CC BY
18NOTION OF "COMPETITIVE MOBILIZATION EFFICIENCY" IN ENDURANCE-INTENSIVE SPORTS: VERSIONS OF DEFINITIONS AND MEANINGS
UDC 796.011
V
PhD AS. Kryuchkov1 Dr.Hab. E.B. Myakinchenko1
''Federal Scientific Center for Physical Culture and Sports, Moscow
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Abstract
It is not unusual to find in the sports research literature evidence of exceptional functional qualities demonstrated by some outstanding athletes - for example, top maximal oxygen consumption rates in the endurance-intensive cyclic sports. However, it should be emphasized with confidence that such cases are exceptional rather than normal since there are numerous reported cases when ranked on top are the athletes with not necessarily highest functionalities and fitness rates.
Objective of the study was to analyze definitions and meanings for the notion of 'competitive mobilization efficiency' indicative of the individual ability to win in the situations when the competitors' motor potentials are the same.
Results and conclusions. The article discusses the content of the concept of "realizable efficiency" in endurance sports. It is believed that, in addition to the high level of motor potential, sports result is associated with the formation of a biomechanically efficient structure of an exercise. The latter refers to the movement construction system enabling to most closely demonstrate the morphofunctional properties of the athletes' neuromuscular system and the vegetative systems that maintain its functionality. It is noted that multi-year trainings help top-class athletes quickly reach the limit of adaptation of the main functional systems, while increasing the movement speed. This is due to the increased mechanical power of the muscles in the key movement phases. It is assumed that an increase in the output power in terms of stabilization of the functional performance rates can be associated with an increase of the specificity of manifestations of the neuromuscular system qualities under the biomechanical conditions of the muscle work during a competitive exercise, but within the individual movement system, which, in turn, depends on the innate or acquired features of the body's morphological structures.
The notions of competitive mobilization efficiency and sports-specific technical skills need to be interpreted in the context of the efficient movement biomechanics formation process - that means a motor skill design that facilitates the individual morphology and functionality resource of the athlete's neuromuscular apparatus and the relevant autonomic systems being mobilized in full for success of the competitive performance biomechanics.
Keywords: elite athletes, motor functionality system, energy efficiency, motor potential, competitive mobilization efficiency.
Background. It is not unusual to find in the sports research literature evidence of exceptional functional qualities demonstrated by some outstanding athletes - for example, top maximal oxygen consumption rates in the endurance-intensive cyclic sports [1]. However, it should be emphasized with confidence that such cases are exceptional rather than normal since there are numerous reported cases when ranked on top are
the athletes with not necessarily highest functionalities and fitness rates. These facts cannot but raise a few questions of special importance for the training and competitive practices, like: how should we define the individual ability that makes it possible for the athletes to win even when their motor potential is not different from the rivals'? What this ability depends on? What basic paradigm should be chosen for the train-
Table 1. Multiannual average MOC and AnT (anaerobic threshold) rates, knee flexion angles (KF) and push-off time of two elite biathletes
Push- Aerobic functionality Push-off
off MOC, ml/ AnT, KF, Time,
types kg/ min ml/ kg/ min degrees s
Power 82 73 117 0,38
Speed 72 61 125 0,22
ing system design and management to effectively excel this ability, particularly in the situations when the functionality building reserves are virtually exhausted?
Objective of the study was to analyze definitions and meanings for the notion of 'competitive mobilization efficiency' indicative of the individual ability to win in the situations when the competitors' motor potentials are the same.
Results and discussion. The relevant issues have been actively discussed since the 1970ies. We believe that it was Yu.V. Verkhoshansky [2] who crowned the discussions by accurately defining a competitive success as "the product of such movement culture and motor skills that makes it possible to mobilize and employ the individual power and motor potential with the top efficiency for specific motor mission". This definition fairly mentions every element of a competitive success including the motor potential and movement culture and motor skills i.e. the sport-specific routine or movement sequence with its biomechanics; and, the last but not least, the motor potential mobilizing and employing capacity for success of the trained motor skills. D.D. Donskoy and V.M. Zatsiorsky [3] proposed in this context a notion of 'competitive (motor skills) mobilization efficiency'; and Y.V. Verkhoshansky [2] complemented it by the notion of the 'sport-specific technical mastery' that appears the most accurate. Later on, however, these notions have been often misinterpreted in such a way as if they refer to a specific version of optimal technical execution/ skills which an athlete is expected to master in trainings to automatically acquire the ability to mobilize the motor potential in the most effective manner at the same time. This misinterpretation implies that, having mastered such an optimal technique, the athlete may rest assured that his competitive progress is guaranteed mostly by the motor potential that only needs to be built up year to year. In case when the execution technique differs from the ideal 'sample' the training system should be designed to improve the individual competitive mobilization potential at the same time.
This conception has proved not always correct in fact. It is true that, as provided by the-then training concepts supported by many prominent scientists (D.D. Donskoy, Yu.V. Verkhoshansky, V.M. Dyachkov, V.V. Kuznetsov, I.P. Ratov), trainings should secure
progress in the technical athletic mastery interpreted as the biomechanically perfect motor skills. The bio-mechanical perfection rating criteria, however, implied the best movement design system that facilitates the individual morphological and functional qualities of the neuromuscular apparatus (NMA) and the servicing autonomic systems being effectively mobilized - rather than the "external picture" of the motor skill as such. For example, the world leading biathletes are known to significantly differ in the ski push-off techniques (see Table 1 hereunder) in many aspects dominated by the knee flexion angles and ground contact time - that are shorter for one type and longer for the other. Coaches well know both push-off types and commonly call them "speed" and "power" types, respectively.
The above data may be interpreted in such a way that the athletes attain the motor goals in different ways due to their natural differences in the aerobic functionality. Does this mean, however, that the athletes have different competitive mobilization efficiency? Formally, if the competitive mobilization efficiency is calculated by dividing the competitive success rate on the summarized "motor qualities" test rates, then yes. However, the fact that the athletes are equally ranked having the 15-year track records being trained by the best national coaches - makes the conclusion questionable. We believe that it makes much more sense to assume that the athletes' bodies "learn" the optimal muscle work biomechanics (muscle work magnitudes and time control) to employ the inborn and trained qualities and skills in the most efficient manner.
Therefore, the competitive mobilization efficiency may be rated by the degree of correspondence of the athlete's movement system to the individual morphological and functional structures. In other words, the movement system should be biomechanically efficient in the context outlined above by the national sports science leaders. This idea is visualized on the Figure 1 hereunder. For example, some sags in laboratory performance tests with age may be interpreted as one of manifestations of the growing bodily adaptation to competitive stressors, with the competitive motor skills (motor functionality system, motor functionality system [1, 4, 5]) formed by the body "getting rid" of motor inefficiencies.
It should be also mentioned that a competitive progress may be secured by the following processes: (a) Adaptation (growing specification) of the motor functionality system to the competitive muscle performance biomechanics; (b) Gradual adaptation of the whole individual movement control system with a special input from the most conservative (limiting) morphological structures that cannot be fully specialized for the required motor functionality system due to genetic limitations or drawbacks of the training meth-
12
Theory and Practice of Physical Culture I teoriya.ru I August № 8 2020
od applied; and (c) CNS adaptation with the growing stability of the nervous centers and their stronger connections with the motor-functionality-system-specific bodily structures. These processes are well studied and profiled by the technical performance energy-efficiency, mechanical quality and stability test rates and their variations - e.g. under fatigue.
Of special interest for the practical training systems is the question of how the competitive mobilization efficiency may be improved, and whether or not it is fully predetermined by the individual motor functionality system formation logics. In other words, can the competitive mobilization efficiency be trained by growing training workloads and distances run with the competitive/ maximal speeds, or there are some other competitive mobilization efficiency building methods?
It is beyond doubt that an individual racing speed may still grow even when the functionality comes to a plateau - due to mostly the growing focused mechanical muscle strength applied in the key movement phases/ points. How then the focused muscle strength can be increased when the traditional aerobic, cardiorespiratory, strength, explosive strength, alactate energy demand and other functionality/ fitness test rates stay the same? Based on the Y.V. Verkhoshanskiy findings and analyses of the modern national and foreign research data, we would assume that this factor may be defined as the 'specific adaptation of the neuromuscular apparatus to the competitive movement patterns'. Thus the relevant neuro-physiological studies and comparative analyses have demonstrated [6, 7] that such adaptation, normally facilitated by special strength-building exercises, results in the focused muscular performance and/ or competitive performance improvements in the endurance-intensive sports on an energy-efficient basis - without special efforts to improve the traditional aerobic performance test rates.
Conclusion. The notions of competitive mobilization efficiency and sports-specific technical skills need to be interpreted in the context of the efficient movement biomechanics formation process - that means a motor skill design that facilitates the individual morphology and functionality resource of the athlete's neuromuscular apparatus and the relevant autonomic systems being mobilized in full for success of the competitive performance biomechanics.
References
1. Boyko V.V. Purposeful development of human motor abilities. M.: Fizkultura i sport publ., 1987. 144 p.
2. Verhoshanskiy Yu.V. Programming and organization of training process. M.: Fizkultura i sport publ., 1985. 176 p.
3. Donskoy D.D., Zatsiorskiy V.M. Biomechanics. Textbook for physical education institutes. M.: Fizkultura i sport publ., 1979. 264 p.
4. Pavlov S.E., Pavlov A.S., Pavlova T.N. Modern training technologies in elite sports. M.: Onto-Print publ, 2020. 300 p.
5. Pyanzin A.I. Building functional systems as basis for adaptation of athlete's body to loads. Nauka i sport: sovremennye tendentsii. 2014. No. 1. v. 2. pp. 33-45.
6. Barnes, K.R. 2014. Strategies to improve running economy in trained distance runners. PhD Thesis. Auckland University of Technology.
7. 0steras H., Helgerud J., Hoff J. 2002. Maximal strength-training effects on force-velocity and force-power relationships explain increases in aerobic performance in humans. Eur J Appl-Physiol 88:255-63.
8. Available at: https://www.topendsports.com/ testing/records/vo2max.htm. Date of access: 18.03.2020
