Physical Profile of the Wrestlers at the 1977 NCAA Championships

Stine, Gerald; Ratliff, R. A.; Shierman, Gail; Grana, William A.

doi:10.1080/00913847.1979.11948525

Cited by 17 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to morphological aspects, previous studies on muscle function in wrestlers have shown that the strength and endurance capabilities of the upper body rather than the lower body plays an important role in wrestling performance (Nagle et al 1975;Stine et al 1979;Horswill et al 1992). The bene®t of resistance training in both muscle size and function has been shown to depends to a great extent on the content of the training regimens performed (Moss et al 1997;Schimidtbleicher and Buehrle 1987).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Profiles of musculoskeletal development in limbs of college Olympic weightlifters and wrestlers

Kanehisa

Fukunaga

1999

European Journal of Applied Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To investigate the event-related profiles of musculoskeletal development in weight-categorized athletes, we measured the cross-sectional areas (CSA) of bone and muscle in the forearm, upper arm, lower leg and thigh, using a B-mode ultrasound apparatus, in college Olympic weightlifters (OWL, n = 19) and wrestlers (WR, n = 17) and untrained men (UM, n = 24), whose body masses were within the range from 55 kg to 78 kg. Both bone and muscle CSA at all sites were significantly correlated to the two-thirds power of fat-free mass (FFM(2/3)) with correlation coefficients of 0.430-40.741 (P < 0.05) and 0.608-0.718 (P < 0.05), respectively. Moreover, there were significant correlations between bone and muscle CSA at all sites (r = 0.664-0.829, P < 0.05). Even when bone and muscle CSA were expressed relative value to FFM(2/3), both OWL and WR showed significantly greater values than UM at all sites except for the lower leg. Furthermore, the comparison of the lean (bone + muscle) CSA ratio from site to site indicated a higher distribution of lean tissues in the upper extremities in OWL and WR compared to UM. While there was no significant difference between the two athlete groups in FFM(2/3), OWL showed significantly larger values than WR in the bone CSA of the upper arm and thigh and in the muscle CSA of the lower leg and thigh. However, lean CSA ratios of the upper extremities to the lower ones were significantly higher in WR than in OWL. Thus, the present results indicated that, compared to UM, OWL and WR had a greater lean tissue CSA in limbs, especially in the upper extremities, even when the difference in FFM was normalized. Moreover, the relative distribution of lean tissues in limbs differed between the two weight-categorized athletes in spite of there being no difference in FFM, which may be attributable to their own training regimens and/or competition style.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…On the other hand, it has been shown that wrestling requires the participants have superior cardiovascular ®tness as well as muscle strength and endurance (Nagle et al 1975;Stine et al 1979). It has been found that the changes in muscle function with training re¯ect the type of muscle activity during exercise (Sale and MacDougall 1981).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Profiles of musculoskeletal development in limbs of college Olympic weightlifters and wrestlers

Kanehisa

Fukunaga

1999

European Journal of Applied Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the wrestling group analyzed, the predictive ability of maximal strength, muscle power and crank-arm Wingate power to distinguish wrestling success remained significant after adjusting for fat-free mass, suggesting that the lean mass may contribute to the wrestling success, independent of training experience. Wrestling neuromuscular performance has been previously examined during isokinetic (Cisar et al 1987;Kraemer et al 2001;Sharratt et al 1986;Song and Garvie 1980;Stine et al 1979), isometric strength testing (Kraemer et al 2001;Sharratt et al 1986;Song and Garvie 1980;Utter et al 2002) and even with highly specific exercises like the isometric ''bear hug'' designed to simulate many upper-body holds used by wrestlers (Kraemer et al 2001). Unfortunately, a small number of researchers have examined dynamic muscle strength and muscle power profiles in exercises closely related to specific skills in wrestling (Mirzaei et al 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Numerous researchers have also reported that, although aerobic performance may be a basic requirement for wrestlers, it cannot be considered as a critical component of success in this sport (Horswill 1992;Horswill et al 1992;Sharratt et al 1986;Stine et al 1979;Yoon 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Physical fitness factors to predict male Olympic wrestling performance

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To determine differences in maximal strength and muscle power output of the arm and leg extensor muscles, peak and mean power during a modified standing crank-arm Wingate test, running speed, muscle extensibility, and anthropometric markers between elite and amateurs wrestlers according to the weight classes system; 92 male wrestlers were assigned into 6 groups according to their body mass (light, middle and heavy weight) and their competitive level (elite and amateur): Light Weight (body mass ranged between 55 and 68 kg) in elite (LW(E), n = 18) and amateur (LW(A), n = 15) level; Middle Weight (body mass ranged between 68 and 84 kg) in elite (MW(E), n = 18) and amateur (MW(A), n = 19) level; and Heavy Weight (body mass ranged between 84 and 100 kg) in elite (HW(E), n = 10) and amateur (HW(A), n = 12) level. Elite wrestlers were older (8-12%), had more training experience (25-37%), fat-free mass (3-5%), maximal strength in absolute and relative terms (8-25%), muscle power (14-30%), mean and peak power during crank-arm Wingate testing in absolute and relative terms (13-22%), jumping height (8-17%) as well as grip (6-19%) and back strength (7-20%) compared to amateur wrestlers. However, no differences were observed between elite and amateur groups in height, body mass index, percentage of body fat, hamstring extensibility and running speed. The present results suggest that the higher absolute and relative values of maximal strength, muscle power, and anaerobic metabolism, explained in part by the differences in lean mass and neural activation patterns, will give elite wrestlers a clear advantage during the most frequently used techniques in Olympic wrestling.

show abstract

“…At the U.S. college level, participants in the NCAA tournament lost 10 to 12% of their preseason body weight or, in absolute amounts, approximately 9 kg (69). More recent research surveying collegiate wrestlers for weekly practices reported similar magnitudes of weight loss: 85% of the college wrestlers lost between 2.7 and 9.1 kg each week (66).…”

Section: Magnitudementioning

confidence: 56%

Weight Loss and Weight Cycling in Amateur Wrestlers: Implications for Performance and Resting Metabolic Rate

Horswill¹

1993

International Journal of Sport Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

recdvery period between the official aweigh-in and competition, wrestlers , , ,I . achieve at lea~t~partial nutfitional recovery, whioh appears to benefibperforr mance. Successive bouts of (a) weight loss to make weight and (b) recovery ; for performance lead to weight cycling. There is speculation that, weight, 1 , 2' cycling mayeontribute to chronic glycogen depletion, reductions in fat-free t L weight, a decrease in resting metabolic rate, and an intxease in body fat. 8 -The latter two would augment the diffisulty of losing weight for ~ubsequent , weigh-ins. Most research indicates that the suppressed ~esting metabolic rate with weight loss irvwrestlers appears toqbe transient, but s~bsequ'mt,resea~h is needed for confirmation, Craig A.

show abstract

Physical Profile of the Wrestlers at the 1977 NCAA Championships

Abstract: Differences in physical characteristics affect athletic performance, but the author says there are other more far-reaching implications.

Cited by 17 publications

References 7 publications

Profiles of musculoskeletal development in limbs of college Olympic weightlifters and wrestlers

Profiles of musculoskeletal development in limbs of college Olympic weightlifters and wrestlers

Physical fitness factors to predict male Olympic wrestling performance

Weight Loss and Weight Cycling in Amateur Wrestlers: Implications for Performance and Resting Metabolic Rate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About