INTRODUCTION
Physiological factors required for field hockey include anaerobic capacity, as for repetitions of high intensity bouts throughout the match; agility, as for the execution of quick changes of direction and speed; and aerobic capacity, as for the maintenance of a consistent energy level when players are required to continuously be in motion for more than 60 minutes of game time [1-3].
Anthropometric factors are closely related to physical fitness factors, and physical fitness factors are also correlated with athletic performance. Consequently, an analysis of anthropometric and physical fitness factors required in specific sports can provide insights into the prediction of performance and the development of training programs [4,5]. According to previous studies measuring anthropometric factors and analyzing the correlation with physical fitness factors and performance in field hockey athletes, grip strength and upper body strength correlated with flick drag techniques [6], when height, lean body mass, back strength, upper and lower body strength were correlated with ball hitting techniques [7]. In terms of physical fitness factors according to the position, forwards demonstrated higher anaerobic power, while agility and repeated sprint ability were greater in goalkeepers and defenders. Furthermore, knee isokinetic strength, speed, and aerobic capacity varied significantly across different positions [8-11]. In addition to the observed differences in playtime and distance covered in the games, the previous studies revealed that forwards and midfielders exhibited a higher intensity compared to defenders [12,13]. This suggests variance in physical demands and performance capabilities required based on position. However, only a few studies have directly compared and analyzed the differences in anthropometric and physical fitness factors according to the gender and position in field hockey athletes compared to other sports, either nationally or internationally. To date, while previous studies [14,15] have examined the relative ratios of basic fitness variables, including cardiorespiratory endurance in female athletes compared to male field hockey players, there has been no comprehensive review of the ratios of basic physical fitness, aerobic, and anaerobic power, and isokinetic strength. In particular, identifying the physical characteristics of field hockey players based on gender will serve as very important fundamental data for setting training directions and designing training programs.
Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of the anthropometric and physical fitness characteristics according to gender and position is crucial for understanding and applying fundamental physiological principles to the game and training programs for field hockey athletes [2].
Moreover, the performance characteristics or performance determinants of a sport are directly linked to the physiological demands of the sport. Therefore, changes in game rules, such as the duration of play, lead to changes in the physiological demands or performance determinants required in the sport [16]. Since the 2016 Rio Olympic Games, the field hockey format has changed from two 35-minute halves to four 15-minute quarters [17]. Following this change, although the demand for aerobic energy did not significantly alter [18], the total distance covered during the game decreased, and forwards were required to exhibit more high-speed running and rapid acceleration and deceleration [19]. However, studies conducted following the rule changes post-2016 are limited, and there is a notable lack of research comparing and analyzing anthropometric and physical fitness variables among elite field hockey players based on gender and position.
Therefore, this study aims to derive anthropometric and fitness variables required by gender and position through comparisons of anthropometric and physical fitness variables according to gender and position in Korean elite field hockey players.
METHODS
1. Participants
This study was conducted with 14 male (29.8±3.6 years) and 14 female (27.2±3.5 years) elite field hockey players enrolled in Incheon professional team, examining anthropometric variables, physical fitness variables. The field hockey athletes have over 10-years of training experience, participate in more than five competitions annually in their respective categories, and many have experience playing on the national team. All athletes understood the purpose of the research and voluntarily participated in the study.
2. Measurements
Athletes attended two testing sessions, separated by at least 48 hours. Test Session 1 involved anthropometric measurements including standing height, body weight (BW), and body composition. Push-up and sit-up were used to assess upper body muscular endurance. Standing long jump (SLJ) and side-steps were used to measure lower body muscular power and agility, respectively. Visual reaction time (VRT) and sit-and-reach tests were used to measure foot-eye coordination and flexibility, respectively. Handgrip and back & leg isometric strength were used to measure upper and whole-body isometric muscle strength, respectively. Shuttle run test was used to predicted maximal oxygen consumption (pVO2 max). Test Session 2 involved a Wingate 30-second test and trunk isokinetic peak torque at angular speeds of 30º/sec and 120º/sec to assess anaerobic power and trunk isokinetic muscle power, respectively.
1) Anthropometric measurement
Body composition, including lean body mass (LBM), fat mass, percent body fat (%fat), and body mass index (BMI), was assessed using a bio-electrical impedance analysis apparatus (Inbody 770; Inbody, Seoul, Korea) according to the manufacturer's instruction.
2) Physical fitness
There is a difference in the starting position for the push-up test between male and female: The start position for the push-up test for male is leaning support, while for female it is the position with knees on the floor. Athletes tried to execute as many repetitions as possible for 1 minute.
Sit-ups were performed with the assistance of a researcher who held the feet of the athletes, maintaining a 90º angle at the knees with arms crossed over the body and the hands touching the opposite shoulder. When the researcher signaled “ go”, a timer was started and the athletes performed as many repetitions as possible in 1-minute. To complete a full repetition, each athlete flexed his or her trunk, allowing the low back to come off the mat, until the athlete's elbows contacted his or her thighs. This movement was reversed to the starting position, and the sequence was repeated until 1 minute had expired. The researcher counted the number of repetitions.
For side-steps test, athletes stand with both feet together at one end of the marked distance (1.2 meters), knees slightly bent, and hands on their hips or at their sides. At the start signal, the athlete steps to the side, moving their feet together after each step, and continues stepping across the marked distance for the duration of the test (20-second). Each complete cycle (right to left) counts as one repetition.
The visual reaction time (VRT) recorded the reaction time after receiving a visual stimulus. The athlete starts in a slightly bent position of both knees and had to raise the foot from the floor (as quick as they can) after receiving the visual stimulus (ST-140, SEED Tech, Korea).
Sit-and-reach flexibility was measured with a meter stick placed between the athlete's bare feet, whereupon the athlete reached as far down the stick as possible while keeping the heels on a line on the ground, the knees straight, and one hand over the other with fingers parallel.
The start of the standing long jump is from the static position. Athletes place feet over the edge of the sandpit, crouch, lean forward, swing arms backwards and jump horizontally as far as possible. Both feet must leave the ground simultaneously during takeoff, and the result is measured as the distance between the edge of the sandpit and the closest point of contact upon landing.
Maximal isometric handgrip strength as well as back and leg strength were assessed with a handgrip dynamometer and a back and leg dynamometer (Takei Hand Grip & Back and Leg Dynamometers, Japan), respectively. Athletes performed two trials of the isometric handgrip strength test with the preferred had (dominant hand), each trial separated by at least 3 minutes. The maximum force produced during either trial was recorded as the athlete's maximal isometric strength.
The 20-meter shuttle run test was used to pVO2 max. It involved running between two lines set 20 m apart at a pace dictated by a recording emitting tones at appropriate intervals. Velocity was 8.5 km·h−1 for the first minute, which increased by 0.5 km·h−1 every minute thereafter. The test score achieved by the subject was the number of 20 m shuttles completed before the subject either withdrew voluntarily from the test, or failed to be within 3 m of the end lines on two consecutive tones. The calculation of pVO2 max was performed using the number of shuttles (reps) completed in the 20-meter shuttle run test conducted in this study. The following equation, developed from a study on developing health-related fitness standards for Koreans, was used to determine pVO2 max [20].
3) Anaerobic capacity
The 30-second anaerobic Wingate test (WT) was used to determine the anaerobic capability of the lower body. The athletes then moved to a cycle ergometer and performed a 30-second sprint at maximal speed against a resistance of 7.5% of the athlete's BW [21]. A friction-braked cycle ergometer with a pan-weighted loading system (834E Monark Ergomed, Monark Exercise, Verberg, Sweden), fixed with an optical sensor and computerized software (OptoSensor 2000, Sport Medicine Industries, St Cloud, MN), was used. The subjects warmed up before the tests and cycled with 75 W until the number of heartbeats reached 140-150 b·min-1. The athletes had to pedal the ergometer with maximal speed. Then the athletes had to work 30 seconds with maximal speed with a constant resistance (75 g/kg). Each number of performed pedals was recorded every 5-second of the 30-second with Wingate software. Test results are divided into 6 equal periods of 5-second, where peak power in watts is the highest average power output during any one 5-second period and mean power is the mean of all six 5-second periods. Fatigue percentage is the difference between peak power and the power from the lowest 5-second period.
4) Trunk isokinetic strength
Isokinetic trunk muscle function was evaluated by means of the peak torque (PT) by BW and mean muscle power, which were measured in the isokinetic dynamometer Biodex System 4 Pro® (Biodex Medical Systems Inc., Shirley, NY, USA). Following the initial instructions, each participant was seated and instructed in the techniques of stabilization, joint alignment, and the execution of maximal repetitions and two submaximal exercises designed to counteract gravity. Subsequently, trunk measurements were performed by measuring the PT and the mean power of flexion and extension of the trunk at a stable angle of 90°. Concentric contractions with constant and predetermined angular velocities were performed: three repetitions at 30°/s for the evaluation of PT by BW, and three repetitions at 120°/s for the evaluation of average muscular power. A three-minute rest interval was used between tests to minimize the potential effects of fatigue on participants’ performance.
3. Statistical analysis
All statistical analyses in this study were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 26 software, with data expressed as mean and standard deviation (SD) or median and range, depending on whether normality of data was satisfied or not. In this study, all variables were tested for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Then independent t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to assess gender differences. In position comparison, to adjust for differences due to the gender composition in each position (forwards, midfielders, defenders), ANCOVA was used to assess group differences. After finding significant differences in univariate tests, the Bonferroni correction as a post hoc analysis were used to determine a location of significant differences. When normality was not satisfied, the Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted and presented with the median and range. Significance was set at an alpha level of 0.05 for all statistical tests.
RESULTS
1. Gender comparison
In the anthropometric variables of the participants, except for age (p =.069), weight (p<.001), height (p<.001), BMI (p =.037), and lean body mass (p <.001) were all significantly higher in male players compared to female players, while %fat was higher in female players (p<.001)
For physical fitness variables, the measurements reflecting power and agility, such as SLJ (p <.001) and side steps (p <.001), as well as muscular strength indicators including isometric grip strength (p <.001) and back & leg strength (p <.001), and aerobic endurance measures such as the shuttle run (p =.006) and pVO2 max (p <.001), were higher in male players compared to female athletes. Nevertheless, there were no significant differences observed in push-up (p =.201) and sit-up (p =.155), which indicate upper body and abdominal muscular endurance, VRT (p =.798) reflecting foot-eye coordination, and sit-and-reach (p =.919) reflecting flexibility (Table 1).
Table 1.
Gender comparison of anthropometric and physical fitness variables
| Variables | Male (n=14) | Female (n=14) | t/Za | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anthropometric variables | ||||
| Age (yr) | 29.79±3.64 | 27.21±3.53 | 1.896 | .069 |
| Weight (kg) (range) | 74.95 (65.2-108.1) | 59.00 (51.9-67.6) | -4.365a | <.001 |
| Height (cm) | 177.64±4.75 | 161.41±5.20 | 8.622 | <.001 |
| Fat (%) | 16.64±5.55 | 24.50±3.89 | -4.342 | <.001 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.19 (20.8-32.4) | 22.72 (19.9-26.5) | -2.114a | .035 |
| LBM (kg) | 64.39±6.12 | 44.29±3.59 | 10.608 | <.001 |
| Physical fitness variables | ||||
| Push-up (reps/min) | 55.64±13.16 | 61.50±10.30 | -1.311 | .201 |
| Sit-up (reps/min) | 56.57±10.24 | 51.71±7.01 | 1.464 | .155 |
| SLJ (cm) | 232.14±14.33 | 195.01±15.40 | 7.117 | <.001 |
| Side-steps (reps/20 sec) | 54.79±4.74 | 46.79±3.29 | 5.188 | <.001 |
| VRT (light, sec) | 0.27 (0.21-0.29) | 0.26 (0.23-0.29) | -0.832a | .427 |
| SR flexibility (cm) | 21.8 (-5.0-26.3) | 17.7 (3.8-28.7) | -0.345a | .734 |
| HG strength (Dominant, kg) | 50.49±7.47 | 31.87±3.84 | 8.292 | <.001 |
| Back & leg strength (kg) | 132.23±15.55 | 84.11±11.92 | 9.066 | <.001 |
| Shuttle run (reps) | 110.57±16.41 | 93.79±13.33 | 2.971 | .006 |
| pVO2 max (mL/kg/min) | 58.0 (41.7-64.2) | 50.6 (40.5-55.5) | -3.493a | <.001 |
BMI, body mass index (body weight in kg/height in m2); LBM, lean body mass; SLJ, standing long jump; VRT, visual reaction time; SR, seat and reach; HG, handgrip; pVO2 max, predicted maximal oxygen consumption. Depending on whether normality of data was satisfied or not, an independent t-test or Mann-Whitney U test was employed.
In the results of the Wingate 30-second test, the average power output (p <.001) and peak power output (p <.001) were higher in male athletes compared to female athletes, while the fatigue index (p =.541) showed no significant difference. In the trunk isokinetic PT, male athletes had significantly higher values in the PT of extensors at 30º/s (p <.001) and 120º/s (p =.001) compared to female athletes, respectively. However, there were no significant gender differences in the PT of flexors at 30º/s (p =.884) and 120º/s (p =.262), and in the flexor-to-extensor ratio at both 30º/s (p =.055) and 120º/s (p =.141) (Table 2).
Table 2.
Gender Comparison of Anaerobic capacity and Isokinetic Muscle Strength
| Variables | Male (n=13) | Female (n=14) | t/Zc | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wingate 30-second testa | ||||
| Mean power output (Watts/kg) | 7.64±0.51 | 4.83±0.54 | 13.869 | <.001 |
| Peak power output (Watts/kg) | 9.72±0.67 | 6.19±0.60 | 14.453 | <.001 |
| Fatigue Index (%) | 36.68±5.33 | 33.48±17.86 | 0.620 | .541 |
| Trunk isokinetic peak torqueb | ||||
| PT of extensors at 30º/s (Nm/kg) | 359.43±30.30 | 301.67±18.90 | 4.689 | <.001 |
| PT of flexors at 30º/s (Nm/kg) | 404.71±84.27 | 409.89±54.98 | -0.149 | .884 |
| Ratio of flexor to extensors at 30º/s | 92.14±20.10 | 75.11±12.28 | 2.098 | .055 |
| PT of extensors at 120º/s (Watts/kg) | 519.0 (363.0-545.0) | 393.0 (321.0-437.0) | -2.701c | .007 |
| PT of flexors at 120º/s (Watts/kg) | 408.71±55.98 | 370.22±71.48 | 1.170 | .262 |
| Ratio of flexor to extensors at 120º/s | 123.43±24.99 | 106.33±18.93 | 1.561 | .141 |
a Fatigue Index=(Highest 5 s anaerobic power - Lowest 5 s anaerobic power/Highest 5 s anaerobic power)×100;
2. Position comparison
There were no significant differences by position in any anthropometric variables (age, p =.938; weight, p =.201; height, p =.117; %fat, p =.580; BMI, p =.241; LBM, p =.072). In terms of physical fitness variables, significant differences were found only in push-up (p =.035), with post-hoc analysis showing that FW performed better than DF (p =.041). However, no significant differences according to position were found in the other variables such as sit-up (p =.319), SLJ (p =.685), sit-and-reach (p =.501), handgrip strength (p =.075), back and leg strength (p =.576), shuttle run (p =.239), and pVO2 max (p =.248) (Table 3).
Table 3.
Position comparison of anthropometric and physical fitness variables
| Variables | FW (n=9) | MF (n=8) | DF (n=11) | F/Hb | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anthropometric variables | |||||
| Age (yr) | 28.14a ±3.67 | 28.75a ±3.88 | 28.61a ±4.05 | 0.065 | .938 |
| Weight (kg) | 64.25a ±2.86 | 68.45a ±3.03 | 71.41a ±2.59 | 1.718 | .201 |
| Height (cm) | 167.17a ±1.58 | 172.16a ±1.68 | 169.53a ±1.43 | 2.344 | .117 |
| Fat (%) | 20.70a ±1.63 | 19.13a ±1.72 | 21.51a ±1.47 | 0.557 | .580 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.81a ±0.81 | 23.09a ±0.86 | 24.56a ±0.73 | 1.513 | .241 |
| LBM (kg) | 51.22a ±1.56 | 55.71a ±1.65 | 55.90a ±1.41 | 2.934 | .072 |
| Physical fitness variables | |||||
| Push-up (reps/min) | 64.61a ±3.57 | 61.13a ±3.78 | 51.77a ±3.23* | 3.861 | .035 |
| Sit-up (reps/min) | 55.51a ±2.91 | 56.88a ±3.08 | 51.04a ±2.63 | 1.199 | .319 |
| SLJ (reps) | 203.2 (166.4-246.4) | 221.2 (170.4-245.6) | 199.2 (194.4-249.6) | 0.614b | .736 |
| SR flexibility (cm) | 20.9 (3.8-28.7) | 14.3 (1.5-25.7) | 22.4 (-5.0-26.3) | 2.148b | .342 |
| HG strength (Dominant, kg) | 37.57a ±1.85 | 43.56a ±1.96 | 42.41a ±1.68 | 2.894 | .075 |
| Back & leg strength (kg) | 103.22a ±4.68 | 109.10a ±5.31 | 109.44a ±4.24 | 0.566 | .576 |
| Shuttle run (reps) | 106.75a ±4.90 | 105.25a ±5.18 | 96.20a ±4.43 | 1.519 | .239 |
| pVO2 max (mL/kg/min) | 55.19a ±1.64 | 53.65a ±1.74 | 51.42a ±1.49 | 1.478 | .248 |
Values are expressed as mean±SEM. FW, forwards; MF, midfielders; DF, defenders; BMI, body mass index (body weight in kg/height in m2); LBM, lean body mass; SLJ, standing long jump; SR, seat and reach; HG, handgrip; pVO2 max, predicted maximal oxygen consumption. Differences in groups (FW, MF, and DF) for anthropometric and physical fitness variables were identified using ANCOVA with Bonferroni test as a post hoc analysis.
In the Wingate 30-second test, which assesses anaerobic capacity, significant differences were found according to position in both average power output (p =.022) and peak power output (p =.005), but not in the fatigue index (p =.706). Post-hoc analysis revealed that MF had higher average power compared to FW (p =.001) and DF (p =.001), and higher peak power output compared to FW (p =.005) and DF (p =.038).
In the isokinetic trunk PT test, no significant differences were found according to position in PT of extensors at 30º/s (p =.621) and 120º/s (p =.573), PT of flexors at 30º/s (p =.675) and 120º/s (p =.058), and the flexor-to-extensor ratio at both 30º/s (p =.769) and 120º/s (p =.153) (Table 4).
Table 4.
Position comparison of anaerobic capacity and isokinetic muscle strength variables
| Variables | FW (n=9) | MF (n=7) | DF (n=11) | F/Hc | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anaerobic wingate testa | |||||
| Average power output (watts/kg) | 5.96a ±0.13 | 6.78a ±0.15*** | 5.99a ±0.12### | 10.777 | .022 |
| Peak power output (watts/kg) | 7.54a ±0.18 | 8.49a ±0.20** | 7.80a ±0.10# | 6.729 | .005 |
| Fatigue index (%) | 33.96a ±4.54 | 39.99a ±5.15 | 32.73a ±4.11 | 0.360 | .706 |
| Trunk isokinetic peak torque (pt)b | |||||
| Pt of extensors at 30º/s (nm/kg) | 331.21a ±9.01 | 329.44a ±13.4 | 315.89a ±12.95 | 0.495 | .621 |
| Pt of flexors at 30º/s (nm/kg) | 423.54a ±25.65 | 384.45a ±38.13 | 398.98a ±36.85 | 0.406 | .675 |
| Ratio of flexor to extensors at 30º/s | 80.05a ±6.05 | 88.11a ±8.99 | 82.04a ±8.69 | 0.269 | .769 |
| Pt of extensors at 120º/s (watts/kg) | 412.5 (321.0-545.0) | 508.0 (380.0-523.0) | 378.0 (360.0-437.0) | 2.447c | .294 |
| Pt of flexors at 120º/s (watts/kg) | 354.18a ±19.77 | 450.42a ±29.40 | 389.50a ±28.40 | 3.632 | .058 |
| Ratio of flexor to extensors at 120º/s | 124.42a ±7.13 | 101.26a ±10.60 | 105.15a ±10.24 | 2.208 | .153 |
FW, forwards; MF, midfielders; DF, defenders. Differences in groups (FW, MF, and DF) for anthropometric and physical fitness variables were identified using ANCOVA with Bonferroni test as a post hoc analysis.
b Values of peak torque relative to body mass of trunk extensor and flexor muscles at angular speeds of 30º/s and 120º/s for both groups (women and men);
Table 5 shows the correlations between anthropometric and physical fitness variables in male players. Height was positively correlated only with VRT (r=0.618, p =.018). Weight showed negative correlations with push-up (r=-0.783, p =.001), side-steps (r=-0.539, p =.047), shuttle run (r=-0.932, p <.001), and pVO2 max (r=-0.836, p <.001), but a positive correlation with back and leg strength (r=0.589, p =.034). BMI and %fat showed similar negative correlations with push-up (r=-0.896, p <.001; r=-0.844, p <.001), side steps (r=-0.616, p =.019; r=-0.651, p =.012), shuttle run (r=-0.939, p <.001; r=-0.873, p <.001), and pVO2 max (r=-0.894, p <.001; r=-0.884, p <.001), except for back and leg strength. Conversely, LBM showed negative correlations with shuttle run (r=-0.698, p =.006) and pVO2 max (r=-0.547, p =.043), but positive correlations with VRT (r=0.625, p =.017), handgrip strength (r=0.681, p =.007), and back and leg strength (r=0.683, p =.010).
Table 5.
Correlation table for anthropometric variables and significant associations with fitness variables in male athletes (n=14)
Table 6 presents the correlation between anthropometric measurements and physical fitness of female field hockey players. Height positively correlated with SLJ (r=0.577, p =.031) and PT of Flex 120˚/s (r=0.828, p =.006), while it negatively correlated with push-up (r=-0.533, p =.04). Weight has shown a positive correlation with VRT (r=0.590, p =.026), mean power (r=0.637, p =.014), and PT of Flex 120˚/s (r=0.817, p =.007). Only pVO2 max (r=-0.571, p =.033) has shown negative correlation with weight. BMI showed a negative correlation with side-steps (r=-0.577, p =.031) and pVO2 max (r=0-.555, p =.039). The %fat also showed a negative correlation with SLJ (r=-0.630, p =.016), PT of Ex 30˚/s (r=-0.813, p =.008), and PT of Ex 120˚/s (r=-0.571, p =.033). LBM has shown a positive correlation with VRT (r=0.566, p =.035), handgrip strength (r=0.598, p =.024), back & leg strength (r=0.550, p =.041), mean power (r=0.536, p =.048), peak power (r=0.643, p =.013), PT of Ex 120˚/s (r=0.789, p =.011), and PT of Ex 30˚/s (r=0.748, p =.021).
Table 6.
Correlation table for anthropometric variables and significant associations with fitness variables in female athletes
BMI, body mass index (body weight in kg/height in m2); LBM, lean body mass; SLJ, standing long jump; VRT, visual reaction time; pVO2 max, predicted maximal oxygen consumption. The Pearson correlation coefficient method is applied. Height had a high positive correlation (r=0.690, p=.006) with LBM, which is associated with muscle strength. However, height showed a low negative correlation with % fat (r=-0.375, p=.186), which is inversely correlated with leg strength variables.
DISCUSSION
To our knowledge, no studies have been conducted to compare and analyze the differences in anthropometric and physical fitness variables for elite field hockey athletes according to their gender and position.
This study aimed to analyze the differences in anthropometric and physical strength variables by gender and position of elite field hockey players and to identify the correlation between these variables. The following main results were derived from this analysis: i) In the category of maximal isometric strength and anaerobic power, female athletes exhibited 36.9% and 36.3% lower in handgrip strength and back and leg strength, respectively, compared to male athletes. Regarding anaerobic capacity, the mean power output and peak power output were found to be approximately both 36.2% lower in female compared to male. Furthermore, trunk isokinetic strength measurements showed that extensor muscles at 30°/s and 120°/s were 17.2% and 22.6% lower, respectively, in women compared to men. Female athletes also demonstrated significantly lower values in power (SLJ, 15.9%), agility (side-steps, 16.6%), and aerobic endurance (Shuttle run, 15.2%; pVO2 max, 13.2%) (Fig. 1). ii) In comparison of position, the push-up, which reflects upper body muscular endurance, showed significantly higher repetitions in FW compared to DF. Both mean and peak power output, which reflect anaerobic capability, were significantly higher in MF compared to FW and DF. iii) Female athletes exhibited a greater diversity of correlations between anthropometric and physical fitness variables than male athletes. For both male and female athletes, the %fat and LBM were identified as major anthropometric factors that enhance muscle strength, anaerobic power, and aerobic endurance.
Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.Ratio of female field hockey athletes’ physical fitness compared to male athletes. Percentage (%) indicates the relative fitness level of women when the physical fitness level of men is set to 100%. ns, no significant; PT, peak torque. * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001.
1) Gender comparison of anthropometric and physical fitness
The findings of previous studies on elite field hockey players are consistent with those of the present study. Female athletes exhibited higher %fat, male athletes exhibited higher LBM as well as handgrip strength, bench press, vertical jump, anaerobic mean and peak power, agility, and aerobic endurance [14,15,22]. In general, the upper body strength of female is 50-60% of male, and the lower body strength is 60-70%. Espe-cially, handgrip strength is about 60%, trunk flexors strength is about 60% and trunk extensors strength is about 55-60% of male [23]. Also, the Wingate anaerobic capacity of female is 65% of male in college students [24]. The difference in the general population's strength between the gender is greater than that observed in elite athletes. In the general population, the difference in strength between the gender is more pronounced than that observed among elite athletes. This difference is attributed to the higher participation rates of males in strength training exercises compared to females [25]. In addition, the present study shows significant difference only extensors PT in trunk isokinetic strength. In Zouita et al. [26], a comparison of trunk isokinetic strength between elite and non-elite athletes showed that the elite athletes exhibited greater trunk extensions than non-elite athletes, although there was no significant difference in flexors. This suggests that the difference in the strength level of the trunk flexors according to training is insubstantial, whereas the extensors may demonstrate a notable difference. One limitation of the present study was the inability to measure the push-up in the same way for male and female athletes. Female athletes were measured in a kneeling posture, whereas male athletes were not. It is postulated that no significant difference existed between the gender due to the disparate measurement techniques employed.
According to Santisteban et al. [27], the rapid improvement in female marathon runners’ records relative to male can attributed to an understanding gender differences and applying appropriate training methods to female. In the same context, the results of present study can provide elite field hockey players with insights for training programs to improve their performance levels.
2) Position comparison of anthropometric and physical fitness
In comparison between positions, there was no significant difference in anthropometric variables, and only push-ups in physical fitness variables showed higher in FW than in DF. It is difficult to interpret due to lack of prior studies comparing upper body muscular endurance between positions, but it can be suggested that FW may need a high level of upper body strength. In the anaerobic power, the MF was higher than the FW and DF in both the average and maximum power output of the Wingate anaerobic test. As reported by Glaude-Roy et al. [28], there is a strong correlation between anaerobic capacity and maximum running speed. A comparison of the performance requirements of elite field hockey athletes by position since 2016 revealed that male FW and MF exhibited higher speed and distances covered at high speeds than DF [29,30], while DF covered less distance at high speeds than FW and MF [31]. Female FW and MF also demonstrated higher high-speed distance [32], while only FW exhibited higher maximal speeds than MF and DF in Korean female field hockey players [33].
Considering all aspects, the present study showed that the MF had a high level of anaerobic capacity, and previous research indicates that both the FW and MF have high running speeds and cover greater distances, which the MF position requires fast running corresponding to high anaerobic capacity. Consequently, it can be suggested that training programs can be effectively developed and implemented to address position-specific characteristics by monitoring the physical fitness variables associated with each position.
3) Correlation analysis
The present study analyzed the correlation between anthropometric and physical fitness variables in male and female athletes. According to the results of the analysis, the anthropometric variables that male and female field hockey players should manage in common are weight, BMI, and LBM. Increasing LBM is beneficial for both male and female athletes as it contributes to the increase in reaction time and muscle strength. It is also important for both male and female athletes to control their weight and BMI, as a reduction in weight and BMI will increase the value of relative VO2 max (mL/kg/min) rather than absolute VO2 max. However, the increase in relative VO2 max is important because it can extend the time during which an athlete can perform without fatigue throughout the entire duration of the game.
Both male and female athletes have different requirements based on height. Tall male athletes need to train for faster reaction time, while taller female athletes have higher speed and trunk isokinetic flexors. Conversely, shorter height increases upper body muscle endurance. These results display the relation of physical fitness characteristics to anthropometric conditions.
Regarding the anthropometric variables that should be regulated differently based on gender, male athletes should manage their weight, BMI, and especially %fat. Less weight leads to the increase of agility, upper body muscular endurance, and aerobic capacity, while more weight stimulates the increase of absolute muscular strength. Although not shown in the Table 5, the correlation between the relative back and leg strength, when normalized by body weight, and body weight itself did show a significant inverse relationship (r=-0.598, p =.031). Therefore, weight should be managed according to the physical strength variable that requires improvement. Additionally, the lower the BMI and %fat contribute to the higher muscular endurance and aerobic capacity, making it is necessary to keep them low.
Notably, there were more correlations for female athletes than for male athletes. Female athletes should manage their weight, %fat, and especially LBM. High weight increases reaction time, anaerobic capacity, and trunk isokinetic flexors. Lower %fat increases reaction time and trunk extensor isokinetic strength (30º/s and 120º/s), and higher LBM increases anaerobic capacity and trunk extensor and flexor isokinetic strength (120º/s). Therefore, the maintenance of an appropriate body weight by reducing %fat and increasing LBM is essential for the improvement of performance levels of female field hockey athletes.
In summary, males and females field hockey athletes should aim to maintain a high level of LBM and a low level of %fat, weight, and BMI. In particular, it is highly recommended to manage lower %fat to improve aerobic capacity in male athletes and manage higher LBM to improve anaerobic capacity and trunk isokinetic strength in female athletes. Therefore, the present study proposes that anthropometric variables may affect physical fitness variables in different ways depending on gender, and that the physical fitness variables requiring improvement should be tailored according to gender.
One of the strengths of this study is that it measured both aerobic and anaerobic power, as well as isokinetic strength, including basic physical fitness, which are essential for understanding both the fitness characteristics and the physiological demands of field hockey players. However, a limitation is that the sample size is not large because it focused solely on professional athletes enrolled in one region. Therefore, it is necessary to include male and female field hockey players from various regions for evaluation in future research.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, anthropometric and physical fitness differences may emerge by gender and position depending on the characteristics of the sport. Therefore, examining these gender- and position-specific differences in the sport of field hockey is essential for understanding not only the physical fitness characteristics but also the physiological demands of this sport. This research may provide valuable insights into the development of more effective training regimens, tailored to the specific needs of gender and position in field hockey athletes.
PDF Links
PubReader
ePub Link
XML Download
Full text via DOI
Download Citation 
Print 
