NASM essentials of sports performance training
578 pág.

NASM essentials of sports performance training

DisciplinaEducação Física61.434 materiais329.645 seguidores
Pré-visualização50 páginas
between 1 and 1.5 minutes).
b. Fitness Index (long form) \ufffd (100 \ufffd test duration in seconds) divided by (2 \ufffd sum of
heartbeats in the recovery periods). 
c. Use Table 3.12 below to determine score:
5. Determine the appropriate starting cardiorespiratory program using the appropriate 
\u2022 Poor Zone One
\u2022 Low average Zone One
\u2022 High average Zone Two
\u2022 Good Zone Two
\u2022 Excellent Zone Three
Purpose: This test is a field test designed to estimate an aerobic power and predict V
O2 max. It
was originally designed for mass screening of aerobic power (49).
1. Set up two rows of cones 20 meters apart (Fig. 3.85).
2. Make sure athletes are sufficiently warmed-up. Start the audio CD and ensure that the
athletes understand the directions. Begin the test at level one.
3. The audio CD will sound a \u201cbeep\u201d at designated time intervals. When the \u201cbeep\u201d is
heard, the athlete must be at the opposite end of the 20-meter run. Each time the
recorded \u201cbeep\u201d is heard, the athlete must have completed another 20-meter run. 
4. With every minute (60 seconds), the \u201cbeeps\u201d will progressively get faster prompting the ath-
lete to increase running speed (the \u201cbeeps\u201d start out at a running speed of 8.5 kilometers per
hour, or 5.3 miles per hour, and increase by 0.5 kph, or 0.3 mph, every minute thereafter).
TABLE 3.12
Step Test Scoring
Rating Fitness Index (long form)
Excellent \ufffd90 
Good 80\u201389 
High average 65\u201379 
Low average 55\u201364
Poor \ufffd55
LWBK329-4205G-c03_p065-118.qxd 27/05/2009 08:00 AM Page 113 Aptara
5. The athlete must have at least one foot on the line marking the 20-meter distance at the
sound of each \u201cbeep.\u201d Any athlete who fails to reach the line at the \u201cbeep\u201d must receive
a warning that he/she will be eliminated if he/she does not reach the opposite 20-meter
mark by the sound of the \u201cbeep\u201d (Fig. 3.85).
TABLE 3.13
Shuttle Test Scoring
Age Poor Fair Average Good Very Good
20\u201324 32\u201337 38\u201343 44\u201350 51\u201356 57\u201362
25\u201329 31\u201335 36\u201342 43\u201348 49\u201353 54\u201359
30\u201334 29\u201334 35\u201340 41\u201345 46\u201351 52\u201356
35\u201339 28\u201332 33\u201338 39\u201343 44\u201348 49\u201354
40\u201344 26\u201331 32\u201335 36\u201341 42\u201346 47\u201351
45\u201349 25\u201329 30\u201334 35\u201339 40\u201343 44\u201348
50\u201354 24\u201327 28\u201332 33\u201336 37\u201341 42\u201346
55\u201359 22\u201326 27\u201330 31\u201334 35\u201339 40\u201343
60\u201365 21\u201324 25\u201328 29\u201332 33\u201336 37\u201340
20\u201324 27\u201331 32\u201336 37\u201341 42\u201346 47\u201351
25\u201329 26\u201330 31\u201335 36\u201340 41\u201344 45\u201349
30\u201334 25\u201329 30\u201333 34\u201337 38\u201342 43\u201346
35\u201339 24\u201327 28\u201331 32\u201335 36\u201340 41\u201344
40\u201344 22\u201325 26\u201329 30\u201333 34\u201337 38\u201341
45\u201349 21\u201323 24\u201327 28\u201331 32\u201335 36\u201338
50\u201354 19\u201322 23\u201325 26\u201329 30\u201332 33\u201336
55\u201359 18\u201320 21\u201323 24\u201327 28\u201330 31\u201333
60\u201365 16\u201318 19\u201321 22\u201324 25\u201327 28\u201330
From: Shvartz E, Reihold RC. Aerobic fitness norms. Aviat Space Environ Med 1990;61:3\u201311.
20 meters
FIGURE 3.85 Layout for the 20-m shuttle runs.
LWBK329-4205G-c03_p065-118.qxd 27/05/2009 08:00 AM Page 114 Aptara
6. An athlete is deemed finished if he/she fails to reach the 20-meter cone when the \u201cbeep\u201d
is heard on two consecutive attempts. Failure to reach the cone is noted by the athlete be-
ing at least one step away from the 20-meter mark.
Scoring the Shuttle Test:
7. Each minute denotes a new level and each cone reached denotes a new shuttle. Thus, a
score is read as the level and number of shuttle runs completed. 
For example, an athlete who ran for 10 minutes and four shuttles in that 10th
minute would be scored as 10-4. This score can be plugged into online calculators to pro-
duce a V
O2 max predicted score. That V
O2 score can then be used to determine the ath-
lete\u2019s starting category.
For example, a 27-year-old male athlete who completed 10 levels (10 minutes) and
four shuttles would receive a score of 10-4. This would calculate to be a V
O2 of 48.02
(which could be rounded down to 48).
8. Locate the V
O2 score in one of the categories (Table 3.13) (50). In the case of the exam-
ple client above with a V
O2 score of 48, his score would be considered \u201cAverage.\u201d
9. Determine the appropriate cardio program in which to start the client. In the case of the
example client above with a cardiorespiratory efficiency of 48 and a score of \u201cAverage,\u201d he
would be best started in a Zone 2 heart rate range when performing cardiorespiratory ex-
ercise (Fig. 3.86). This will be discussed in more detail in the Cardiorespiratory Training
Base training
programming guide
Give zone 2
Give zone 1
Give zone 3
Good/very goodFIGURE 3.86 Cardio Programming
A Sports Performance Professional\u2019s primary responsibility is to safely and effectively guide
athletes to successful attainment of their performance goals. To do so requires a compre-
hensive understanding of the athlete\u2019s background as well as their physical capabilities and
desires. The sports performance assessment process is a comprehensive tool to systemati-
cally gather subjective and objective information about athletes and utilize the informa-
tion appropriately to design a performance enhancement program. As mentioned earlier
in the chapter, the athlete\u2019s program is only as good as the assessment process, making it
crucial to take this portion of the training very seriously and making it as specific to the
needs of the athlete as possible.
Purpose: This test can be used to determine one\u2019s cardiorespiratory endurance.
1. During this assessment the athlete is just asked to run a mile in the best time they can. At
the end of the mile record their time, heart rate, and 1 minute active heart rate recovery
2. Their time should improve when reassessed.
Although there are a wide variety of other performance assessments that can be used in the ath-
lete\u2019s assessment process, the aforementioned assessments are tests that are commonly used and
can be done for a wide variety of sports. To see which assessment would be best for particular
sports, see Appendix A for sport specific testing protocols.
LWBK329-4205G-c03_p065-118.qxd 27/05/2009 08:00 AM Page 115 Aptara
1. Thomas S, Reading J, Shephard R. Revision of the physical activity readiness questionnaire (PAR-Q). Can
J Sport Sci 1992;17:338\u201345.
2. Bullock-Saxton JE. Local sensation changes and altered hip muscle function following severe ankle
sprain. Phys Ther 1994;74:17\u201328; discussion 28\u201331.
3. Guskiewicz K, Perrin D. Effect of orthotics on postural sway following inversion ankle sprain. J Orthop
Sports Phys Ther 1996;23:326\u201331.
4. Nitz A, Dobner J, Kersey D. Nerve injury and grades II and III ankle sprains. Am J Sports Med
5. Wilkerson G, Nitz A. Dynamic ankle stability: mechanical and neuromuscular interrelationships. J Sport
Rehab 1994;3:43\u201357.
6. Barrack R, Lund P, Skinner H. Knee proprioception revisited. J Sport Rehab 1994;3:18\u201342.
7. Beard D, Kyberd P, O\u2019Connor J et al. Reflex hamstring contraction latency in ACL deficiency. J Orthop Res
8. Fredericson M, Cookingham CL, Chaudhari AM et al. Hip abductor weakness in distance runners with
iliotibial band syndrome. Clin J Sport Med 2000;10:169\u201375.
9. Hewett TE, Lindenfeld TN, Riccobene JV et al. The effect of neuromuscular training on the incidence of
knee injury in female athletes. A prospective study. Am J Sports Med 1999;27:699\u2013706.
10. Ireland ML, Willson JD, Ballantyne BT et al. Hip strength in females with and without patellofemoral
pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2003;33:671\u201376.
11. Johansson H. Role of knee ligaments in proprioception and regulation of muscle stiffness. J Electromyogr
Kinesiol 1991;1:158\u201379.
12. Johansson H, Sjolander P, Sojka P. A sensory role for the cruciate ligaments. Clin Orthop Relat Res
13. Nyland J, Smith S, Beickman K et al. Frontal plane knee angle