Energetics of Floor Gymnastics: Aerobic and Anaerobic Share in Male and Female Sub-elite Gymnasts
Sebastian Kaufmann,Martin Ziegler,Jana Werner,Christine Noe,Richard Latzel,Stefan Witzany,Ralph Beneke,Olaf Hoos
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-021-00396-6
2022-01-10
Abstract:Abstract Background Artistic gymnastics is a popular Olympic discipline where female athletes compete in four and male athletes in six events with floor exercise having the longest competition duration in Women’s and Men’s artistic gymnastics (WAG, MAG). To date no valid information on the energetics of floor gymnastics is available although this may be important for specific conditioning programming. This study evaluated the metabolic profile of a simulated floor competition in sub-elite gymnasts. Methods 17 (9 male, 8 female) sub-elite gymnasts aged 22.5 ± 2.6y took part in a floor-training-competition where oxygen uptake was measured during and until 15 min post-exercise. Additionally, resting and peak blood lactate concentration after exercise were obtained. The PCr-LA-O 2 method was used to calculate the metabolic energy and the relative aerobic ( W AER ), anaerobic alactic ( W PCr ) and anaerobic lactic ( W BLC ) energy contribution. Further, the athletes completed a 30 s Bosco-jumping test, a countermovement jump and a drop jump. Results The competition scores were 9.2 (CI:8.9–9.3) in WAG and 10.6 (CI:10.4–10.9) in MAG. The metabolic profile of the floor routine was mainly aerobic (58.9%, CI: 56.0–61.8%) followed by the anaerobic alactic (24.2%, CI: 21.3–27.1%) and anaerobic lactic shares (16.9%, CI:14.9–18.8%). While sex had a significant ( p = .010, d = 1.207) large effect on energy contribution, this was not the case for competition duration ( p = .728, d = 0.061). Relative energy contribution of WAG and MAG differed in W AER (64.0 ± 4.7% vs. 54.4 ± 6.8%, p = .004, d = 1.739) but not in W PCr (21.3 ± 6.1% vs. 26.7 ± 8.0%, p = .144, d = 0.801) and W BLC (14.7 ± 5.4% vs. 18.9 ± 4.2%, p = .085, d = 0.954). Further no correlation between any energy share and performance was found but between W PCr and training experience ( r = .680, p = .044) and W BLC and competition level ( r = .668, p = .049). Conclusion The results show a predominant aerobic energy contribution and a considerable anaerobic contribution with no significant difference between anaerobic shares. Consequently, gymnastic specific aerobic training should not be neglected, while a different aerobic share in WAG and MAG strengthens sex-specific conditioning. All in all, the specific metabolic share must secure adequate energy provision, while relative proportions of the two anaerobic pathways seem to depend on training and competition history.