Darren, & Fowles, Jonathan R. (2007). Relationships to Skating Performance in Competitive Hockey Players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(3), 915-922.
  21. Chelladurai, P. (1976). Manifestations of agility. Canadian Association of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 42, 36-41.
  22. Young, W.B., James, R., Montgomery, I. (2002). Is muscle power related to running speed with changes of direction? Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 43, 282-288.
  23. Sheppard, J.M., Young, W.B. (2006). Agility literature review: classifications, training and testing. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(9), 919-932.
  24. Sheppard, J.M., Young, W.B. (2006). Agility literature review: classifications, training and testing. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(9), 919-932.
  25. Chelladurai, P. (1976). Manifestations of agility. Canadian Association of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 42, 36-41.
  26. Sheppard, J.M., Young, W.B. (2006). Agility literature review: classifications, training and testing. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(9), 919-932.
  27. Chelladurai, P. (1976). Manifestations of agility. Canadian Association of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation and Dance, 42, 36-41.
  28. Sheppard, J.M., Young, W.B. (2006). Agility literature review: classifications, training and testing. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(9), 919-932.
  29. Farlinger, C.M., Kruisselbrink, L.D., Fowles, J.R. (2007). Relationships to skating performance in competitive hockey players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(3), 915-922.
  30. Bracko M.R., George, J.D. (2001). Prediction of ice skating performance with off-ice testing in women’s ice hockey players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15(1), 116-122.
  31. Krause D.A., Smith A.M., Holmes, L.C., Klebe, C.R., Lee, J.B., Lundquist K.M., Elschen, J.J., Hollman, J.H. Relationship of off-ice and on-ice performance measures in high school male hockey players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(5), 1423-1430.
  32. Stewart, P.F., Turner, A.N., Miller, S.C. (2014). Reliability, factorial validity, and interrelationships of five commonly used change of direction speed tests. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 24, 500-506.
  33. Beekhuizen, K.S., Davis, M.D., Kolber, M.J., Cheung, M.S.S. (2009). Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change of the hexagon agility test. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(7), 2167-2171.
  34. Farlinger, C.M., Kruisselbrink, L.D., Fowles, J.R. (2007). Relationships to skating performance in competitive hockey players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(3), 915-922.
  35. 35.0 35.1 35.2 35.3 Leard, J.S., Cirillio, M.A., Katsnelson, E., Kimiatek, D.A., Miller, T.A., Trebincevic, K., & Garbalosa, J.C. (2007). Validity of Two alternate Systems for Measuring Vertical Jump Height. Journal of Strength and Conditioning, 21(4), 1296-1299.
  36. 36.0 36.1 36.2 36.3 , D.A., Smith, A.M., Holmes, L.C., Klebe, C.R., Lee, J.B., Lundquist K.M., Eischen, J.J., & Holmann, J.H. (2012). Relationship of Off-Ice and On-Ice Performance Measures in High School Male Hockey Players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(5), 1423-1430.
  37. 37.0 37.1 37.2 37.3 37.4 37.5 37.6 , J.F., Jamnik, R.K., Baker, J., MacPherson, A., Gledhill, N., McGuire, E.J. (2008). Relationship of Physical Fitness Test Results and Hockey Playing Potential in Elite-Level Ice Hockey Players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(5), 1535-1543.
  38. 38.0 38.1 Patterson, D.D., Peterson, D.F. (2009). Vertical Jump and Leg Power Norms for Young Adults. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 8(1), 33-41.
  39. Vescovi, J.D., Murray, J.M., Fiala, K.A., & VanHeest, J.L. (2006). Off-Ice Performance and Draft Status of Elite Ice Hockey Players. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 1, 207-221.