Abstract
Objectives: The study aims to analyse the physiological characteristics of top level off-road motocross, enduro, and desert rally motorcyclists to facilitate the design of a specific training program.
Results: The physical demands of the various races appear to influence the development of distinct musculoskeletal characteristics, as well as aerobic and anaerobic metabolism. Motocross riders have more muscle mass, higher isokinetic handgrip strength, and greater aerobic power than enduro and desert rally riders. However, there are no significant anthropometric and physiological differences between desert rally and enduro riders. Desert rally riders tend to be overweight with maximum aerobic power similar to that of healthy individuals. The mechanical characteristics of the motorcycle and the technical and tactical skills of the riders seem to be more important for race success than the metabolic capabilities of the rider.
Conclusions: Desert rally and enduro riders present similar anthropometric and physiological characteristics. Both have a maximum aerobic power similar to that of healthy normal individuals, although desert rally riders tend to be overweight. Motocross riders on the other hand, have more muscle mass, more strength, and greater aerobic power. The differences observed suggest the need for a specific training program to address the requirements of different riders to reduce the possibility of injury.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (94.2 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Bar-Or O., Zwiren L. D. Maximal oxygen consumption test during arm exercise--reliability and validity. J Appl Physiol. 1975 Mar;38(3):424–426. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1975.38.3.424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bouchard C., Godbout P., Mondor J. C., Leblanc C. Specificity of maximal aerobic power. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1979 Jan 10;40(2):85–93. doi: 10.1007/BF00421154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- De Boer L. B., Kallal J. E., Longo M. R. Upper extremity prone position exercise as aerobic capacity indicator. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1982 Oct;63(10):467–471. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Franklin B. A. Exercise testing, training and arm ergometry. Sports Med. 1985 Mar-Apr;2(2):100–119. doi: 10.2165/00007256-198502020-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Maughan R. J., Abel R. W., Watson J. S., Weir J. Forearm composition and muscle function in trained and untrained limbs. Clin Physiol. 1986 Aug;6(4):389–396. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-097x.1986.tb00244.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mitchell J. H., Haskell W. L., Raven P. B. Classification of sports. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1994 Oct;26(10 Suppl):S242–S245. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sloan A. W., Weir J. B. Nomograms for prediction of body density and total body fat from skinfold measurements. J Appl Physiol. 1970 Feb;28(2):221–222. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1970.28.2.221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stenberg J., Astrand P. O., Ekblom B., Royce J., Saltin B. Hemodynamic response to work with different muscle groups, sitting and supine. J Appl Physiol. 1967 Jan;22(1):61–70. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1967.22.1.61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]