Physiological Development - Case Study Example

Identifying the relationship between Flexibility and Performance in Sports Affiliation Introduction Exercise development and response of physical performance of human beings are based on various or different organ systems and their performance efficiency and capabilities (Vilar, Araújo, Davids & Button, 2012). These factors are greatly affected by three types of phenomena of biological development; physiological development, physical growth, and biological maturation. The growth of dimension and structures of the human body is called physical growth (Drust et al., 2005). Biological maturation means the maturity of the body system to adult maturity while physiological development refers to the development of physical attributes: flexibility, skills, speed, and endurance. There are contradictory views concerning the different forms of flexibility training (stretching) impact flexibility and the level of training should be conducted in various forms of sports. Previous research concerning the subject have lack clear view on the form of flexibility training would be vital or beneficial for a specific sport (Jones & Spooner, 2006). The use of dynamic flexibility training that has an activating impact of muscles is a question that has not been completely researched. The topic of this article is the impact of lower body muscles (Arm string and Lower Back) and joint flexibility sports of adults between the ages of 19-31 years. The subject was aimed to benefit particle coaching of sports organizations informative tool since sportsmen flexibility has been considered a problem. Hypothesis H1: Flexibility affects performance in sports H0: Flexibility does not affect performance in sports H1: Gender difference affects body flexibility HO: Gender difference does not affect body flexibility H1: Age affects body flexibility thus, performance in sports H0: Age does not affect body flexibility thus, performance in sports Flexibility Flexibility is defined as the range of motion existing in joints, and its importance is a key in sports and in the normal life. Despite the fact that flexibility is an inherited physical quality, it can be increased by training. It is the main physical quality, and imparity of flexibility is critical for performance since impaired flexibility hinders the movement as well as increases the amount of energy needed to keep the technique as economical as possible. Flexibility is an individual quality and is accompanied with factors that its maintenance and development (age, exercise, body structure) (Judge & Ilies, 2002). Flexibility can be explained in details as a motor feature when it comes to the ability to gain the intended range of movement during motion. It differ other physical components since it comprises of force production and coordinative dimension. Muscle elasticity does not mean good flexibility because the effects of stretching do not pertain on muscle only, but also on a neuromuscular system and supporting tissues (Kay & Blazevich, 2012). Flexibility tests Countermovement jump test was carried out to identify the likely changes in the force production levels of the sports persons during their research time. In the first measurement, the mean of the group was 18.52 milliseconds and that of the second measurement was 18.79 milliseconds. This result is illustrated in table 1 below. The average ranking between the first measurement and the second is 0.271, thus means that countermovement has improved by 1.46%. When measuring flexibility levels in Thigh muscles, the mean of the group in the first measurement was 47.16 cm and that of the second measurement was 46.30 cm. This result is Table 1: Indicating Paired Sample Statistics of Flexibility Tests Paired Sample Statistics Mean N Pair 1 Thigh 1 (cm) 47.16 17 Thigh 2 46.30 17 Pair 2 Squat Jump (ins) 17.70 17 V7 18.05 17 Pair 3 Countermovement Jump (ins) 18.52 17 V10 18.79 17 Pair 4 Drop Jump (ins) 15.55 17 V13 16.11 17 Pair 5 Standing Long Jump (cm) 203.59 17 V16 213.00 17 Pair 6 Sit and Reach (cm) 39.38 17 V19 40.46 17 shown in table 1 above. The average ranking between the first and second measurement was -0.865 cm indicating there was reduction thigh elasticity. Percentage deviation of -1.83%. In sit and reach test, the mean of the first measurement was 39.38 centimeters and that of the second measurement was 40.46 cm. The average ranking between the first and the second measurements is 1.071 cm. This indicates an improvement of 2.72%. On the other hand, the first measurement for standing long jump indicated 203.59 cm and the second measurement indicated 213.00 cm. The difference between the first and the second measurements is 9.412cm (average ranking). With this positive deviation between the first and second measurement there was 4.62% improvement rate. In drop Jump flexibility test, the first measurement was 15.55 milliseconds, while on the second measurement it increased to 16.11 milliseconds. The average ranking between the two measurements was 0.59. This indicates that there was 3.79%, recording an improvement. In addition, there was the squat test performed, this flexibility test indicated a positive deviation since the first measurement recorded 17.70 milliseconds and the second measurement was 18.05 milliseconds. The average ranking was 3.47, deducing 19.6% improvement of measurement results. The flexibility test that showed the highest average ranking percentage rate was squat test while the lowest was the thigh test that recorded Percentage deviation of -1.83%. Paired sample T-Test Paired t-test is used in the study to compare the average ranking of the observations evident from the flexibility test. Table 3 below indicates each pair test whereby it detects the average ranking change between the first and second measurement as well as the p-value (sig), which denotes the significance. The finding contains stronger evidence against the null hypothesis (H0) that states flexibility does not affect performance in sports. In this case, only two flexibility results indicated that the null hypothesis these are thing muscle test and standing long test. In the case, 5% of the risk was not bypassed and the results and reliable with 95% certainty. This means that the results obtained from the laboratory can be considered statistically reliable. Paired sample test indicate that thigh muscle and standing long Jump test have great improvement after the flexibility training. The p-value is less than .05, and, therefore, the null hypothesis (H0) is ignored and the alternative hypothesis (H1) applied. The other tests do not show improvement which means that the null hypothesis is accepted to their case. Paired sample test results are shown in the table 2 below. Table 2: Showing Paired sample T-test Correlation test The correlation test indicates that there is varied results of correlation between gender, age, and flexibility. The p-value and the correlation coefficient indicate that some of the flexibility tests such as thigh test, and sit and reach test and p-value more than 0.05 indicating that the null hypothesis (H0) stating that gender does not affect body flexibility was supported. However, because some of the tests like squat test, countermovement test, drop jump test, and standing long jump test have p-values less than 0.05. Hence, the majority of the test indicating that the alternative hypothesis (H1) gender affects the rate of flexibility is considered reliable for the study as indicated in table 3 below. On the other hand, the correction between the flexibility tests and age also show varied results but the subjective role applies. Five of the tests apart from sit and reach have a p-value of more than 0.05 meaning that the null hypothesis is supported in this case and the alternative hypothesis rejected as indicated in table 3 below. Table 3: Showing the Correlation Correlations Gender Age (yr) Thigh 1 (cm) Pearson Correlation .089 .009 Sig. (2-tailed) .735 .974 N 17 17 Squat 1 (ins) Pearson Correlation .731** .387 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .125 N 17 17 Countermovement 1(ins) Pearson Correlation .671** .328 Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .198 N 17 17 Drop 1 (ins) Pearson Correlation .555* .362 Sig. (2-tailed) .021 .154 N 17 17 Standing Long 1(cm) Pearson Correlation .729** .423 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .091 N 17 17 Sit and Reach 1 (cm) Pearson Correlation .176 .573* Sig. (2-tailed) .499 .016 N 17 17 Discussion As indicated from previous studies, the level of flexibility affects the extent of performance among sports persons (Guerrien et al., 2012). Although previous studies have been undertaken with respect to this topic, not much has been done correlating gender and age to flexibility tests. Historical sources have indicated that different exercises call for different flexibility levels. Thus, reaching to a conclusion that certain sports require a minimum flexibility level remains a dream to many sport related scholars (Opar, Williams & Shield, 2012). However, the aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between flexibility and performance in sports. The results indicate that flexibility has relationship with gender, meaning that the difference in gender affects the level of flexibility since hence their performance in sports. This was evident in the study as the significance value (p-value) was less than .05. Contrary, age’s significance value was more than .05 meaning that age does not affect flexibility likewise to performance. This is also supported from contemporary sports industry were young or junior sportsmen/women have shown outstanding results over their experienced and older lot (Parchmann & McBride, 2011). The graph attached in the appendix shows how age with flexibility among all the tests. Conclusion Identifying whether flexibility affects performance was coupled with various data biasness and perceptions from previous studies, but the results based on this study have indicated that yes flexibility affects performance. Thus, sportspersons should consider improving their flexibility levels for better performance. References Drust, B., Waterhouse, J., Atkinson, G., Edwards, B., & Reilly, T. (2005). Circadian rhythms in sports performance-an update. Chronobiology international, 22(1), 21-44. Jones, G., & Spooner, K. (2006). Coaching high achievers. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58(1), 40. Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: a meta- analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 797. Kay, A. D., & Blazevich, A. J. (2012). Effect of acute static stretch on maximal muscle performance: a systematic review. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 44(1), 154-164. Moreau, D., Clerc, J., Mansy-Dannay, A., & Guerrien, A. (2012). Enhancing spatial ability through sport practice: Evidence for an effect of motor training on mental rotation performance. Journal of Individual Differences, 33(2), 83. Opar, M. D. A., Williams, M. D., & Shield, A. J. (2012). Hamstring strain injuries. Sports Medicine, 42(3), 209-226. Parchmann, C. J., & McBride, J. M. (2011). Relationship between functional movement screen and athletic performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25(12), 3378-3384. Vilar, L., Araújo, D., Davids, K., & Button, C. (2012). The role of ecological dynamics in analysing performance in team sports. Sports Medicine, 42(1), 1-10. Appendix Graph 1: A graph showing the relations between age and flexibility Read More