The Self-Defense Skill Towards EPZ-6438

Матеріал з HistoryPedia
Версія від 10:42, 12 березня 2017, створена Yarn43angle (обговореннявнесок) (Створена сторінка: Table 3 Body composition profiles and differences in elite female athletes from different team sports Discriminant analysis revealed two significant functions (...)

(різн.) ← Попередня версія • Поточна версія (різн.) • Новіша версія → (різн.)
Перейти до: навігація, пошук

Table 3 Body composition profiles and differences in elite female athletes from different team sports Discriminant analysis revealed two significant functions (p this website represented differences based on the FFM proportion (volleyball, basketball vs. softball, soccer). The second discriminant function represented differences based on the ECW proportion (softball vs. soccer). All of the variance explained by the model is due to the first two discriminant functions. Based on values of Wilk��s lambda, the first discriminant function accounted for 80.5% (eigenvalue = 0.998) of the total variance, while the second discriminant function explained 19.5% (eigenvalue = 0.242) of the remaining variance. Figure 1 and Table 5 represent group centroid distances between groups for both discriminant functions. Figure 1 Canonical discriminant functions Table 4 Results of stepwise discriminant analyses Table 5 Group centroids for two discriminant functions Discussion The recorded mean values of BH, BM or the BMI (Table 2) are consistent with previously reported values for elite athletes. Lower BH in elite female soccer and softball players and the possibility of higher proportions of FFM in ��taller players�� EPZ 6438 could contribute to the significant differences between the compared parameters in tested groups, at least those expressed as absolute values [FFM, ECM, Montelukast Sodium BCM, FMA and TBW, ICW and ECW (Table 3)]. Neither relative inactive mass proportion (FMP) nor �� exhibited significant differences or size effects between the tested teams. In case of FFM, we observed significant differences between the compared disciplines. Soccer players achieved significantly lower FFM values than those of volleyball, basketball and handball players (Table 3). A significant difference was also found between softball and basketball players. These differences could also be caused by the difference in BH between sports. A comparison of absolute FFM values that also accounted for somatometric variables and the relative values of other parameters described below indicated that the softball players had the best active FFM (despite lower body mass, players had relatively high absolute FFM); surprisingly, the athletes with the poorest active FFM were the basketball players (Table 3). BCM, as a part of FFM, is defined as a predictor of muscle efficiency for sport performance (Andreoli et al., 2003). The level of BCM was significantly lower in female soccer players compared to the other monitored athletes. The differences in percentage between female soccer players and other female athletes were as follows: SC vs. V = 10.3%, SC vs. S = 11.5%, SC vs. B = 10.5% and SC vs. H = 10.5%. This difference may be attributed to the lower BH or BM in soccer players, which could affect the total FFM and its components compared to other teams.