| Title |
The effects in humans of rapid loss of body mass on a boxing-related task
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, September 2000
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s004210000251 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. S. Smith, R. Dyson, T. Hale, J. H. Harrison, P. McManus |
| Abstract |
The physiological effects of strategies for a rapid loss of body mass immediately before weighing-in for competition in weight-governed sports are unclear. This study examined the effects of a 3%-4% loss in body mass on a boxing-related task. Seven novice amateur boxers completed three 3 min rounds of simulated boxing on a prototype boxing ergometer in an euhydrated state (E-trial) and after exercise-induced thermal dehydration (D-trial). All subjects lost body mass following dehydration-mean body mass fell 3.8 (SD +/- 0.3)% [77.3 (SD +/- 11.3) to 74.4 (SD +/- 10.7) kg, P<0.001] - but changes in plasma volume (PV) were inconsistent. Four subjects suffered reductions in PV between 15% and 30%, one subject maintained his E-trial value and two recorded an increase. The D-trial mean PV value was 8.0 (SD +/- 17.2)% lower but this fall was not statistically significant (P>0.05). Analysis of D-trial boxing performance showed one subject maintained his performance over the two trials and a second improved 17.8%. A two-way ANOVA (condition x time) with repeated measures on both factors showed no significant main effect differences for condition (F1,6 = 3.93 P>0.05), time (F1.83,48 = 1.12, P>0.05) or interaction between them (F1.93,48, P>0.05). Furthermore, neither heart rate nor blood lactate responses in the boxing task differed between trials. These data were affected by the small sample. Power and effect size analysis using eta(2) procedure and removing the outlier data produced a mean fall in boxing performance of 26.8%. However, some subjects appeared able to resist the deleterious effects of a rapid loss of body mass prior to competition and further research is needed to explain the mechanisms under-pinning this ability. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| Brazil | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 61 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 14% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 23% |
| Unknown | 9 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 30 | 46% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 January 2014.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#3,318
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,561
of 37,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#10
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 37,744 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.