Comparison of Anthropometric and Physical Fitness Variables Based on Gender and Position in Elite Field Hockey Players

Article information

Exerc Sci. 2024;33(4):447-457

Publication date (electronic) : 2024 November 30

doi : https://doi.org/10.15857/ksep.2024.00465

Jane Kim ¹^,^†

, Hee-Jung Park, MS ²^,^†

, Do-Youn Kim, PhD ³

, Su-Jin Kim, PhD ⁴

, Dong-Ho Park, PhD ⁵^,

¹Chadwick International School in Songdo, Incheon, Korea

²Department of Kinesiology, Inha University, Incheon, Korea

³Center for Sport Science in Incheon, Incheon, Korea

⁴Department of Pharmacology and Research Center for Controlling Intercellular Communication, College of Medicine, Inha University, Incheon, Korea

⁵Department of Biomedical Science, Program in Biomedical Science and Engineering, Inha University, Incheon, Korea

Corresponding author: Dong-Ho Park Tel +82-32-860-8182 Fax +82-32-860-8188 E-mail dparkosu@inha.ac.kr

†Jane Kim and Hee-Jung Park contributed equally as first authors.

*This work was supported by INHA UNIVERSITY Research Grant.

Received 2024 August 28; Revised 2024 October 22; Accepted 2024 November 12.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to derive anthropometric and fitness characteristics required by sex and position in Korean elite field hockey athletes.

METHODS

This study included 14 male (29.8±3.6 years) and 14 female (27.2±3.5 years) elite field hockey players. They were examined for anthropometric (weight, height, %body fat, etc.) and physical fitness variables (push-up, sit-up, side-steps, etc.), including isometric strength (handgrip and back & leg strength), anaerobic capacity (Wingate 30s test), and trunk isokinetic peak torque (30°/s and 120°/s).

RESULTS

Male players outperformed female players on most physical fitness variables. Specifically, female athletes had significantly lower isometric muscle strength (26–37%, p<.001) and anaerobic capacity (36%, p<.001) than male athletes, but these differences were less pronounced in measures of muscle power variables (12–23%, p<.001) and cardiorespiratory endurance (14%, p<.001). Forwards (FW) excelled in push-ups compared to defenders (DF; p<.05), and midfielders (MF) had higher mean and peak powers in the Wingate tests compared to FW and DF (p<.05). Finally, the correlation between anthropometric and physical fitness variables appears to differ depending on sex.

CONCLUSIONS

Male athletes performed better than female athletes on most physical fitness measures, although differences were observed depending on their motor ability. MF showed higher anaerobic power than FW and DF. In addition, the correlation between anthropometric and physical fitness variables appears to differ depending on sex. Therefore, the findings of the present study emphasize the need for sex-specific and positional demands in training programs to optimize performance.

Keywords: Field hockey; Anthropometry; Physical fitness; Gender; Position

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].

Male:48.55−(0.08×Age)−(0.021×Height)−(0.146×Weight)+(0.234×reps)Female:34.305−(0.039×Age)−(0.018×Height)−(0.161×Weight)+(0.305×reps)

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Notes

This research did not receive any financial or other support from any organization, and there are no conflicts of interest that could have influenced the outcomes of this study.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization: J Kim; Data curation: DY Kim; Formal analysis: J Kim, HJ Park, SJ Kim; Methodology: J Kim, HJ Park; Project administration: DY Kim; Visualization: HJ Park, SJ Kim; Writing - original draft: J Kim, HJ Park.

References

1. . Bishop C, Brazier J, Cree J, Turner A, Anthony T. A needs analysis and testing battery for field hockey. Professional strength and Conditioning 2015;36:15–26.

2. . Reilly T, Borrie A. Physiology applied to field hockey. Sports Medicine 1992;14:10–26.

3. . Lemos RS, Paz GA, de Freitas Maia M, da Silva JB, Lima VP, et al. Anthropometric and physical fitness parameters versus specific performance tests in Brazilian field hockey athletes: a pilot study. Biomedical Human Kinetics 2017;9(1):57–63.

4. . Garcia-Gil M, Torres-Unda J, Esain I, Duñabeitia I, Gil SM, et al. Anthropometric parameters, age, and agility as performance predictors in elite female basketball players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 2018;32(6):1723–30.

5. . Angyan L, Teczely T, Zalay Z, Karsai I. Relationship of anthropometrical, physiological and motor attributes to sport-specific skills. Acta physiologica hungarica 2003;90(3):225–31.

6. . Septianingrum K, Sugiyanto S, Kristiyanto A. Physical condition as a contribution of shooting accuracy with flick drag technique. ACTIVE: Journal of Physical Education, Sport, Health and Recreation 2018;7(2):58–62.

7. . Hanjabam B, Kailashiya J. Study of ball hitting speed and related physiological and anthropometric characteristics in field hockey players. Asian Academic Research Journal of Multidisciplinary 2014;1(22):398–410.

8. . Wassmer D, Mookerjee S. A descriptive profile of elite US women's collegiate field hockey players. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2002;42(2):165.

9. . Geithner CA, Lee AM, Bracko MR. Physical and performance differences among forwards, defensemen, and goalies in elite women's ice hockey. J Strength Cond Res 2006;20(3):500–5.

10. . Mohammad MS, Shahbaaz M, Prasad BK. Comparative assessment of selected motor components and anthropometric mesurements of different positional field hockey players. International Journal of Phsical Education, Health and Social Science 2020;9(2)

11. . Singh L, Mitra S. Comparative assessment of motor fitness among different positional field hockey players. International Journal of Reseach Culture Society 2019;3(1):23–7.

12. . Kapteijns JA, Caen K, Lievens M, Bourgois JG, Boone J. Positional match running performance and performance profiles of elite female field hockey. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 2021;16(9):1295–302.

13. . Powell C, Sparks M, Pienaar C. Positional and between quarter differences in physical demands of elite female field hockey players during international matches. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 2023;5doi: 10.3389/fspor.2023.1296752.

14. . Norton K, Olds T, Olive S, Craig NP. Anthropometry and sports performance. 1st ed., UNSW Press 1996. 287–364.

15. . (FIH) TIHF. FIH changes match format from two halves to four-quarters for Rio 2016 Olympic Games 2014 March 20;2014[cited 2024 May 16]. Available from: http://www.fih.ch/files/pictures/news/2014%20News%20Photos/FIH%20%20Media%20Release%20-%2020th%20March%202014%20-%20FIH%20changes%20match%20format%20from%20two%20halves%20to%20four-quarters.pdf.

16. . Stagno K, Thatcher R, Van Someren K. Seasonal variation in the physiological profile of high-level male field hockey players. Biol Sport 2005;22(2):107–15.

17. . Lam EP, Sunderland CD, Morris JG, Furlong L-AM, Mason BS, et al. Effect of changing match format from halves to quarters on the performance characteristics of male university field hockey players. Sensors 2021;21(16):5490.

18. . Chung J, Yoo J, Koh B, Song H, Im S. Model development of fitness certification center. Reasearch report, Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism 2014.

19. . Bar-Or O, Dotan R, Inbar O, Rothstein A, Karlsson J, et al. Anaerobic capacity and muscle fiber type distribution in man. International journal of sports medicine 1980;1(02):82–5.

20. . Hanjabam B, Kailashiya J. Gender difference in fatigue index and its related physiology. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 2015;59(2):170–4.

21. . Bartolomei S, D'Amico A, Treno F, Cortesi M, Pagliara S, et al. Influences of sex on muscle architecture and performance in elite field hockey players. Applied Sciences 2023;13(20):11314.

22. . Sharma HB, Kailashiya J. Gender difference in aerobic capacity and the contribution by body composition and haemoglobin concentration: a study in young Indian national hockey players. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research 2016;10(11):CC09.

23. . Nuzzo JL. Narrative review of sex differences in muscle strength, endurance, activation, size, fiber type, and strength training participation rates, preferences, motivations, injuries, and neuromuscular adaptations. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 2023;37(2):494–536.

24. . Hill DW, Smith JC. Gender difference in anaerobic capacity: role of aerobic contribution. Br J Sports Med 1993;27(1):45–8.

25. . Nuzzo JL. Sex difference in participation in muscle-strengthening activities. Journal of lifestyle medicine 2020;10(2):110.

26. . Zouita ABM, Salah FZB, Dziri C, Beardsley C. Comparison of isokinetic trunk flexion and extension torques and powers between athletes and nonathletes. Journal of exercise rehabilitation 2018;14(1):72.

27. . Santisteban KJ, Lovering AT, Halliwill JR, Minson CT. Sex differences in VO2max and the impact on endurance-exercise performance. International journal of environmental research and public health 2022;19(9):4946.

28. . Glaude-Roy J, Pharand P, Brunelle J-F, Lemoyne J. Exploring associations between sprinting mechanical capabilities, anaerobic capacity, and repeated-sprint ability of adolescent ice hockey players. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 2023;5Doi: 10.3389/fspor.2023.1258497.

29. . James CA, Gibson OR, Dhawan A, Stewart CM, Willmott AG. Volume and intensity of locomotor activity in international men's field hockey matches over a 2-year period. Frontiers in sports and active living 2021;3:653364. Doi: 10.3389/fspor.2021.653364.

30. . Lombard WP, Cai X, Lambert MI, Chen X, Mao L. Relationships between physiological characteristics and match demands in elite-level male field hockey players. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 2021;16(4):985–93.

31. . Lin L, Ji X, Zhang L, Weng H, Wang X. Physical, physiological demands and movement profiles of elite men's field hockey games. Kinesiology 2023;55(1):73–84.

32. . McGuinness A, Kenna D, Grainger A, Collins K. Investigating the effect of individual rotations on the physical and physiological performance in elite female field hockey players. Applied Sciences 2021;11(3):1022. Doi: 10.3390/app11031022.

33. . Kim J, Park J, Choi E, Lee S. Analysis of elite korean women's hockey sprint characteristics in international games: focus on the 2016-2018 A-match. Korean Journal of Sport Biomechanics 2021;31(4):234–40.

Article information Continued

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Variables	Male (n=14)	Female (n=14)	t/Z^a	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)	-4.365^a	<.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)	-2.114^a	.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)	-0.832^a	.427
SR flexibility (cm)	21.8 (-5.0-26.3)	17.7 (3.8-28.7)	-0.345^a	.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)	-3.493^a	<.001

Variables	Male (n=13)	Female (n=14)	t/Z^c	p
Wingate 30-second test^a
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 torque^b
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)	-2.701^c	.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

Variables	FW (n=9)	MF (n=8)	DF (n=11)	F/H^b	p
Anthropometric variables
Age (yr)	28.14^a ±3.67	28.75^a ±3.88	28.61^a ±4.05	0.065	.938
Weight (kg)	64.25^a ±2.86	68.45^a ±3.03	71.41^a ±2.59	1.718	.201
Height (cm)	167.17^a ±1.58	172.16^a ±1.68	169.53^a ±1.43	2.344	.117
Fat (%)	20.70^a ±1.63	19.13^a ±1.72	21.51^a ±1.47	0.557	.580
BMI (kg/m²)	22.81^a ±0.81	23.09^a ±0.86	24.56^a ±0.73	1.513	.241
LBM (kg)	51.22^a ±1.56	55.71^a ±1.65	55.90^a ±1.41	2.934	.072
Physical fitness variables
Push-up (reps/min)	64.61^a ±3.57	61.13^a ±3.78	51.77^a ±3.23*	3.861	.035
Sit-up (reps/min)	55.51^a ±2.91	56.88^a ±3.08	51.04^a ±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)	0.614^b	.736
SR flexibility (cm)	20.9 (3.8-28.7)	14.3 (1.5-25.7)	22.4 (-5.0-26.3)	2.148^b	.342
HG strength (Dominant, kg)	37.57^a ±1.85	43.56^a ±1.96	42.41^a ±1.68	2.894	.075
Back & leg strength (kg)	103.22^a ±4.68	109.10^a ±5.31	109.44^a ±4.24	0.566	.576
Shuttle run (reps)	106.75^a ±4.90	105.25^a ±5.18	96.20^a ±4.43	1.519	.239
pVO₂ max (mL/kg/min)	55.19^a ±1.64	53.65^a ±1.74	51.42^a ±1.49	1.478	.248

Variables	FW (n=9)	MF (n=7)	DF (n=11)	F/H^c	p
Anaerobic wingate test^a
Average power output (watts/kg)	5.96^a ±0.13	6.78^a ±0.15***	5.99^a ±0.12^###	10.777	.022
Peak power output (watts/kg)	7.54^a ±0.18	8.49^a ±0.20**	7.80^a ±0.10^#	6.729	.005
Fatigue index (%)	33.96^a ±4.54	39.99^a ±5.15	32.73^a ±4.11	0.360	.706
Trunk isokinetic peak torque (pt)^b
Pt of extensors at 30º/s (nm/kg)	331.21^a ±9.01	329.44^a ±13.4	315.89^a ±12.95	0.495	.621
Pt of flexors at 30º/s (nm/kg)	423.54^a ±25.65	384.45^a ±38.13	398.98^a ±36.85	0.406	.675
Ratio of flexor to extensors at 30º/s	80.05^a ±6.05	88.11^a ±8.99	82.04^a ±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)	2.447^c	.294
Pt of flexors at 120º/s (watts/kg)	354.18^a ±19.77	450.42^a ±29.40	389.50^a ±28.40	3.632	.058
Ratio of flexor to extensors at 120º/s	124.42^a ±7.13	101.26^a ±10.60	105.15^a ±10.24	2.208	.153

Variables		Push-up	SLJ	Side-steps	VRT	Handgrip strength (Dominant)	Back & leg strength	Mean power (Watts/kg)	Peak power (Watts/kg)	pVO₂ max	PT of Ex 30º/s (Nm/kg)	PT of Ex 120º/s (Watts/kg)	PT of Flex 120º/s (Watts/kg)
Height	r	-0.553*	0.577*	0.369	0.272	0.248	0.300	0.435	0.426	-0.046	0.234	0.466	0.828**
	p	.040	.031	.194	.347	.393	.298	.120	.129	.876	.545	.206	.006
	N	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	9	9	9
Weight	r	-0.184	-0.039	-0.277	0.590*	0.493	0.429	0.637*	0.506	-0.571*	-0.118	0.414	0.817**
	p	.529	.895	.338	.026	.074	.126	.014	.065	.033	.762	.269	.007
	N	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	9	9	9
BMI	r	0.250	-0.519	-0.577*	0.397	0.315	0.197	0.323	0.182	-0.555*	-0.412	-0.100	-0.026
	p	.389	.057	.031	.160	.273	.500	.261	.533	.039	.271	.799	.948
	N	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	9	9	9
% Fat	r	0.251	-0.630*	-0.185	0.063	-0.208	-0.188	0.173	-0.218	-0.147	-0.813**	-0.880**	-0.151
	p	.387	.016	.526	.830	.476	.520	.555	.455	.616	.008	.002	.698
	N	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	9	9	9
LBM	r	-0.342	0.368	-0.135	0.566*	0.598*	0.550*	0.536*	0.643*	-0.446	0.327	0.789*	0.748*
	p	.232	.196	.646	.035	.024	.041	.048	.013	.110	.390	.011	.021
	N	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	9	9	9

Variables		Push-up	Side-steps	VRT	Shuttle run	pVO₂ max	Handgrip strength (Dominant)	Back & leg strength
Height	r	-0.045	0.008	0.618*	-0.342	-0.180	0.531	0.513
	p	.878	.979	.018	.231	.537	.051	.073
	N	14	14	14	14	14	14	13
Weight	r	-0.783**	-0.539*	0.454	-0.932**	-0.836**	0.477	0.589*
	p	.001	.047	.103	<.001	<.001	.085	.034
	N	14	14	14	14	14	14	13
BMI	r	-0.896**	-0.616*	0.277	-0.939**	-0.894**	0.339	0.479
	p	<.001	.019	.338	.000	.000	.236	.098
	N	14	14	14	14	14	14	13
% Fat	r	-0.844**	-0.651*	0.089	-0.873**	-0.884**	0.033	0.323
	p	<.001	.012	.762	<.001	.000	.912	.282
	N	14	14	14	14	14	14	13
LBM	r	-0.522	-0.251	0.625*	-0.698**	-0.547*	0.681**	0.683*
	p	.056	.386	.017	.006	.043	.007	.010
	N	14	14	14	14	14	14	13