PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS IN
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
DIVISION III CHAMPION FEMALE LACROSSE
ATHLETES
JAY R. HOFFMAN, NICHOLAS A. RATAMESS, KATE L. NEESE, RYAN E. ROSS, JIE KANG,
JASON F. MAGRELLI, AND AVERY D. FAIGENBAUM
Department of Health and Exercise Science, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, New Jersey 08628
ABSTRACT
Hoffman, JR, Ratamess, NA, Neese, KL, Ross, RE, Kang, J,
Magrelli, JF, and Faigenbaum, AD. Physical performance
characteristics in National Collegiate Athletic Association
Division III champion female lacrosse athletes. JStrength Cond
Res 23(5): 1524–1529, 2009—The purpose of this study was
to examine performance differences between starters and non-
starters and between different playing positions in collegiate
female lacrosse athletes. Twenty-two subjects playing on a two-
time defending National Champion National Collegiate Athletic
Association Division III female lacrosse team volunteered to
participate in this study. Subjects were examined during the
preseason period and participated in a total of 5 testing
sessions, separated by at least 72 hours. Subjects were tested
on their 1 repetition maximum (1RM) (bench press and squat),
vertical jump, Wingate anaerobic power test (WAnT), 30-
second sprint using a nonmotorized treadmill, maximal aerobic
capacity, 40-yd sprint, T-drill, and pro-agility test. No significant
differences were observed between starters and nonstarters in
any performance variable. Anthropometric analysis revealed
that attackers were 15.7% (p , 0.05) heavier than midfielders.
A significant difference (10.3%) between defenders and
midfielders was seen in 1RM squat, while no other strength
differences were noted. Attackers were more powerful in the
WAnT (both peak and mean power) than both defenders (19.6
and 13.4%, respectively) and midfielders (21.2 and 13.4%,
respectively). No significant differences were noted between
the groups in any speed or agility measure. Although physical
performance characteristics were not different between
starters and nonstarters, results indicate that attackers are
heavier and more powerful than the other positions and
Address correspondence to Jay R. Hoffman, hoffmanj@tcnj.edu.
23(5)/1524–1529
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2009 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
1524 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
midfielders appear to be weaker in lower-body strength relative
to the other positions in lacrosse.
KEY WORDS performance testing, strength, power, speed, agility
INTRODUCTION
W
omen’s lacrosse has grown more than 2-fold in
the past 25 years, with approximately 6,000
female athletes participating in this sport at the
intercollegiate level (11). Although the pop-
ularity of lacrosse is growing at great rates, the understand-
ing of the physiological requirements of this sport and
the physical characteristics of the athletes participating
in intercollegiate competition is quite limited. Success in
lacrosse has been suggested to be dependent on skill, speed,
agility, strength, flexibility, and both aerobic and anaerobic
capacities (14,17). These recommendations though have
been based primarily on empirical evidence. Video analysis of
work/rest intervals in National Collegiate Athletic Associ-
ation (NCAA) Division I Men’s Lacrosse reported that
performance relied primarily on anaerobic metabolism (12),
but no direct metabolic measurements were calculated.
Subsequent research on male club team lacrosse players
and NCAA Division I female lacrosse players has indicated
that aerobic capacity levels in these athletes are higher than
the 90th percentile in age-matched individuals but are similar
to values seen in college basketball, team handball, and ice
hockey athletes but less than that seen in soccer players
(9,15,16). Similarly, anaerobic power outputs have also been
shown to exceed the 90th percentile for age-matched
individuals, but much lower than that seen for other
anaerobic athletes (i.e., football and basketball players) (9,15).
There are 4 primary positions in lacrosse: attack, midfield,
defense, and goalie. Each of these positions has overlapping
responsibilities; however, there are also distinct roles for
each position. The attacker’s responsibility is to score goals and
play primarily in the opponents end. Midfielders cover the
entire field, playing both offense and defense, while defenders
primarily remain on the defensive side of the field and

protecting the goal. Goalies are responsible for defending
the goal. Although midfielders cover the greatest distance
during competition, the work to rest ratios were similar
between the positions (12). Performance characteristics of
these positions also appear to be similar. Both Steinhagen
et al. (15) and Vescovi et al. (16) reported no significant
differences between positions in a variety of performance-
related variables (e.g., agility, endurance, power, speed, and
vertical jump height) in male college-club lacrosse athletes
and female NCAA Division I lacrosse players, respectively.
To date, only male subjects participating in club lacrosse
have been examined during a season. The importance
of examining athletes during the competitive season is
necessary to get a clear understanding of the physical
characteristics that help determine team success. Therefore,
the purpose of this study was to examine an elite team (two-
time defending national champions) of NCAA Division III
female lacrosse players during their competitive season
and specifically examine performance differences between
starters and nonstarters and to provide additional insight on
physical performance characteristics between attackers,
midfielders, and defenders. This information will assist
strength and conditioning professionals in designing optimal
training program and assisting lacrosse athletes with devel-
oping sport-specific training goals.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
All subjects were either returning members or freshman
players on a nationally ranked NCAA Division III women’s
lacrosse team and were preparing to defend their national
champion status for a third consecutive year. Subjects were
examined prior to the onset of the regular season (during
preseason training). Testing occurred in both laboratory and
field settings. Subjects participated in a total of 5 testing
sessions, separated by at least 72 hours. All testing sessions
were supervised by certified strength and conditioning
specialists.
Subjects
Twenty-two female intercollegiate athletes (mean 6 SD: age,
19.2 6 1.0 years; height, 163.5 6 5.1 cm; body mass, 61.1 6
5.9 kg) of a NCAA Division III lacrosse team were examined
during the 2007 preseason training period. These athletes
were returning two-time national champions from the 2005
and 2006 seasons. The athletes were not involved in any
supervised team-directed in-season or off-season resistance
training program. All subjects provided their informed
consent as part of their sport requirements consistent with
the institution’s policies of our Institutional Review Board for
use of human subjects in research.
Performance Assessments
Subjects performed both upper (1 repetition maximum
[1RM] bench press)-and lower (1RM squat)-body maximal
strength tests. Anaerobic power was assessed with both field
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
(vertical jump) and laboratory measures (Wingate anaerobic
power test [WAnT] and a 30-second sprint test using
a nonmotorized treadmill test). Additional laboratory meas-
ures included assessment of maximal aerobic capacity. Both
speed and agility were assessed with standardized field tests
(40-yd sprint T-drill and pro-agility test). Test-retest reli-
abilities for all assessments were R .0.90.
Subjects participated in a total of 5 separate testing sessions,
separated by at least 72 hours. All testing sessions were
supervised by certified strength and conditioning specialists.
Anthropometric (height and body mass) and strength
measures were performed initially. All strength and anthro-
pometric measures were performed in the Human Perfor-
mance Laboratory (HPL). During the second testing session,
subjects returned to the HPL for vertical jump and WAnT
measures. Subjects again returned to the HPL for the third
testing session and performed the 30-second anaerobic sprint
test. Maximal aerobic capacity was assessed during the fourth
testing session in the HPL. The final testing session assessed
speed and agility performance and occurred on the stadium’s
Astroturf field. The Figure illustrates the performance testing
protocol.
Maximal Strength Testing
During each testing session, subjects performed a 1RM
strength test on the bench press and squat exercises to
measure upper- and lower-body strength, respectively. The
1RM tests were conducted as previously described (9). Each
subject performed a warm-up set using a resistance that was
approximately 40–60% of their perceived maximum and then
performed 3 to 4 subsequent trials to determine the 1RM. A
3- to 5-minute rest period was provided between each trial.
The squat exercise required the subject to place an Olympic
bar across the trapezius muscle at a self-chosen location.
Each subject descended to the parallel position, which was
attained when the greater trochanter of the femur reached
the same level as the knee. The subject then ascended until
full knee extension. Bench press testing was performed in the
standard supine position; the subject lowered a strength
training bar to sternum level and then pressed the weight
until her arms were fully extended. Trials not meeting the
range of motion criteria were discarded.
Anaerobic Power Measures
To quantify anaerobic power performance, all subjects
performed the WAnT (Lode Excalibur, Groningen, The
Netherlands). After a warm-up period of 5 minutes of
pedaling at 60 rpm interspersed with 4 all-out sprints lasting 5
seconds, the subjects pedaled for 30 seconds at maximal speed
against a constant force (1.0 N m
kg21). Peak power, mean
power, and fatigue rate were determined. Peak power was
defined as the highest mechanical power output elicited
during the test. Mean power was defined as the average
mechanical power during the 30-second test. Fatigue rate
was determined by dividing the highest power output from
the lowest power output.
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 5 | AUGUST 2009 | 1525
Performance Comparisons in Female Lacrosse Athletes
To quantify anaerobic sprint power performance, all sub-
jects also performed an anaerobic power test on a nonmotorized
treadmill (Woodway, USA, Waukesha, WI). The treadmill
uses a user-driven loading applied via a magnetic braking
system interfaced with a computer. Four load cells were
located underneath the running surface to record force and
power data. Subjects performed one 30-second sprint against
a resistance of 20% of body mass. Peak power, mean power,
total work, and a fatigue rate were calculated for each sprint.
Countermovement vertical jump height was measured using
a Vertec (Sports Imports, Columbus, OH). Prior to testing, each
athlete’s standing vertical reach height was determined. Vertical
jump height was calculated by subtracting the standing reach
height from the jump height. Subjects performed 3 attempts.
The highest vertical jump height achieved was recorded.
V_ O2peak Test
All V_ O2peak tests were performed on a motor-driven
treadmill (TrackMaster 210; JAS MFG, Co., Carrollton,
TX) using the test protocol described by Åstrand et al. (1). All
subjects were familiarized with the equipment and test
protocol. Following a 4- to 5-minute warm-up, which
consisted of the subject beginning in a walk and ending in
a run, the subject began the exercise protocol. Subjects were
required to run between 5 and 8 mph, but the precise pace
was self-chosen. The initial stage of the protocol was
performed at 0% grade and lasted for 3 minutes. Each
subsequent stage was performed at the same velocity for 2
minutes. Increases in workload were achieved with a 2%
increase in grade for each stage. Subjects were instructed not
to use handrails until the completion of the test.
For each test, the subject was verbally encouraged to
continue exercise until volitional exhaustion. Both V_ O2 and
heart rate (HR) were recorded during the last 15 seconds of
TABLE 1. Anthropometric and athletic performance comparisons between starters and nonstarters.*
Assessment category Variable
Anthropometric Height (cm)
Body mass (kg)
Strength 1RM bench press (kg)
1RM squat (kg)
Anaerobic power Vertical jump (cm)
Wingate anaerobic power test Peak power (W)
Mean power (W)
Fatigue rate (W
s21)
Sprint test Peak power (W)
Mean power (W)
Maximal aerobic capacity V_ O2max (ml
kg21)
Speed 40-yd sprint (s)
Agility T-drill (s)
Pro-agility (s)
*All data are reported as mean 6 SD.
the TM
1526 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
every minute throughout the test. V_ O2max and HRmax were
determined by averaging the 2 consecutive highest measures
of each variable. To ensure that a true V_ O2max had been
attained, at least 2 of the following 3 criteria were met: an
increase in V_ O2 of less than 100 ml
min21 despite an increase
in work rate, an HR within 6 5 b
min21 of age-predicted
maximum, or a resting expiratory rate (RER) greater than 1.10.
V_ O2 was determined using a two-way T-shaped breathing
valve (Hans Rudolph 2700; Hans Rudolph, Inc., Kansas City,
MO) and an open-circuit respiratory-metabolic system
(Metabolic Measurement Cart 2900; SensorMedics, Inc.,
Yorba Linda, CA). Heart rate was measured using a wireless
HR monitor (Pacer, Polar CIC, Inc., Port Washington, NY).
Speed and Agility Assessments
Speed was determined by a timed 40-yd (37-m) sprint.
Sprint times were determined using handheld stopwatches
and performed on an Astroturf field. Timing began on the
subject’s movement out of a three-point stance. The best of 3
attempts was recorded as the subject’s best time. The same
investigator timed all 40-yd sprint tests.
Agility was determined by both a T-test and a pro-agility
test on an Astroturf field. The protocols were conducted as
previously described (9). The T-test required the subject to
sprint in a straight line from a two-point stance to a cone 9 m
away. The subject touched the cone and then side shuffled to
either her left or right without crossing her feet to another
cone 4.5 m away. She touched that cone and then side
shuffled to the opposite side to a third cone that was 9 m
away. The subject then side shuffled back to the middle cone
and back pedaled to the starting position. The pro-agility test
was performed using the markings on the football field. The
subject straddled the 5 yd line and sprinted to the goal line
(4.5 m away) and touched the line. She then changed
Starters (n = 11) Nonstarters (n = 11)
163.2 6 4.6 164.2 6 6.1
60.0 6 5.0 61.5 6 6.2
43.9 6 6.1 41.5 6 6.5
71.9 6 6.1 73.5 6 7.5
38.4 6 5.6 36.6 6 6.1
599 6 100 572 6 107
449 6 46 435 6 67
11.4 6 3.4 12.1 6 3.4
322 6 42 316 6 81
87.2 6 9.7 87.4 6 13.1
53.7 6 6.9 50.1 6 5.2
5.40 6 0.16 5.49 6 0.16
10.5 6 0.6 10.5 6 0.2
4.92 6 0.22 4.94 6 0.13
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

TABLE 2. Anthropometric and athletic performance comparisons between positions.*

Assessment category Variable Attackers (n = 7) Defenders (n = 8) Midfielders (n = 7)

Anthropometric Height (cm) 165.9 6 2.9 161.2 6 6.5 164.4 6 5.3

Body mass (kg) 65.1 6 5.5† 60.4 6 4.7 56.8 6 3.3
Strength 1RM bench press (kg) 44.0 6 4.4 43.5 6 6.7 40.6 6 7.7
1RM squat (kg) 73.7 6 7.4 75.6 6 6.3† 68.5 6 5.1
Anaerobic power Vertical jump (cm) 36.3 6 5.6 38.1 6 5.6 37.6 6 7.1
Wingate anaerobic power test Peak power (W) 662 6 116‡ 554 6 55 546 6 97
Mean power (W) 481 6 67‡ 424 6 37 424 6 52
Fatigue rate (W
s21) 13.4 6 4.2 10.2 6 2.4 12.0 6 3.0
Sprint Test Peak power (W) 353 6 77 293 6 55 312 6 77
Mean power (W) 93.8 6 10.8 86.0 6 9.9 81.3 6 13.9
Maximal Aerobic Capacity V_ O2max (ml
kg21) 51.2 6 4.5 49.7 6 5.7 53.2 6 7.7
Speed 40-yd sprint (s) 5.56 6 0.11 5.43 6 0.17 5.40 6 0.17
Agility T-drill (s) 10.5 6 0.3 10.7 6 0.5 10.3 6 0.3
Pro-agility (s) 4.96 6 0.18 4.96 6 0.21 4.88 6 0.09
*All data are reported as mean 6 SD.
†Significantly different than midfielders.
‡Significantly different than both defenders and midfielders.

direction and sprinted to the 10 yd line (9 m away), touched
the line with the same hand used to touch the goal line,
reversed direction, and returned to the starting point.
Subjects were instructed to sprint through the 5 yd line.
The timer began upon the subject’s initial movement and
stopped as the athlete crossed the 5 yd line. The same
investigator conducted all agility tests. Each subject per-
formed 3 maximal attempts for each drill, and the fastest time
for each drill was recorded.
Statistical Analyses
Statistical comparisons between starters and nonstarters
were accomplished using an independent t-test. Comparisons
between positions (attackers, defenders, and midfielders)
were accomplished with a 1-way analysis of variance. In
the event of a significant F ratio, least significant differences
(LSD) post hoc tests were used
for pairwise comparisons. A cri-
terion alpha level of p # 0.05 was
used to determine statistical sig-
nificance. All data are reported as
mean 6 SD.
Comparisons between positions are shown in Table 2.
Anthropometric analysis revealed that attackers were 15.7%
(p , 0.05) heavier than midfielders. However, no other
statistical differences in height or body mass were seen.
Strength comparisons revealed a significant difference
(10.3%) between defenders and midfielders in 1RM squat,
but no other differences in 1RM squat were noted between
positions, and 1RM bench press performance was similar
between all positions. Power analyses indicated that attackers
were more powerful in the WAnT (both peak and mean
power) than both defenders (19.6 and 13.4%, respectively)
and midfielders (21.2 and 13.4%, respectively). No other
differences were seen between the groups in power
performance. In addition, no significant differences were
noted between the groups in any speed or agility measure.

RESULTS
Anthropometric, strength,
power, speed, and agility com-
parisons between starters and
nonstarters are depicted in Ta-
ble 1. No significant differences
were observed between starters
and nonstarters in any of these Figure. Performance testing protocol.
variables.

VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 5 | AUGUST 2009 | 1527

Performance Comparisons in Female Lacrosse Athletes
DISCUSSION
Results of this study indicated that measurement of physical
performance was unable to differentiate starters from non-
starters in an elite NCAA Division III female lacrosse team.
This is consistent with a previous study examining men’s club
lacrosse that was also unable to differentiate skill level (i.e.,
first and second team) based on physical performance (15).
However, in the study by Steinhagen et al. (15), no field
tests were used and only measures of aerobic capacity and
anaerobic power were examined. This present study, using
both laboratory and sport-specific field assessments, was still
unable to differentiate starters from nonstarters based on any
physical or performance attribute.
Previous studies on anaerobic athletes have shown that
physical ability (e.g., strength, speed, and power) can be an
effective predictor for success in both basketball (10) and
football (2,3,5,7). Many of these studies have compared
physical performance characteristics between different
divisions of play or in game outcomes (e.g., national
rankings). Hoffman et al. (10), in a 4-year study of an elite
NCAA Division I college basketball team using playing time
as the dependent variable, demonstrated that lower-body
strength, speed, and power contribute to greater playing
time, while Black and Roundy (3) showed that strength,
speed, and power measures can separate starters from
nonstarters in NCAA Division I football. However, Black
and Roundy (3) combined results of 11 teams. In studies
examining a single team, the ability to differentiate starters
from nonstarters based on physical attributes appears to be
limited. Schmidt (13) showed that strength and power
performance was able to differentiate starters from non-
starters in Division III football players. However, the total
number of players on most athletic teams, outside American
football, likely does not provide the statistical power
necessary to see statistical differences in physical character-
istics between starters and nonstarters. This is especially
relevant, in that coaches will recruit a certain type of player
who fits to the needs and coaching style being employed by
that specific team.
Another aspect of examining predictors for success in sport
is the importance of the athlete’s sport-specific skill. Although
strength, power, and speed are all desirable factors, the
primary issue in sport is related to the athlete’s ability to play
that sport. Hoffman et al. (10) showed that the coach’s
perception of the athlete’s sport-specific skill is the most
critical component for determining playing time. Once this
variable is factored out, then the relative importance of
physical factors relating to athleticism can be assessed. In
a sport such as lacrosse, in which skill plays such an
important role, the relative importance of these physical
factors may be secondary to the ability of the athlete to play
the game, especially in a group of athletes who appear to be
quite homogenous in regard to their physical performance
characteristics.
the TM
1528 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Comparisons between positions revealed several physical
characteristics that were significantly different. This is in
contrast with the recent study by Vescovi et al. (16) who
reported no differences between positions except for height
in NCAA Division I female lacrosse players. Results of this
study indicated that attackers were significantly heavier than
midfielders and that they were more powerful than both
defenders and midfielders. The enhanced power for attackers
appears to provide a significant advantage for these athletes
whose primary responsibility is to score. Interestingly,
midfielders had less lower-body strength than both defenders
(10.3%, p , 0.05) and attackers (7.6%, p . 0.05). This may
reflect the difference between positions in the total distance
run during a game. Midfielders play in both the offensive
and the defensive zones, whereas attackers and defenders
generally play on one side of the field. Because of a greater
coverage of the field, this position has been considered the
most arduous (12,14). It is likely that the greater running
required of these athletes during competition has a cumula-
tive effect on decreasing lower-body strength performance.
This is supportive by several studies examining the
suppressive effect that concurrent training has been shown
to have on strength performance (4,8).
In comparison to other intercollegiate female athletes, the
results of this study indicated that NCAA Division III lacrosse
players were weaker and slower than Division III female
soccer players (9). However, these athletes were faster than
Division I female volleyball players in the 40-yd sprint but not
as quick as the volleyball players in the T-drill (6).
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Although physical performance characteristics were not
different between starters and nonstarters, results do suggest
that attackers are heavier and more powerful than the other
positions. Midfielders appear to be weaker in lower-body
strength relative to the other positions in lacrosse. This may
be related to the greater distance covered during competition
relative to the other positions. The findings of this study do
provide coaches and athletes an idea as to how training can be
planned differently in order to maximize performance of
each respective position. For example, training that empha-
sizes power development may be more preferable for
attackers or defenders.
REFERENCES
1. Åstrand, PO, Rodahl, K, Dahl, HA, and Strømme, SB. Textbook of
Work Physiology. Physiological Bases of Exercise (4th ed). Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics, 2003. pp. 277–279.
2. Berg K, Latin, RW, and Baechle, T. Physical and performance
characteristics of NCAA Division I football players. Res Quart
61: 395–401, 1990.
3. Black, W and Roundy, E. Comparisons of size, strength, speed and
power in NCAA Division I-A football players. J Strength Cond Res
8: 80–85, 1994.
4. Dolezal, BA and Potteiger, JA. Concurrent resistance and endurance
training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals.
J Appl Phys 85: 695–700, 1998.

5. Fry, AC and Kraemer, WJ. Physical performance characteristics of
American collegiate football players. J Appl Sport Sci Res 5: 126–138,
1991.
6. Fry, AC, Kraemer, WJ, Weseman, CA, Conroy, BP, Gordon, SE,
Hoffman, JR, and Maresh, CM. The effects of an off-season strength
and conditioning program on starters and non-starters in women’s
intercollegiate volleyball. J Appl Sport Sci Res 5: 174–181, 1991.
7. Garstecki, MA, Latin, RW, and Cuppett, MM. Comparison of
selected physical fitness and performance variables between NCAA
Division I and II football players. J Strength Cond Res 18: 292–297,
2004.
8. Hennessy, LC and Watson, AWS. The interference effects of training
for strength and endurance simultaneously. J Strength Cond Res
8: 12–19, 1994.
9. Hoffman, JR. Norms for Fitness, Performance, and Health. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics, 2006. pp. 27–39.
10. Hoffman, JR, Tennenbaum, G, Maresh, CM, and Kraemer, WJ.
Relationship between athletic performance tests and playing time in
elite college basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 10: 67–71, 1996.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
11. National Collegiate Athletic Association. NCAA Sports Sponsorship
and Participation Rates. 1981–82–2005–2006. Indianapolis, IN:
National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2007.
12. Plisk, SS. Regression analysis of NCAA Division I final four men’s
lacrosse competition. J Strength Cond Res 8: 28–42, 1994.
13. Schmidt, WD. Strength and physiological characteristics of
NCAA Division III American football players. J Strength Cond Res
13: 210–213, 1999.
14. Scott, B. Lacrosse: Techniques & Tradition. Baltimore, MD: John
Hopkins University Press, 1976.
15. Steinhagen, MR, Meyers, MC, Erickson, HH, Noble, L, and
Richardson, MT. Physiological profile of college club-sport lacrosse
athletes. J Strength Cond Res 12: 226–231, 1998.
16. Vescovi, JD, Brown, TD, and Murray, TM. Descriptive character-
istics of NCAA Division I women lacrosse players. J Sci Med Sport
10: 334–340, 2007.
17. Walker, J. How to Play Winning Lacrosse. New York, NY: Cornerstone
Library Publication, 1980.
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 5 | AUGUST 2009 | 1529