Scientific journal
European Journal of Natural History
ISSN 2073-4972
ИФ РИНЦ = 0,301


Lazareva E.A., Rossoshanskaya N.S., Konovalova L.V., Gorlova L.A.
Physical working capacity is referred to the number of integral showings which are widely used for trackmen´s potentiality estimation. There is a multitude of methods to define physical efficiency: based on maximum oxygen consumption measurement (MOC), PWC170 test submission, lactic acid accumulation, anaerobic boundary, etc. The following questions arise fair-mindedly: Is only one and the same state evaluated by these methods? Are all the sides of physical efficiency diagnosed? Is it better to evaluate general or specific capability? How to define which defining method is the most suitable for physical condition evaluation?

As it is known, the work-out session in track and field is aimed at the development of either sprinter or stayer functional capabilities. In the previous work (Lazareva E.A., 2003) it was found that the defining of general physical efficiency with such a popular method as MOC measuring in the test of gradually increasing load shows the highest efficiency coefficients at stayers compared to sprinters. But can it say for a worse physical condition of sprinters (having the same category as stayers do)? The answer is negative because physical efficiency measurement of the same sportsmen in specific zones of relative potency shows that sprinters excel with maximal potency coefficients in the zone of anaerobic energy production; and stayers exercise maximal muscular power in the zone of aerobic and combined energy production, testifying that that the caliber of both sprinters and stayers is defined by the predominant power supply source development degree and cannot be esteemed by general physical efficiency measurements. Really, if general physical efficiency (esteemed on the MOC showings) is defined by the final efficiency value, physical efficiency found out in the concrete zone of relative potency checks the development of the concrete bio-energy source and, therefore, bears more detailed information about the profile of energetic metabolism and allows detecting the predominant type of power supply. This confirms the idea that for effective trackmen´s work-out session planning and physical efficiency diagnostics one should judge from the analysis of the results of a large number of tests. (Volkov N.I., 1989; Volkov N.I., Volkov A.N., 2004): gradually increasing load test for an integrated estimation of the maximum of aerobic and anaerobic capacities; critical power holding test for aerobic holding capacity estimation; single ultimate work test for glycolytic anaerobic power estimation; repeated ultimate work test for glycolytic anaerobic holding capacity estimation; ultimate anaerobic power test for anaerobic alactate capacity estimation; ultimate power reload test for alactate anaerobic holding capacity estimation. As a result of carrying out all these tests one can obtain an adequate valuation of physical fitness of a trackman - the physical fitness presupposing both general physical efficiency and all kinds of special working capacity data.

The article is admitted to the International Scientific Conference "Practicing doctor", Italy (Rimini), 8-15th September, 2007, came to the editorial office on 09.11.07.