GENÇ VE BÜYÜK HALTERCİLERDE KUVVETİN ALLOMETRİK ANALİZİ

Öz

Halter, kuvvet ve güç sporu olarak tanımlanır. Halterde iyi bir bir fizyolojik profil için; kas kuvveti, esneklik, kas gücü ve kaldırış tekniğinin kombinasyonu önemlidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, dünya halter şampiyonasına katılan haltercilerin gençler ve büyükler kategorisinde elde edecekleri toplam reytinglerdeki derecelerinin allometrik analiziyle karşılaştırılmasıdır. 86. Erkekler Avrupa Büyükler Şampiyonası ve 5. Erkekler Avrupa Gençler Şampiyonası verileri kullanıldı. Veriler Avrupa Halter Federasyonunun resmi internet sitesinden (http://www.ewf.sm) alınmıştır. Büyük erkekler Avrupa şampiyonası için 8 vücut ağırlığı sınıfı (56, 62, 69, 77, 85, 94, 105, +105 kg) ve genç erkekler Avrupa şampiyonası için 8 vücut ağırlığı sınıfı (50, 56, 62, 69, 77, 85, 94, +105 kg). Kaldırılan iki ağırlığın toplamı (koparma ve silkme) dikkate alındı. Her Avrupa şampiyonasında her sıklet kategorisinden en iyi 5 derece seçildi. Yaş (40 genç halterci) ve (40 büyük halterci) arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farkı vardı (p<0.05). Büyük halterci ile genç halterci arasında vücut kütlesine bağlı olarak kaldırılan iki ağırlık değerinin toplamı açısından da anlamlı kuvvet farklılıkları bulundu (p<0.05). Büyük ve genç haltercilerde vücut kütlesi ile kaldırılan iki ağırlığın bağıl toplamı arasında negatif anlamlı korelasyonlar bulundu (p<0.05). Sonuç olarak, sportif performansta vücut büyüklüğü ölçümleri ile vücut kütlesi başına düşen oran arasındaki ilişkinin doğru şekilde tanımlanamadığı düşünülmektedir. Bu nedenle bu çalışmada vücut kütle etkilerini ortadan kaldırmak için, allometrik ölçeklendirme yöntemi kullanılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Weightlifting
• allometric analysis
• performance

ALLOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF STRENGHT OF THE YOUTH AND SENIOR WEIGHT LIFTERS

Öz

Weightlifting is defined as a sport of strength and power. For a good physiological profile in weightlifting, muscle strength, flexibility, muscle power, and lift combination of techniques is important. This study aimed to compare the allometric analysis of degrees of weightlifters in the total rating to obtain in the category of youth and seniors who participated in the world weightlifting championship. Data from the 86th Men’s European Senior Championships and 5th Men’s European Youth Championships were employed. Data was obtained from the official website of the European Weightlifting Federation (http://www.ewf.sm). There were 8 body-weight classes for senior men European championships (56, 62, 69, 77, 85, 94, 105, +105 kg) and 8 body-weight classes for youth men European championships (50, 56, 62, 69, 77, 85, 94, +105 kg). The sum of two weights lifted (snatch, clean, and jerk) were considered. At each European Championships, the best 5 degrees from each weight category were selected. There was significant age (40 youth weightlifters) and (40 senior weightlifters), mean age differences were found (p<0.05). Significant strength differences were also found between the senior weightlifter and the youth weightlifter for the sum of two weights lifted values related to body mass (p<0.05). Negative significant correlations were found between body mass and the relative sum of two weights lifted values for senior and youth weightlifters (p<0.05). As a result, it is thought that the relationship between body size measurements and the ratio per body mass in athletic performance cannot be accurately defined. For this reason, the allometric scaling method was used to remove the body mass effects.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Weightlifting
• allometric analysis
• performance

Kaynakça

1. Cleather DJ. (2006). Adjusting powerlifting performances for differences in body mass. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 20(2), 412-421.
2. McGuiagan MR., Kane MK. (2004). Reliability of performance of elite olympic weightlifters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 18(3), 650-653.
3. Chiu L., Schilling B. (2005). A primer on weightlifting: From sport to sports training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 27(1), 42-48.
4. Funato K., Kanehisa H., Fukunaga T. (2001). Differences in muscle cross-sectional area and strength between elite senior and college Olympic weight lifters. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. 40(4), 312-318.
5. McBride J., Triplett-McBride T., Davie A., Newton R. (1999). A comparison of strength and power characteristics between power lifters, Olympic lifters, and sprinters. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 13(1), 58-66.
6. Stone MH., O'Bryant HS., McCoy L., Coglianese R., Lehmkuhl M., Schilling B. (2003). Power and maximum strength relationships during performance of dynamic and static weighted jumps. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 1, 140-147.
7. Stone M., Pierce K., Sands W., Stone M. (2006). Weightlifting: a brief overview. National Strength and Conditioning Association. 28(1), 50-66.
8. Ford LE., Detterline JA., Kevin KHO., Wenyuan CA. (2000). Gender- and height-related limits of muscle strength in world weightlifting champions. Journal of Applied Physiology. 89, 1061-1064.

9. Darveau CA., Suarez RK., Andrews RD., Hochachka PW. (2002). Allometric cascade as a unifying principle of body mass effects on metabolism. Nature. 417(6885), 166-170.
10. West GB., Savage VM., Gillooly J., Enquist BJ., Woodruff WH., Brown JH. (2003). Why does metabolic rate scale with body size? Nature. 713.
11. Batterham AM., Tolfrey K., George KP. (1997). Nevill’s explanation of Kleiber’s 0.75 mass exponent: an artifact of collinearity problems in least squares models? Journal of Applied Physiology. 82, 693-697.
12. Kabitsis C., Nevill AM. (1992). Power output during arm cycling and its relationship to body size and throwing performance. Journal of Sports Science. 10, 568-569.
13. Nevill AM. (1994). Evidence of an increasing proportion of leg muscle mass to body mass in male adolescents and its implication on performance. Journal of Sports Science. 12, 163-164.
14. Welsman JR, Armstrong N, Nevill AM, Winter EM, and Kirby BJ. (1996). Scaling peak VO2 for differences in body size. Medicine Science and Sports Exercise. 28, 259-265.
15. http://www.ewf.sm [Erişim tarihi 09.09.2024].
16. Weber CL., Chia M., Inbar O. (2006). Gender differences in anaerobic power of the arms and legs-a scaling issue. Medicine Science and Sports Exercise. 38(1), 129-137.
17. Welsman JR, Armstrong N. (2000). Longitudinal changes in submaximal oxygen uptake in 11- to 13-year-olds. Journal of Sports Sciences. 18, 183-189.
18. Welsman JR, Armstrong N. (2000). Longitudinal changes in young people’s short-term power output. Medicine Science and Sports Exercise. 32(6), 1140-1145.
19. Nevill A., Tsiotra G., Tsimeas P., Koutedakis Y. (2009). Allometric associations between body size, shape, and physical performance of Greek children. Pediatric Exercise Science. 21(2), 220-232.
20. Nevill AM., Holder RL., Jones AB., Round JM., Jones DA. (1998). Modeling developmental changes in strength and aerobic power in children. Journal of Applied Physiology. 84, 963-970.
21. Batterham AM., George KP. (1997). Allometric modeling does not determine a dimensionless power function ratio for maximal muscular function. Journal of Applied Physiology. 83, 2158-2166.