Search Results

31 - 40 of 511 items :

  • Sports and Recreation, other x
Clear All
Structure of Achievement Motivation Dispositions in Elite and Non-Elite Track and Field Athletes

. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9 , 352-372. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2007.05.002. Spray, C.M., Wang, C.K.J., Biddle, S.J.H., Chatzsisarantis, N.L.D. & Warburton, V.E. (2006). An experimental test of self-theories of ability in youth sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 255-267. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.05.001. Swann, C.F., Moran, A. & Piggott, D. (2015). Defining elite athletes: issues in the study of expert performance in sport psychology. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16 , 3-14. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014

Open access
Balance, Basic Anthropometrics and Performance in Young Alpine Skiers; Longitudinal Analysis of the Associations During Two Competitive Seasons

0.97 denotes significance of p < 0.05 0.53 denotes significance of p < 0.05 0.98 denotes significance of p < 0.05 0.97 denotes significance of p < 0.05 0.45 denotes significance of p < 0.05 U16 BM (kg) 0.72 denotes significance of p < 0.05 0.82 denotes significance of p < 0.05 -0.58 denotes significance of p < 0.05 0.39 0.25 -0.82 denotes significance of p < 0.05 BH (cm) 0.61 denotes significance of p < 0.05 0.69 denotes significance of p < 0.05 -0.57 denotes significance of p < 0.05 0.10 0.14 -0

Open access
Destination Quality Perception in the Context of Different Behavioural Characteristics of Visitors

Conference “ An Enterprise Odyssey: Tourism-Governance and Entrepreneurship”, June 11-14, 2008, Dubrovnik . Proceedings. Zagreb: University of Zagreb. Martilla, J. A., & James. J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing , 41(1), 77-79. DOI: 10.2307/1250495 Martin-Cejas, R. R. (2006). Tourism service quality begins at the airport. Tourism Management , 27(5), 874–877. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2005.05.005 Meng, F., Tepanon, Y. A., & Uysal, M. (2008). Measuring tourist satisfaction by attribute and motivation: The case of a nature

Open access
Biomechanics of the Axel Paulsen Figure Skating Jump

Literature 1. Hines J.R. (2006). Figure skating. A history . Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. 2. King D.L., Arnold A.S., Smith S.L. (1994). A kinematic comparison of single, double and triple Axels. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 10, 51-60. DOI: 10.1123/jab.10.1.51. 3. Aleshinsky S.Y. (1986). What biomechanics can do for figure skating. Part two. Skating 63(10), 11-15. follow by Sharp C.M.P. (1999). A biomechanical analysis of the single toe loop and the single loop jump of novice figure skaters. file:///C

Open access
Seeking Optimal Nutrition for Healthy Body Mass Reduction Among Former Athletes

were centrifuged at 3500 rpm for 10 min at 4°C within 2 h of collection. Plasma was then immediately stored under conditions to minimize artificial oxidation (i.e., with an antioxidant cocktail in an inert atmosphere). Standard blood biochemical analyses were carried out at the University Hospital Laboratory. Isolation of fatty acids and analysis of fatty acid esters Plasma was obtained from blood (taken at blood clot) by centrifugation for 10 min at 1200 G. Fatty acids were extracted with chloroform/methanol solution. About 0.5 ml of plasma was saponified with

Open access
Effects of the off-Season Period on Field and Assistant Soccer Referees `Physical Performance

-AR (%) −10.53 −23.55 - - ES −0.31 −0.97 - - VO2 max (ml⋅kg −1 ⋅min −1 ) Total sample 50.09 ± 4.68 51.57 ± 4.04 p < 0.05 2.95 0.32 FR 50.78 ± 4.87 52.66 ± 3.94 p < 0.05 3.71 0.39 AR 49,26 ± 4,35 48.83 ± 2.95 p < 0.05 −0.88 −0.10 ΔFR-AR (%) −2.98 −7.27 - - ES −0.31 −0.97 - - Tympanic temperature Total sample 36.49 ± 0.81 35.55 ± 0.63 p < 0.01 −2.57 −1.16 - o $\overset{\text o}{\text -}$ C FR 36.58 ± 0.79 35.59 ± 0.60 p < 0.01 −2

Open access
The Activity Profile of Young Tennis Athletes Playing on Clay and Hard Courts: Preliminary Data

significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05. Results The duration of the shortest match was 61.7 min, which was used as the standard to make the comparisons between the clay and hard court matches. Table 1 shows the comparison of distance covered, in the different velocity ranges, between the clay and hard court matches. The total distance covered and the distance covered at 0-5.5, 5.5-7, 7-10, and 10-15 km/h were most likely higher in clay court than hard court matches ( p ≤0.05). The distance covered at high-intensity (15-18 km/h) was likely higher on the clay

A Model for Determining the Effect of the Wind Velocity on 100 M Sprinting Performance

wind (sign -) and the coefficient l = c d ρA/2 . Taking c d =0.5 as the typical value of the drag coefficient ( Keller, 1973 ; Mureika, 2001 ), ρ= 1.2 kg/m 3 for the air density, and a cross section of A A = 1 m 2 ( Helene and Yamashita, 2010 ), we obtain l = 0.3 kg/m. Taking all the above into account, one can assume that the motion of a sprinter is performed under the action of the resulting Fs = F(t) - F v ± F w . m d v s d t = F ( t ) − k v s ± l w 2 $$ \displaystyle m\frac{dv_s}{dt}=F(t)\,-\,kv_s\,\pm\, lw^2 $$ (1) A rearrangement

Open access
Effect of Two Different Types of Olympic Rotation Order on Cardiovascular and Metabolic Variables in Men’s Artistic Gymnastics

1 Participants’ characteristics. Gymnast Age (years) Body Mass (kg) Body Height (m) VO 2max (ml·min·kg -1 ) HR rest (b·min -1 ) HR max (b·min -1 ) BL a rest (mmol·l -1 ) BL a VO 2max (mmol·l -1 ) 1 24.25 70.79 1.71 54.64 62 198 2.90 12.70 2 22.45 63.15 1.68 58.05 64 197 1.80 12.10 3 21.52 66.07 1.64 48.63 63 198 1.90 11.80 4 18.47 68.59 1.60 50.88 61 203 2.03 12.30 5 18.33 59.21 1.58 49.03 60 207 2.16 11.70 6

Open access
Effect of drop jump technique on the reactive strength index

differences at p < 0.05 30 RSI 0.91 ± 0.11 1.24 ± 0.24 0.33 ± 0.20 * significant differences at p < 0.05 RSI (amortization) 1.95 ± 0.27 2.75 ± 0.63 0.79 ± 0.52 * significant differences at p < 0.05 RSI (take-off) 1.72 ± 0.24 2.27 ± 0.43 0.55 ± 0.34 * significant differences at p < 0.05 contact time (s) 0.39 ± 0.06 0.23 ± 0.03 0.16 ± 0.07 * significant differences at p < 0.05 amortization time (s) 0.18 ± 0.03 0.10 ± 0.02 0.08 ± 0.03 * significant differences at p < 0.05 take-off time (s) 0.21 ± 0

Open access