↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Pacing accuracy during an incremental step test in adolescent swimmers

Overview of attention for article published in Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Pacing accuracy during an incremental step test in adolescent swimmers
Published in
Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, August 2015
DOI 10.2147/oajsm.s84906
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrian Scruton, James Baker, Justin Roberts, Itay Basevitch, Viviane Merzbach, Dan Gordon

Abstract

To assess pacing accuracy in a group of adolescent swimmers during an incremental step test. Fifteen well-trained swimmers (age 15±1.5 years; height 170.2±8.8 cm; mass 60.2±6.6 kg), completed two 7×200 m tests, separated by ~72 hours. They swam to a predetermined incrementally increasing pace per step and were instructed to swim at even pace. Upon completion of each step, rating of perceived exertion, heart rate and blood lactate were recorded. Significant differences observed for both trials between actual and predicted swim time (P<0.05). Significant differences also observed between the first and second 100 m of each step in trial 1 for step 1 (P=0.001, effect size [ES] =0.54), step 2 (P=0.0001, ES =0.57), step 4 (P=0.0001, ES =0.53), step 5 (P=0.005, ES =0.65), step 6 (P=0.0001, ES =0.50), and step 7 (P=0.0001, ES =0.70). Similar responses witnessed for trial 2 (P<0.05). Findings suggest that the finite anaerobic capacity was engaged sooner than would normally be anticipated, as a function of an inability to regulate pace. This is proposed to be a consequence of the volume of exposure to the biological and psychological sensations and cognitive developmental status. Given the apparent error in pacing judgment exhibited in this population group, caution should be applied when adopting such tests to monitor training responses with adolescent athletes, and alternate means of modulating pace be investigated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Other 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 15 43%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 12 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 September 2015.
All research outputs
#17,438,425
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#187
of 251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,746
of 276,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 251 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,761 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.