by William A. Sands, Ph.D.
Director Research and Development
California Lutheran University
Leading to the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney Australia, the USA Gymnastics Women's Program elected to take an aggressive approach to the preparation of our Olympic Team. A National Team Coordinator was hired and an overall plan was devised to better prepare our team. The planned preparation of the National Team included monthly training camps beginning December 1999 and concluding in June 2000. These camps were invoked in order to gain more control and apply more centralized direction to the preparation of our athletes.
Although the goals of the camps were many and varied from camp to camp, an emphasis on fitness was apparent at all camps. Enhancing athlete fitness was considered of paramount importance due to the apparent inability of some athletes to perform well in the training leading up to earlier international competitions. The National Team Coordinator and the National Staff worked together to devise tests of physical abilities for the various camps. A number of tests were proposed and implemented while others were rejected or modified following implementation. National Staff members were assigned a particular test and administered the test in accordance with agreed upon criteria. The results of the tests were recorded and placed in a computer database.
Because training occurs over many months and years, longitudinal assessment of training is extremely important so that the training process can be managed and directed more intelligently. Moreover, the specific tests should provide an indication of specific strengths and weaknesses while the tests taken in totality should provide an overall "profile" of the team's and/or athlete's development.
Following the initial testing in Tulsa, Oklahoma we found that the athletes were astonishingly deconditioned or lacking in gymnastics-specific fitness. The results of the Tulsa testing required a major rethinking of the tests and the testing protocols. Clearly some tests were much too difficult for most of these athletes at that time. Other tests proved difficult to monitor and assess fairly and consistently. During the conduct of successive camps some new tests were applied while others were abandoned. In addition to modifying or abandoning particular tests, the specific athletes who attended the camps also changed from camp to camp. The intent, of course, was to reduce the number of athletes as the camps progressed so that more individual attention could be applied to those athletes who were more likely to make the final team.
Methods and Results
A number of physical ability tests were conducted throughout the camps. The tests included the following: (a) measurement of height and mass, (b) straddle L press to handstand, (c) handstand push ups, (d) casts in a row on the low bar, (e) leg lifts from a L-hang on the low bar, (f) Bosco 60 second jump test, and (g) a rope climb (4.1 m) for time.
|
|
The results of the various tests, in the form of group averages and standard deviations, are shown in the following figures. The number of athletes who were present for the tests at all of the camps is also shown. Note that the number of athletes may be different among the tests due to injury and other factors. As a physiologist, I am particularly interested in the results of training on the athletes' bodies. In conjunction with a jumping power test, the mass of each athlete had to be determined. Figure 1 shows the average mass (kilograms) of the relevant national team members throughout the training camps. |
|
Figure 2 shows the progress of the straddle L press handstand test. The straddle L press was used to measure the athletes' upper body strength-endurance. Note that the athletes were allowed to perform the straddle L press on parallettes, a low balance beam, or the floor. Continuous repetitions were required. The tester counted the total number of repetitions. One trial was allowed. |
|
|
|
Figure 3 shows the rope climb results. Note that the rope was 4.1 meters high. The athletes began from a piked sitting position and started their climb volitionally. A stop watch was used to determine the time from the initiation of the climb to the final touching of the metal suspension support. One trial was allowed. The February test was abandoned in this analysis due to a decision to conduct two trips up the rope and record only total time. Therefore, the first trip was not recorded and the test could not be compared to previous tests. The "two trip" test was later abandoned. The results of the rope climb speed showed that the athletes continued to improve throughout the training camps. One trial was allowed. |
|
Figure 4 shows the results of the cast handstand test. The cast handstands were performed on the low bar of the uneven bars and no stops were allowed between casts. Athletes were allowed one failed cast without penalty if they went past the handstand. The athletes were then required to perform a second trial which counted as their final score. Repetitions were judged by a tester for technical adequacy and only those casts meeting technical criteria were counted. |
|
|
|
Figure 5 shows the leg lifts test. Leg lifts were performed while hanging from the low bar of the unevens. The athlete was required to begin in a "L" position and the feet were not allowed to touch the floor between repetitions. The test required the athlete to perform 20 leg lifts and the time required to perform these leg lifts was recorded. The athletes were allowed one trial and leg form was considered. Time began when the athlete began her first leg lift. |
|
Figure 6 shows the average power results of the Bosco 60 second jump test. The Bosco test was the only test that was performed with the same protocol during every camp. The test involves a switch mat and computer interface that allows the computer to determine the time of flight during each jump and the time on the ground during each jump. The gymnast is required to jump continuously as high and as rapidly as possible for 60 seconds while keeping the hands on the hips to prevent contribution of the arms to flight time. The flight times of the test are then used to calculate the average power of the 60 second performance. Other parameters can also be obtained such as changes in ground time, flight time and ground time on specific jumps, power for a predetermined time period, and short term power by assessing the first one or more early jumps. Figure 6 shows that the gymnasts results are similar to those seen in typical periodization with a period of concentrated loading followed by a period of relative rest or lighter loads. Figure 6 shows the period of concentrated loading and the resulting pattern of adaptation shown by the athletes. Because the training camps ended in June, no further data are available. It is assumed that the athlete's physical condition continued the recovery and supercompensation shown by the thick dark line indicating the longitudinal trend of the athlete's average power. The data on these gymnasts shows a rather classical adaptation curve similar to that described by Bompa, Selye, Verkhoshansky, and others. |
|
|
|
Figure 7 shows a short-term power result from the Bosco tests. Short-term power can be inferred from changes in the first jump, the first few jumps, or the Y intercept of a regression line calculated on the flight times of the entire test. As shown in Figure 7, the Y intercept of the flight times indicates that the gymnasts' short term power declined throughout the Olympic Preparation series. This decline was largely due to the marked emphasis in training and conditioning that focused on strength-endurance via increasing the number of repetitions of a particular exercise without regard to the speed of execution. |
Conclusion
The longitudinal data from the Olympic Preparation Camp Series has shown a variety of trends. Because athlete participation from camp to camp was not certain, some of the tests involved different numbers of athletes. Injury, illness, and special circumstances also constrained athletes in their participation in specific tests. The number of athletes for each longitudinal analysis is shown with each figure. The results of these trends showed that the athletes gained and then lost mass while never returning to a body mass less than their initial measurements. The basic trends of all the strength-endurance tests indicated improvement throughout the camp series. Short-term power did not show improvement, largely due to the focus of training and conditioning on strength-endurance qualities. Future endeavors of this nature should attempt to continue this and other data collection in the process of determining optimal parameters for the conduct of athlete preparation up to Olympic Games and World Championships.