CC BY
26Motor abilities: methods of strength and strength endurance development in middle-school-aged boys in a 4-week physical training cycle
Veremeenko V.YuABCDE, Khudolii О.МABCDE, Ivashchenko О.VABCDE Faculty of Physical Education and Sports, H.S. Skovoroda Kharkiv National Pedagogical University, Ukraine
Authors' Contribution: A - Study design; B - Data collection; C - Statistical analysis; D - Manuscript Preparation; E - Funds Collection Abstract Purpose:
Material:
Results:
Conclusions:
Keywords:
The study purpose was to develop a technology of programming for strength and strength endurance development in middle-school-aged boys in a 4-week physical training cycle.
The study participants were boys of 6th grade (n=35), 7th grade (n=36), 8th grade (n=36). The study materials were processed by the IBM SPSS 23 statistical analysis software. The following parameters were calculated: arithmetic mean (X); standard deviation (s). The probability of difference in statistical indicators was estimated using the Student's t-test.
The analysis of the study results demonstrated that after using a combined method of strength development (1-6 classes), the experimental group boys showed a statistically significant improvement in results in the set of tests (p < 0.05). After using a combined method of strength development, the 6th-8th grade boys had the largest increase in the results of strength and strength endurance of shoulder muscles, strength and strength endurance of abdominal muscles, strength and static strength endurance of leg muscles (p < 0.05). After using a circuit training method (7-12 classes), the experimental group boys also showed a statistically significant improvement in results in the set of tests (p < 0.05). The 6th-8th grade boys had the largest increase in the results of dynamic and static strength endurance of shoulder muscles, abdominal and back muscles, leg muscles (p < 0.05). According to the Eurofit motor fitness tests, after using the combined method of strength development (1-6 classes) and the circuit training method (7-12 classes) in a 4-week training cycle, the experimental group boys showed a statistically significant improvement in results in the set of tests (p < 0.05). During the experiment, the 6th-8th grade boys of the control group showed no statistically significant improvement in test results for most parameters (p > 0.05). A comparison between the levels of strength fitness of the control group boys and experimental group boys after the experiment showed that the experimental group boys had statistically significantly better results of strength and strength endurance of shoulder muscles, abdominal and back muscles, leg muscles (p < 0.05).
After using the combined method of strength development (1-6 classes) and the circuit training method (7-12 classes) in a 4-week physical training cycle, the middle-school-aged boys showed positive dynamics of strength and strength endurance development of shoulder muscles, abdominal and back muscles, leg muscles. The dynamics of strength and static endurance of the local muscle group is strongly influenced by the combined method of strength development. The circuit training method is effective to develop dynamic and static strength endurance of the local muscle group. For overall development of strength and general endurance, it is effective to use a combination of the combined method of strength development and circuit training method in a 4-week physical training cycle. boys, circuit training method, combined method, mischool age.
Introduction
Studying motor fitness of schoolchildren is one of the most important issues in school physical education [1, 2, 3]. A solution to this issue is related to the following perspectives:
• optimization of motor activity, health promotion and protection of children and adolescents [1, 4];
• planning and control of motor abilities development [5, 6];
• improvement in teaching physical exercises [7, 8]. The papers by Liakh [9], Ivaschenko [5] focus on the
search for means and methods aimed at developing motor
abilities in children and adolescents. The researchers
determined the principles of strength development
methods, revealed regularities, means and methods, as well
as pedagogical control over motor abilities development
© VeremeenkoV.Yu., Khudolii O.M., Ivashchenko O.V., 2019 doi:10.15561/18189172.2019.0208
in schoolchildren [9, 5], identified the influence of various forms of lessons on improving motor fitness of middle-school-aged boys, found that boys of this age undergo an overall development of motor abilities [10, 11].
The analysis of scientific literature showed that:
• strength fitness can be regarded as a basis for speed and endurance development [12, 11];
• circuit training method is effective for developing general and local strength endurance [12, 13];
• combined method of strength development is preferable for overall development of muscle groups [14].
Thus, additional research is needed to study the impact of a series of physical training classes using the combined method of strength development and the circuit training method on the dynamics of strength abilities and strength endurance development in middle-school-aged boys.
The study purpose was to develop methods for strength and strength endurance development in middle-school-aged boys in a 4-week physical training cycle.
The study object was the process of physical education of 6th-8th grade boys.
Materials and methods
Participants. The study participants were boys of 6th grade (n=35), 7th grade (n=36), 8th grade (n=36). The children and their parents were fully informed about all the features of the study and gave their consent to participate in the experiment.
Research Design. The study was conducted in a 4-week physical training cycle. For experimental groups, lessons in developing strength and strength endurance of shoulder muscles, abdominal and back muscles, leg muscles were conducted according to the following scheme: combined method of strength development, 1-6 classes; mode of exercising: dynamic effort method, 5 repetitions with a 45-second rest interval between sets; maximum effort method, 3 repetitions with a 45-second rest interval between sets; isometric effort method, 3 repetitions with a 45-second rest interval; repetition effort method, 10-12 repetitions with a 45-second rest interval; circuit training method, 7-12 classes.
The circuit training included two classes aimed at developing shoulder muscle endurance (first - maximum, second - 50% of maximum), two classes developing abdominal and back muscle endurance (first - maximum, second - 50% of maximum), two classes developing leg muscle endurance (first - maximum, second - 50% of maximum).
For control groups, an overall development of motor abilities was carried out according to the curriculum during physical training classes.
To solve the tasks set, the following research methods were used: analysis of scientific and methodological literature, pedagogical testing, and methods of mathematical statistics for processing research results.
The experimental group was tested before the experiment, after six classes of combined strength development and after six circuit training classes. The control group was tested before the experiment and after a 4-week cycle according to the school curriculum.
Testing procedure. The testing procedure included commonly known tests [9, 5, 16].
Test 1. Pull-Up / Chin Up Test (low crossbar), quantity of times;
Test 2. Bent Arm Hang Test (two hands), sec.;
Test 3. Pull-Up / Chin Up Test (Rope Climbing), quantity of times;
Test 4. Cadence Push-Up Test, quantity of times;
Test 5. The subject lies in prone position, arms bent at the elbow 90 degrees - hold position in seconds;
Test 6. Pull Up Bar - Straight Leg Hanging Leg Raises, quantity of times;
Test 7. Hanging Leg Raises, sec.;
Test 8. Decline Reverse Crunch on Bench, quantity of times;
Test 9. Trunk Lift Test, quantity of times;
Test 10. Squats Test (two legs), quantity of times;
Test 11. Single Leg Squat (SLS) Test - right leg, quantity of times;
Test 12. Single Leg Squat (SLS) Test - left leg, quantity of times;
Test 13. Single Leg Squat (Pistol) - right leg;
Test 14. Single Leg Squat (Pistol) - left leg;
Test 15. Handgrip Strength Test, kg;
Test 16. Standing Long Jump Test (Broad Jump), cm;
Test 17. Eurofit Sit Up Test (for 30 sec.), quantity of times;
Test 18. 4x9 m Shuttle Run Test, sec.;
Test 19. Hand Tapping Test, sec.;
Test 20. Seated Forward Bend, cm;
Test 21. Flamingo Balance Test - single leg balance test;
Test 22. Harvard Step Test.
During shoulder muscle testing, the following parameters were measured: Pull-Up / Chin Up Test (shoulder flexion strength), Bent Arm Hang Test (shoulder flexion static endurance), Pull-Up / Chin Up Test (Rope Climbing) (shoulder flexion strength endurance), Cadence Push-Up Test and The subject lies in prone position, arms bent at the elbow 90 degrees - hold position in seconds (shoulder extension strength).
During abdominal and back muscle testing, the following parameters were measured: Pull Up Bar -Straight Leg Hanging Leg Raises (abdominal muscle strength), Hanging Leg Raises (abdominal muscle static endurance), Decline Reverse Crunch on Bench (abdominal muscle strength endurance), Trunk Lift Test (back muscle endurance).
During leg muscle testing, the following parameters were measured: Squats Test (two legs) (leg muscle strength endurance), Single Leg Squat Test - right leg, Single Leg Squat Test - left leg (leg muscle strength), Single Leg Squat (Pistol) - right leg, Single Leg Squat (Pistol) - left leg (leg muscle static endurance).
The study also measured motor abilities parameters using the Eurofit tests: Handgrip Strength Test (hand flexion strength), Standing Long Jump Test (speed and strength), Eurofit Sit Up Test (for 30 sec.) (abdominal muscle strength endurance), 4x9 m Shuttle Run Test (dexterity), Hand Tapping Test (speed), Seated Forward Bend (flexibility), Flamingo Balance Test (static balance of the body).
Statistical analysis. The study used the IBM SPSS 23 software. For each variable, the following statistics were calculated: mean values, standard deviations, Student's t-test for paired samples and Student's t-test for independent samples.
The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Committee of H. S. Skovoroda Kharkiv National Pedagogical University. In addition, the children and their parents or legal guardians were fully informed about all the features of the study, and a signed informed-consent document was obtained from all the parents.
Results
Tables 1-6 present the test results of strength fitness of the control and experimental group boys.
After the combined method of strength development
(see Table 1), the experimental group boys showed a statistically significant improvement in results in the set of tests (p < 0.05).
The test results of shoulder muscle strength of the 6th
Table 1. Test results of strength fitness of 6th -8th grade boys (experimental group). Combined method of strength development
No. Test Grade Before experiment x s After experiment xs Increase % t P
Pull-Up / Chin Up Test 6 3.368 1.257 4.053 1.026 -0.684 20.3 -4.444 0.000
1 (low crossbar), quantity 7 4.790 1.932 5.316 1.701 -0.526 11.0 -3.750 0.001
of times 8 5.895 2.558 6.316 2.311 -0.421 7.1 -3.618 0.002
2 Bent Arm Hang Test (two hands), sec. 876 4.226 5.758 6.626 1.276 1.987 1.918 4.700 6.337 7.000 0.946 1.817 1.842 -0.474 -0.579 -0.374 11.2 10.0 5.6 -3.911 -9.977 -8.400 0.001 0.000 0.000
Pull-Up / Chin Up 6 9.579 2.775 10.526 2.480 -0.947 9.9 -5.295 0.000
3 Test (Rope Climbing), 7 10.737 2.705 11.895 2.664 -1.158 10.8 -8.382 0.000
quantity of times 8 13.368 2.910 14.474 2.776 -1.105 8.3 -10.500 0.000
4 Cadence Push-Up Test, quantity of times 6 7 17.895 18.842 3.213 4.598 19.263 20.158 3.494 4.259 -1.368 -1.316 7.6 7.0 -6.245 -6.994 0.000 0.000
8 21.684 3.575 22.632 3.113 -0.947 4.4 -4.025 0.001
The subject lies in 6 13.016 2.661 13.321 2.637 -0.305 2.3 -8.420 0.000
prone position, arms 7 14.116 2.904 14.542 2.926 -0.426 3.0 -9.583 0.000
5 bent at the elbow 90
degrees - hold position 8 17.168 2.077 17.411 2.064 -0.242 1.4 -7.608 0.000
in seconds
Pull Up Bar- Straight 6 4.316 0.820 4.842 0.834 -0.526 12.2 -4.472 0.000
6 Leg Hanging Leg Raises, 7 5.526 1.073 6.158 0.958 -0.632 11.4 -5.555 0.000
quantity of times 8 6.263 0.991 6.842 0.765 -0.579 9.2 -4.158 0.001
6 5.247 0.646 5.689 0.624 -0.442 8.4 -8.232 0.000
7 Hanging Leg Raises, sec. 7 6.179 0.991 6.574 0.982 -0.395 6.4 -8.791 0.000
8 7.321 0.961 7.637 0.941 -0.316 4.3 -9.409 0.000
Decline Reverse Crunch 6 9.947 1.870 10.684 1.827 -0.737 7.4 -4.916 0.000
8 on Bench, quantity of 7 9.632 1.892 10.737 2.104 -1.105 11.5 -6.533 0.000
times 8 14.105 2.706 15.105 2.331 -1.000 7.1 -7.550 0.000
9 Trunk Lift Test, quantity of times 6 7 24.737 26.316 2.257 2.382 26.158 26.895 1.979 2.052 -1.421 -0.579 5.7 2.2 -5.092 -3.012 0.000 0.007
8 29.947 3.045 30.474 2.855 -0.526 1.8 -3.750 0.001
10 Squats Test (two legs), quantity of times 876 27.263 28.263 33.632 3.445 4.331 3.004 29.263 29.789 34.842 3.142 3.489 2.363 -2.000 -1.526 -1.211 7.3 5.4 3.6 -7.886 -5.459 -5.750 0.000 0.000 0.000
Single Leg Squat (SLS) 6 2.211 0.855 2.368 0.761 -0.158 7.1 -1.837 0.083
11 Test - right leg, quantity 7 2.842 1.167 3.000 1.000 -0.158 5.6 -1.837 0.083
of times 8 3.105 0.936 3.211 0.855 -0.105 3.4 -1.455 0.163
Single Leg Squat (SLS) 6 1.842 0.834 1.895 0.809 -0.053 2.9 -1.000 0.331
12 Test - left leg, quantity 7 2.158 1.068 2.263 0.991 -0.105 4.9 -1.455 0.163
of times 8 2.579 0.961 2.684 0.885 -0.105 4.1 -1.455 0.163
13 Single Leg Squat (Pistol) - right leg 6 7 8 4.684 5.005 5.705 0.825 1.315 1.083 5.279 5.474 6.295 0.766 1.232 0.977 -0.595 -0.468 -0.589 12.7 9.4 10.3 -9.012 -9.930 -14.098 0.000 0.000 0.000
14 Single Leg Squat (Pistol) - left leg 876 4.211 4.311 5.232 0.836 1.176 0.972 4.732 4.826 5.595 0.827 1.218 1.031 -0.521 -0.516 -0.363 12.4 12.0 6.9 -9.984 -11.875 -6.986 0.000 0.000 0.000
2019
0
Table 2. Test results of strength fitness of 6th -8th grade boys (experimental group). Circuit training method
No. Test Grade Before experiment After experiment Increase t P
x s x s %
Pull-Up / Chin Up Test 6 4.053 1.026 4.368 0.895 -0.316 7.8 -2.882 0.010
1 (low crossbar), quantity 7 5.316 1.701 5.684 1.416 -0.368 6.9 -2.348 0.031
of times 8 6.316 2.311 6.789 1.988 -0.474 7.5 -4.025 0.001
2 Bent Arm Hang Test (two hands), sec. 6 7 8 4.700 6.337 7.000 0.946 1.817 1.841 5.032 6.595 7.453 0.952 1.645 1.746 -0.332 -0.258 -0.453 7.0 4.1 6.5 -7.221 -4.534 -10.246 0.000 0.000 0.000
Pull-Up / Chin Up Test 6 10.526 2.480 11.263 2.207 -0.737 7.0 -4.379 0.000
3 (Rope Climbing), quantity 7 11.895 2.664 12.474 2.366 -0.579 4.9 -4.158 0.001
of times 8 14.474 2.776 15.263 2.156 -0.789 5.5 -3.174 0.005
4 Cadence Push-Up Test, quantity of times 6 7 19.263 20.158 3.494 4.259 19.947 20.947 3.027 3.865 -0.684 -0.789 3.5 3.9 -4.444 -4.371 0.000 0.000
8 22.632 3.113 23.421 2.950 -0.789 3.5 -4.371 0.000
The subject lies in prone 6 13.321 2.637 13.568 2.598 -0.247 1.9 -7.762 0.000
5 position, arms bent at the 7 14.542 2.926 15.037 2.804 -0.495 3.4 -8.534 0.000
elbow 90 degrees - hold position in seconds 8 15.105 2.331 15.842 1.803 -0.737 4.9 -4.379 0.000
Pull Up Bar- Straight 6 4.842 0.834 5.053 0.780 -0.211 4.4 -2.191 0.042
6 Leg Hanging Leg Raises, 7 6.158 0.958 6.632 1.116 -0.474 7.7 -3.375 0.003
quantity of times 8 6.842 0.765 7.579 1.017 -0.737 10.8 -4.379 0.000
6 5.689 0.624 5.926 0.550 -0.237 4.2 -5.077 0.000
7 Hanging Leg Raises, sec. 7 6.574 0.982 7.026 0.902 -0.453 6.9 -7.618 0.000
8 7.637 0.941 8.105 0.874 -0.468 6.1 -8.836 0.000
Decline Reverse Crunch 6 10.684 1.827 11.789 1.813 -1.105 10.3 -5.144 0.000
8 on Bench, quantity of 7 10.737 2.104 11.474 2.038 -0.737 6.9 -4.379 0.000
times 8 15.105 2.331 15.842 1.803 -0.737 4.9 -4.379 0.000
9 Trunk Lift Test, quantity of times 6 7 26.158 26.895 1.979 2.052 26.737 27.579 1.759 1.924 -0.579 -0.684 2.2 2.5 -3.644 -3.980 0.002 0.001
8 30.474 2.855 31.211 2.417 -0.737 2.4 -3.986 0.001
10 Squats Test (two legs), quantity of times 6 7 29.263 29.789 3.142 3.489 30.105 30.684 2.846 3.233 -0.842 -0.895 2.9 3.0 -4.086 -4.819 0.001 0.000
8 34.842 2.363 36.211 1.686 -1.368 3.9 -4.083 0.001
Single Leg Squat (SLS) 6 2.368 0.761 2.421 0.692 -0.053 2.2 -1.000 0.331
11 Test - right leg, quantity 7 3.000 1.000 3.105 0.936 -0.105 3.5 -1.455 0.163
of times 8 3.211 0.855 3.316 0.749 -0.105 3.3 -1.455 0.163
Single Leg Squat (SLS) 6 1.895 0.809 1.947 0.705 -0.053 2.8 -1.000 0.331
12 Test - left leg, quantity of 7 2.263 0.991 2.316 0.946 -0.053 2.3 -1.000 0.331
times 8 2.684 0.885 2.789 0.787 -0.105 3.9 -1.455 0.163
13 Single Leg Squat (Pistol) -right leg 6 7 5.279 5.474 0.766 1.232 5.668 6.105 0.745 1.166 -0.389 -0.632 7.4 11.5 -7.869 -8.298 0.000 0.000
8 6.295 0.977 6.784 0.828 -0.489 7.8 10.398 0.000
14 Single Leg Squat (Pistol) -left leg 6 7 4.732 4.826 0.827 1.218 5.158 5.274 0.726 1.228 -0.426 -0.447 9.0 9.3 -6.162 -8.591 0.000 0.000
8 5.595 1.031 6.105 0.890 -0.511 9.1 -8.224 0.000
grade boys statistically significantly increased in test 1 (shoulder flexion strength) by 20.3%; in test 2 (shoulder flexion static endurance) by 11.2%; in test 3 (shoulder flexion strength endurance) by 9.9%; in test 4 (shoulder extension strength) by 7.6%. The test results of abdominal and back muscle strength statistically significantly
increased in test 6 (abdominal muscle strength) by 12.2%; in test 7 (abdominal muscle static endurance) by 8.4%; in test 8 (abdominal muscle strength endurance) by 7.4%. The test results of leg muscle strength statistically significantly increased in test 10 (leg muscle strength endurance) by 7.3%; in tests 13 and 14 (leg muscle static
Table 3. Test results of strength fitness of 6th -8th grade boys (control group). Circuit training method
No. Test
Grade n Before experiment x s After experiment xs
6 16 3.375 1.310 3.563 1.153
7 17 4.706 2.469 4.824 2.351
8 17 5.941 2.657 6.059 2.633
6 16 4.225 1.205 4.319 1.228
7 17 4.965 1.879 5.059 1.771
8 17 5.976 1.816 6.018 1.797
6 16 10.063 3.193 10.250 3.109
7 17 9.235 2.927 9.353 2.871
8 17 13.000 2.718 13.235 2.562
6 16 18.625 3.344 18.750 3.256
7 17 18.176 4.640 18.294 4.469
8 17 20.941 3.363 21.118 3.219
6 16 13.587 2.273 13.700 2.192
7 17 14.329 2.665 14.447 2.688
8 17 16.618 2.282 16.612 2.252
6 16 4.063 1.124 4.188 1.047
7 17 5.471 1.375 5.588 1.326
8 17 7.000 1.275 7.118 1.111
6 16 4.856 0.904 4.900 0.878
7 17 5.994 0.957 6.018 0.927
8 17 7.141 0.879 7.118 0.821
6 16 10.125 2.579 10.250 2.569
7 17 9.882 2.088 10.059 2.045
8 17 13.353 2.805 13.471 2.672
6 16 23.563 2.632 23.687 2.469
7 17 23.765 3.052 23.941 2.839
8 17 27.471 3.281 27.647 3.121
6 16 27.937 3.193 28.063 3.065
7 17 28.294 4.606 28.647 4.242
8 17 31.823 2.481 32.000 2.424
6 16 1.813 0.911 1.813 0.911
7 17 2.353 1.057 2.353 1.057
8 17 2.647 1.057 2.647 1.057
6 16 1.563 0.727 1.563 0.727
7 17 1.941 0.899 1.941 0.899
8 17 2.471 0.874 2.471 0.874
6 16 4.431 0.973 4.469 0.982
7 17 4.188 1.252 4.318 1.155
8 17 4.918 1.172 4.988 1.118
6 16 3.950 0.848 3.994 0.854
7 17 3.735 1.127 3.806 1.057
8 17 4.782 1.197 4.818 1.199
Increase
%
4
5
Pull-Up / Chin Up Test (low crossbar), quantity of times
Bent Arm Hang Test (two hands), sec.
Pull-Up / Chin Up Test (Rope Climbing), quantity of times
Cadence Push-Up Test, quantity of times
The subject lies in prone position, arms bent at the elbow 90 degrees - hold position in seconds Pull Up Bar- Straight Leg 6 Hanging Leg Raises, quantity of times
7 Hanging Leg Raises, sec.
8 Decline Reverse Crunch on Bench, quantity of times
9 Trunk Lift Test, quantity of times
10
11
12
13
14
Squats Test (two legs), quantity of times
Single Leg Squat (SLS) Test -right leg, quantity of times
Single Leg Squat (SLS) Test -left leg, quantity of times
Single Leg Squat (Pistol) -right leg
Single Leg Squat (Pistol) - left leg
-0.188 -0.118 -0.118 -0.094 -0.094 -0.041 -0.188 -0.118 -0.235 -0.125 -0.118 -0.176 -0.113 -0.118
0.006
-0.125
-0.117
-0.118
-0.044
-0.023
0.023
-0.125
-0.176
-0.118
-0.125
-0.176
-0.176
-0.125
-0.353
-0.176
5.6 2.5 2.0 2.2 1.9 0.7 1.9 1.3 1.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8
-1.861 -1.461 -1.461 -1.996 -1.793 -1.692 -1.861 -1.461 -2.219 -1.464 -1.461 -1.852 -1.840 -2.311
3.0
2.1
1.7 0.9 0.4 0.3 1.2
1.8 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.4 1.2 0.5
0.083 0.163 0.163 0.064 0.092 0.110 0.083 0.163 0.041 0.164 0.163 0.083 0.086 0.034
0.0 0.120 0.906
-1.464
-1.461
-1.461
-1.282
-0.746
0.523
-1.464
-1.852
-1.461
-1.464
-1.852
-1.852
-1.464
-2.073
-1.376
0.164 0.163 0.163 0.219 0.466 0.608 0.164 0.083 0.163 0.164 0.083 0.083 0.164 0.055 0.188
-0.038 0.8 -1.861 0.083
-0.129 3.0 -2.637 0.018
-0.070 1.4 -1.509 0.151
-0.044 1.1 -1.447 0.168
-0.071 1.9 -1.900 0.076
-0.035 0.7 -1.144 0.269
P
t
1
2
3
endurance) by 12.7% and 12.4%, respectively.
The test results of shoulder muscle strength of the 7th grade experimental group boys statistically significantly increased in test 1 (shoulder flexion strength) by 11.0%; in test 2 (shoulder flexion static endurance) by 10.0% and in test 3 (shoulder flexion strength endurance) by 10.8%.
The test results of abdominal and back muscle strength statistically significantly increased in test 6 (abdominal muscle strength) by 11.4% and in test 8 (abdominal muscle strength endurance) by 11.5% (p < 0.05). The test results of leg muscle strength statistically significantly increased in test 10 (leg muscle strength endurance) by
Table 4. Test results of strength fitness of 6th -8th grade boys after a one-month physical training cycle using the combined method of strength development and the circuit training method (experimental group).
No. Test Grade n Before experiment After experiment Increase t P
x s x s %
15 Handgrip Strength Test, kg 6 7 19 19 16.305 17.579 1.407 1.458 16.421 17.868 1.387 1.416 -0.116 -0.289 0.7 1.6 -3.450 -8.090 0.003 0.000
8 19 18.147 1.916 18.374 1.855 -0.226 1.2 -5.712 0.000
16 Standing Long Jump Test (Broad Jump), cm 6 7 19 19 1.542 1.589 0.133 0.210 1.546 1.611 0.127 0.199 -0.004 -0.022 0.3 1.4 -1.455 -4.686 0.163 0.000
8 19 1.671 0.213 1.685 0.205 -0.015 0.9 -3.441 0.003
Eurofit Sit Up Test (for 30 sec.), quantity of times 6 19 23.947 3.613 24.579 3.024 -0.632 2.6 -2.721 0.014
17 7 8 19 19 26.684 26.263 4.888 3.413 27.789 27.158 4.144 2.814 -1.105 -0.895 4.1 3.4 -4.025 -3.923 0.001 0.001
4x9 m Shuttle Run Test, 6 19 11.616 0.462 11.463 0.469 0.153 1.3 4.422 0.000
18 7 19 11.374 0.605 11.263 0.576 0.111 1.0 3.625 0.002
sec. 8 19 11.037 0.680 10.926 0.689 0.111 1.0 3.745 0.001
6 19 13.937 0.779 13.779 0.755 0.158 1.1 5.276 0.000
19 Hand Tapping Test, sec. 7 19 13.632 0.987 13.484 0.944 0.147 1.0 4.169 0.001
8 19 12.263 0.617 12.168 0.576 0.095 0.8 3.375 0.003
6 19 5.895 1.100 5.947 0.911 -0.053 0.9 -0.438 0.667
20 Seated Forward Bend, cm 7 19 5.474 1.172 5.368 0.895 0.105 2.7 1.000 0.331
8 19 4.526 1.429 4.474 1.219 0.053 1.2 0.567 0.578
21 Flamingo Balance test -single leg balance test 6 7 8 19 19 19 9.000 7.895 8.105 1.856 1.449 1.595 8.789 7.895 8.158 1.475 1.243 1.259 0.211 0.000 -0.053 2.3 0.0 0.7 1.455 0.000 -0.325 0.163 1.000 0.749
6 19 63.421 4.046 65.000 3.756 -1.579 2.5 -4.962 0.000
22 Harvard Step Test 7 19 65.684 5.508 67.632 6.112 -1.947 3.0 -4.401 0.000
8 19 67.421 5.337 68.737 5.636 -1.316 2.0 -3.664 0.002
Table 5. Test results of motor fitness of the control group boys after a 4-week physical training cycle according to the school curriculum
No. Test Grade n Before experiment After experiment Increase t P
x s x s %
6 16 16.419 1.313 16.456 1.327 -0.038 0.2 -1.695 0.111
15 Handgrip Strength Test, kg 7 17 16.012 1.796 16.059 1.784 -0.047 0.3 -2.057 0.056
8 17 16.900 1.569 16.923 1.534 -0.024 0.1 -0.497 0.626
16 Standing Long Jump Test (Broad Jump), cm 6 7 16 17 1.540 1.574 0.125 0.173 1.541 1.574 0.125 0.170 -0.001 -0.000 0.1 0.0 -1.000 -0.270 0.333 0.791
8 17 1.705 0.143 1.705 0.143 0.000 0.0 0.270 0.791
Eurofit Sit Up Test (for 30 sec.), quantity of times 6 16 24.625 3.202 24.813 2.949 -0.187 0.7 -1.379 0.188
17 7 8 17 17 26.412 25.294 4.287 3.653 26.706 25.412 3.949 3.572 -0.294 -0.118 1.1 0.5 -2.063 -1.461 0.056 0.163
6 16 11.469 0.535 11.469 0.545 0.000 0.0 0.000 1.000
18 4x9 m Shuttle Run Test, sec. 7 17 11.247 0.565 11.247 0.540 0.000 0.0 0.000 1.000
8 17 10.935 0.625 10.994 0.678 -0.059 0.5 -1.429 0.172
6 16 14.344 0.697 14.325 0.736 0.019 0.1 0.426 0.676
19 Hand Tapping Test, sec. 7 17 14.106 1.112 14.112 1.159 -0.006 0.1 -0.148 0.884
8 17 12.929 1.236 12.912 1.265 0.018 0.1 0.337 0.740
6 16 5.813 1.109 5.875 1.088 -0.063 1.0 -1.000 0.333
20 Seated Forward Bend, cm 7 17 5.353 1.835 5.353 1.835 - - - -
8 17 4.941 1.435 4.941 1.435 - - - -
21 Flamingo Balance test -single leg balance test 6 7 8 16 17 17 9.500 8.176 7.941 1.592 1.629 1.819 9.250 8.118 7.882 1.390 1.536 1.576 0.250 0.059 0.059 2.6 0.7 0.7 1.732 0.566 0.566 0.104 0.579 0.579
6 16 66.563 3.915 66.687 3.516 -0.125 0.2 -0.620 0.544
22 Harvard Step Test 7 17 71.588 5.917 71.529 5.680 0.059 0.1 0.324 0.750
8 17 68.412 4.691 68.353 5.049 0.059 0.1 0.324 0.750
Table 6. Comparative analysis between the levels of strength fitness of the 6th -8th grade boys of the experimental and control groups after the experiment
No Test Grade n Experimental group xs n Control group xs P
Pull-Up / Chin Up Test (low 6 19 4.368 0.895 16 3.563 1.153 0.026
1 7 19 5.684 1.416 17 4.824 2.351 0.187
crossbar), quantity of times 8 19 6.789 1.988 17 6.059 2.633 0.351
2 Bent Arm Hang Test (two hands), 6 19 5.032 0.952 16 4.319 1.228 0.062
7 19 6.595 1.645 17 5.059 1.771 0.011
sec. 8 19 7.453 1.746 17 6.018 1.797 0.021
Pull-Up / Chin Up Test (Rope 6 19 11.263 2.207 16 10.250 3.109 0.269
3 7 19 12.474 2.366 17 9.353 2.871 0.001
Climbing), quantity of times 8 19 15.263 2.156 17 13.235 2.562 0.014
4 Cadence Push-Up Test, quantity 6 19 19.947 3.027 16 18.750 3.256 0.268
of times 7 19 20.947 3.865 17 18.294 4.469 0.065
8 19 23.421 2.950 17 21.118 3.219 0.032
The subject lies in prone 6 19 13.568 2.598 16 13.700 2.192 0.874
5 position, arms bent at the elbow 7 19 15.037 2.804 17 14.447 2.688 0.525
90 degrees - hold position in seconds 8 19 17.758 2.051 17 16.612 2.252 0.119
6 Pull Up Bar- Straight Leg Hanging 6 7 19 19 5.053 6.632 0.780 1.116 16 17 4.188 5.588 1.047 1.326 0.008 0.015
Leg Raises, quantity of times 8 19 7.579 1.017 17 7.118 1.111 0.202
6 19 5.926 0.550 16 4.900 0.878 0.000
7 Hanging Leg Raises, sec. 7 19 7.026 0.902 17 6.018 0.927 0.002
8 19 8.105 0.874 17 7.118 0.821 0.001
Decline Reverse Crunch on 6 19 11.789 1.813 16 10.250 2.569 0.046
8 7 19 11.474 2.038 17 10.059 2.045 0.046
Bench, quantity of times 8 19 15.842 1.803 17 13.471 2.672 0.003
6 19 26.737 1.759 16 23.687 2.469 0.000
9 Trunk Lift Test, quantity of times 7 19 27.579 1.924 17 23.941 2.839 0.000
8 19 31.211 2.417 17 27.647 3.121 0.000
10 Squats Test (two legs), quantity of times 6 7 19 19 30.105 30.684 2.846 3.233 16 17 28.063 28.647 3.065 4.242 0.049 0.112
8 19 36.211 1.686 17 32.000 2.424 0.000
11 Single Leg Squat (SLS) Test - right 6 7 19 19 2.421 3.105 0.692 0.936 16 17 1.813 2.353 0.911 1.057 0.032 0.030
leg, quantity of times 8 19 3.316 0.749 17 2.647 1.057 0.034
12 Single Leg Squat (SLS) Test - left 6 7 19 19 1.947 2.316 0.705 0.946 16 17 1.563 1.941 0.727 0.899 0.122 0.233
leg, quantity of times 8 19 2.789 0.787 17 2.471 0.874 0.258
13 Single Leg Squat (Pistol) - right leg 6 7 19 19 5.668 6.105 0.745 1.166 16 17 4.469 4.318 0.982 1.155 0.000 0.000
8 19 6.784 0.828 17 4.988 1.118 0.000
6 19 5.158 0.726 16 3.994 0.854 0.000
14 Single Leg Squat (Pistol) - left leg 7 19 5.274 1.228 17 3.806 1.057 0.001
8 19 6.105 0.890 17 4.818 1.199 0.001
6 19 16.421 1.387 16 16.456 1.327 0.940
15 Handgrip Strength Test, kg 7 19 17.868 1.416 17 16.059 1.784 0.002
8 19 18.374 1.855 17 16.923 1.534 0.016
16 Standing Long Jump Test (Broad 6 7 19 19 1.546 1.611 0.127 0.199 16 17 1.541 1.574 0.125 0.170 0.905 0.562
Jump), cm 8 19 1.685 0.205 17 1.705 0.143 0.746
Eurofit Sit Up Test (for 30 sec.), 6 19 1.546 0.127 16 1.541 0.125 0.905
17 7 19 27.789 4.144 17 26.706 3.949 0.429
quantity of times 8 19 27.158 2.814 17 25.412 3.572 0.111
6 19 11.463 0.469 16 11.469 0.545 0.974
18 4x9 m Shuttle Run Test, sec. 7 19 11.263 0.576 17 11.247 0.540 0.932
8 19 10.926 0.689 17 10.994 0.678 0.768
6 19 13.779 0.755 16 14.325 0.736 0.038
19 Hand Tapping Test, sec. 7 19 13.484 0.944 17 14.112 1.159 0.083
8 19 12.168 0.576 17 12.912 1.265 0.027
6 19 5.947 0.911 16 5.875 1.088 0.832
20 Seated Forward Bend, cm 7 19 5.368 0.895 17 5.353 1.835 0.974
8 19 4.474 1.219 17 4.941 1.435 0.298
21 Flamingo Balance test - single leg 6 19 8.789 1.475 16 9.250 1.390 0.352
balance test 7 19 7.895 1.243 17 8.118 1.536 0.634
8 19 8.158 1.259 17 7.882 1.576 0.564
6 19 65.000 3.756 16 66.687 3.516 0.182
22 Harvard Step Test 7 19 67.632 6.112 17 71.529 5.680 0.056
8 19 68.737 5.636 17 68.353 5.049 0.832
5.4% and in tests 13 and 14 (leg muscle static endurance) by 9.4% and 12.0%, respectively (p < 0.001).
The test results of shoulder muscle strength of the 8th grade experimental group boys statistically significantly increased in test 1 (shoulder flexion strength) by 7.1%, test 2 (shoulder flexion static endurance) and test 3 (shoulder flexion strength endurance) by 5.6% and 8.3%, respectively. The test results of abdominal and back muscle strength statistically significantly increased in test 6 (abdominal muscle strength) by 9.2% and in test 8 (abdominal muscle strength endurance) by 7.1% (p < 0.001). The test results of leg muscle strength statistically significantly increased in tests 13 and 14 (leg muscle static endurance) by 10.3% and 6.9%, respectively.
After the circuit training method (see Table 2), the experimental group boys showed a statistically significant improvement in results in the set of tests (p < 0.05).
The test results of shoulder muscle strength of the 6th grade experimental group boys statistically significantly increased in test 1 (shoulder flexion strength) by 7.8%; in test 2 (shoulder flexion static endurance) and test 3 (shoulder flexion strength endurance) by 7.0% and 7.0%, respectively (p < 0.001). The test results of abdominal and back muscle strength statistically significantly increased in test 8 (abdominal muscle strength endurance) by 10.3% (p < 0.001). The test results of leg muscle strength statistically significantly increased in tests 13 and 14 (leg muscle static endurance) by 7.4% and 9.0%, respectively (p < 0.001).
The test results of shoulder muscle strength of the 7th grade experimental group boys statistically significantly increased in test 1 (shoulder flexion strength) by 6.9% and in test 3 (shoulder flexion strength endurance) by 4.9% (p < 0.001). The test results of abdominal and back muscle strength statistically significantly increased in test 6 (abdominal muscle strength) by 7.7%, in test 7 (abdominal muscle static endurance) and 8 (abdominal muscle strength endurance) by 6.9% and 6.9%, respectively. The test results of leg muscle strength statistically significantly increased in tests 13 and 14 (leg muscle static endurance) by 11.5% and 9.3%, respectively (p < 0.001).
The test results of shoulder muscle strength of the 8th grade experimental group boys statistically significantly increased in test 1 (shoulder flexion strength) by 7.5%, in test 2 (shoulder flexion static endurance) by 6.5% and test 3 (shoulder flexion strength endurance) by 5.5%, respectively.
The test results of abdominal and back muscle strength statistically significantly increased in test 6 (abdominal muscle strength) by 10.8% and in test 7 (abdominal muscle static endurance) by 6.1%. The test results of leg muscle strength statistically significantly increased in tests 13 and 14 (leg muscle static endurance) by 7.8% and 9.1%, respectively.
During the experiment, the control group boys (see Table 3) showed no statistically significant improvement in the test results for most parameters (p > 0.05). The 7th grade control group boys showed a tendency to improve the results in test 5 (shoulder extension strength)
(p < 0.05), the 8th grade boys - in test 3 (shoulder flexion strength endurance) (p < 0.05). In other tests, there were no statistically significant differences between the 6th-8th grade boys (p > 0.05).
According to the Eurofit motor fitness tests, after a 4-week training cycle, the experimental group boys (see Table 4) showed a statistically significant improvement in results in the set of tests (p < 0.05).
The results of the 6th grade experimental group boys statistically significantly increased in test 17 (abdominal muscle strength endurance) by 2.6% and in test 22 (Harvard Step Test) by 2.5% (p < 0.001).
The results of the 7th grade boys statistically significantly increased in test 17 (abdominal muscle strength endurance) by 4.1% and in test 22 (general endurance) by 3.0% (p < 0.001).
The results of the 8th grade experimental group boys statistically significantly increased in test 17 (abdominal muscle strength endurance) by 3.4% and in test 22 (general endurance) by 2.0% (p < 0.05).
In other tests, the 6th-8th grade boys showed a tendency to improve the test results (p> 0.05).
During the experiment, the control group boys (see Table 5) showed no statistically significant improvement in the test results for most parameters (p > 0.05).
A comparison between the levels of strength fitness of the control group boys and experimental group boys after the experiment (see Table 6) showed that the 6th grade boys of the experimental group had statistically significantly better test results of strength and strength endurance of shoulder muscles, abdominal and back muscles in tests 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 (p < 0.05), and statistically significantly better test results of leg muscle strength in tests 10, 11, 13, 14 (p < 0.05).
A comparison between the levels of strength fitness of the control group boys and experimental group boys after the experiment (see Table 7) showed that the 7th grade boys of the experimental group had statistically significantly better test results of strength and strength endurance of shoulder muscles, abdominal and back muscles in tests 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 (p < 0.05), and statistically significantly better test results of leg muscle strength in tests 13, 14 (p < 0.05).
A comparison between the levels of strength fitness of the control group boys and experimental group boys after the experiment (see Table 8) showed that the 8th grade boys of the experimental group had statistically significantly better test results of strength and strength endurance of shoulder muscles, abdominal and back muscles in tests 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 (p < 0.05), and statistically significantly better test results of leg muscle strength in tests 10, 11, 13, 14 (p < 0.05).
Discussion
The study assumed that the use of the combined method of strength development and the circuit training method in a 4-week physical training cycle would positively affect the dynamics of strength and strength endurance development in 6th-8th grade boys.
After six classes (1-6) using the combined method of strength development, the 6th-8th grade boys showed a statistically significant positive dynamics in the results of strength fitness and endurance. The largest increase (by 20.3 %) was observed in shoulder flexion strength in the 6th grade boys. These data supplement the findings of Cieslicka et al. [10], Ivashchenko et al. [15] on the effectiveness of the combined method of strength development during school physical training classes.
After six classes (7-12) using the circuit training method, the 6th-8th grade boys showed a statistically significant positive dynamics in the results of strength fitness and endurance. The test results increased by 2-11%. These data confirm the findings of Poperekov et al. [13] on the effectiveness of the circuit training method during physical training of children and adolescents.
The study ascertained that the use of the combined method of strength development and the circuit training method in a one-month physical training cycle positively affected the overall development of motor abilities in the 6th-8th grade boys. The obtained results of the study characterize the peculiarities of the dynamics of middle schoolers' motor fitness and supplement the data of Ivashchenko et al. [17], James et al. [18] on the holistic character of motor abilities development in children and adolescents; the data of Blagrove et al. [19], Piykhodko [20] on the regularities of motor abilities development in children and adolescents.
Consequently, the study results indicate that the combined method of strength development and the circuit training method in a 4-week physical training cycle have
a statistically significant effect on the dynamics of motor fitness of middle-school-aged boys.
Further research is required to study the regularities of development and relationship between muscle strength and endurance of middle-school-aged boys.
Conclusions
After using the combined method of strength development (1-6 classes) and the circuit training method (7-12 classes) in a 4-week physical training cycle, the middle-school-aged boys showed positive dynamics of strength and strength endurance development of shoulder muscles, abdominal and back muscles, leg muscles. The dynamics of strength and static endurance of the local muscle group is strongly influenced by the combined method of strength development. The circuit training method is effective to develop dynamic and static strength endurance of the local muscle group. For overall development of strength and general endurance, it is effective to use a combination of the combined method of strength development and circuit training method in a 4-week physical training cycle.
Acknowledgment
The research was carried out according to the theme 13.04 "Modelling of the learning process and development of motor abilities in children and adolescents" (20132014) (state registration number 0113U002102).
Conflict of interest
The authors state that there is no conflict of interest.
References
1. BadicuG.PhysicalActivityandHealth-RelatedQualityofLifein Adults from Bra^ov, Romania. Education Sciences, 2018; 8(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8020052
2. Balsevich VK. Ontokinesiology of man. Moscow: Theory and practice of physical culture; 2000. (in Russian)
3. Novak D, Podnar H, Emeljanovas A, Marttinen R. Comparison of Fitness Levels between Croatian and Lithuanian Students. Montenegrin Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 2015; 4(1): 5-11.
4. Krutsevych TYu, Bezverkhnia HV. Recreation in the physical culture of different population groups: teaching. manual. Kiev: Olympic Literature; 2010. (in Ukrainian)
5. Ivashchenko OV. Modelling of physical education students. Kharkiv: OVS; 2016. (in Ukrainian)
6. Emeljanovas A, Mieziene B, Putriute V. The Relationship Between Physical Activity and Content of the Physical Education Classes in 11-12 Years Old Lithuanian Schoolchildren. The Pilot Study. Croatian Journal of Education-Hrvatski Casopis Za Odgoj I Obrazovanje, 2015; 17(1): 93-120.
7. Ivashchenko O, Abdulkhalikova T, Cieslicka M. Effectiveness of Motor Skills Development in 5th-7th Grade Girls at Different Modes of Physical Exercises. Teoria Ta Metodika Fizicnogo Vihovanna, 2017;17(4):201-7. https://doi.org/10.17309/tmfv.2017.4T205
8. Ivashchenko O, Khudolii O, Iermakov S, Harkusha S. Physical exercises' mastering level in classification of motor preparedness of 11-13 years old boys. Journal of Physical
Education and Sport, 2017; 17(3): 1031-6. https://doi. org/10.7752/jpes.2017.03158
9. Liakh VI. Driving abilities of schoolchildren: Fundamentals of theory and methods of development. Moscow: Terra-Sport; 2000.(in Russian)
10.Cieslicka M, Ivashchenko O. Discriminant analysis method to determine the power of the boys 11-12 year. Journal of Education, Health and Sport, 2016; 6(10): 721-9. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.229911
11.Khudolii OM, Ivashchenko OV. Simulation of the learning process and development of motor abilities in children and adolescents. Kharkiv: OVS; 2014. (in Ukrainian).
12.Khudolii OM. General Fundamentals of Theory and Methodology of Physical Education. Kharkiv: OVS; 2008. (in Ukrainian)
13.Poperekov VS, Buldakova N, Bandakov MP, Zhilina NO, Solgalov VS. Focused Development of Jumping Ability in Young Basketball Players By Means of Circuit Training. Human Sport Medicine, 2018;18(4): 103-9. https://doi.org/10.14529/hsm180415
14.Liu C, Chen CS, Ho WH, Fule RJ, Chung PH, Shiang TY. The Effects of Passive Leg Press Training on Jumping Performance, Speed, and Muscle Power. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2013; 27(6): 1479-86.
15. Ivashchenko O, Cieslicka M. Discriminant analysis in the classification of the preparation strength girls 11-12 year. Journal of Education, Health and Sport, 2016; 6(8):888-97. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.229884
16.Khudolii OM, Ivashchenko OV. Simulation of the learning
process and development of motor abilities in children and adolescents. Kharkiv: OVS; 2014. (in Ukrainian) 17.Ivashchenko O, Khudolii O, Iermakov S, Lochbaum M, Cieslicka M, Zukow W, Nosko M, Yermakova T. Methodological approaches to pedagogical control of the functionalandmotorfitness ofthe girls from 7-9grades. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 2017; 17(1): 254- 261. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2017.01038 18.James LP, Haff GG., Kelly VG, Connick MJ, Hoffman BW, Beckman EM. The impact of strength level on adaptations to combined weightlifting, plyometric,
and ballistic training. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 2018; 28(5): 1494-1505. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13045
19.Blagrove RC, Howe LP, Cushion EJ, Spence A, Howatson G, Pedlar CR, Hayes PR. Effects of Strength Training on Postpubertal Adolescent Distance Runners. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 2018; 50(6): 1224-1232. https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000001543
20.Prykhodko VV. The Factor Structure of Coordination Abilities Development in 5th-7th Grade Boys. Teoria Ta Metodika Fizicnogo Vihovanna, 2017; 17(4): 191-200. (in Ukrainian) https://doi.org/10.17309/tmfv.2017A1204
Information about the authors:
Veremeenko V. Yu. ; http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9826-9678; viktoriaveremeenko91@gmail.com; Department of Theory and Methodology of Physical Education, Health and Medical Physical Culture, H. S. Skovoroda Kharkiv National Pedagogical University; Alchevskikh St, 29, Kharkiv, 61002, Ukraine.
Khudolii O. M.: (Corresponding author); http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5605-9939; khudolii.oleg@gmail.com; Department of Theory and Methodology of Physical Education, Health and Medical Physical Culture, H. S. Skovoroda Kharkiv National Pedagogical University ; Alchevskikh St, 29, Kharkiv, 61003, Ukraine.
Ivashchenko O. V. ; http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2708-5636; olga@tmfv.com.ua; Department of Theory and Methodology of Physical Education, Health and Medical Physical Culture, H. S. Skovoroda Kharkiv National Pedagogical University; Alchevskikh St, 29, Kharkiv, 61002, Ukraine.
Cite this article as:
Veremeenko VYu, Khudolii OM, Ivashchenko OV. Motor abilities in middle-school-aged boys in a 4-week physical training cycle. physical training and sports, 2019;23(2):102-111. https://doi.org/10.15561/18189172.2019.0208
The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: https://www.sportpedagogy.org.ua/index.php/PPS/issue/archive
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en).
Received: 10.03.2019
Accepted: 16.04.2019; Published: 30.04.2019
: methods of strength and strength endurance development Pedagogics, psychology, medical-biological problems of
