[Downloaded free from http://www.ijptr.org on Sunday, March 8, 2020, IP: 10.232.74.

23]

Original Article

Effect of Agility Training Exercise on Motor Proficiency and

Anthropometry in 6–10‑year‑old Children with Obesity
Subhadip Bera, Snehal Dharmayat1
Departments of Paediatric Physiotherapy and 1Community Based Rehabilitation, KAHER Institute of Physiotherapy, Belagavi, Karnataka, India

Abstract Background: Increased body weight, termed as Obesity, has emerged as one of the major problems in children
in recent times. These children are also prone to have lower physical activity/ physical fitness levels. They
are also known to have poor motor proficiency during development as well as later life if obesity continues.
Early intervention is necessary to promote healthy life style & improve fitness. This study was, therefore,
undertaken to determine the effect of agility training exercise on motor proficiency & anthropometry in 6
to 10 year old obese school children.
Materials and Methods: Twenty children with BMI ≥25 as per Asian criteria were recruited for this pre-post
experimental study from randomly selected schools. Demographic profile of the children was collected &
an assessment of their skin fold thickness (triceps, abdomen & thigh), lower extremity strength (quadriceps,
hamstrings, hip extensors, hip abductors and dorsiflexors), agility (modified T test) and motor proficiency
(Test of Gross Motor Development-3) was performed prior to & at the end of 2nd and 4th week of training.
Agility training exercises were administered to all children three times a week for 4 weeks.
Results: Statistically significant changes from pre to post 4 weeks intervention were noted in most of the
outcome measures, most notably motor proficiency (both locomotor & object control components; P =
0.0001), body weight (P = 0.0004), triceps skin fold thickness (P = 0.0033), strength of hip extensors (P
= 0.0002) and agility (P = 0.0003).
Conclusion: A school based 4 week agility training program of low to moderate intensity (contextual
interference) has shown to be effective in improving motor proficiency & also altering anthropometric
parameters in obese children aged 6-10 years.

Keywords: Agility, Anthropometry, Childhood obesity, Gross motor coordination, Physical activity

Address for correspondence: Mr. Subhadip Bera, Department of Pediatric Physiotherapy, KAHER Institute of Physiotherapy, Belagavi ‑ 590 010,
Karnataka, India.
E‑mail: subhadeep.joni@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION it has been defined by the WHO as a noncontagious

disease and termed as the “New World Syndrome.”[1]
Obesity has emerged as a major health problem worldwide Indian prevalence of obesity ranges from 1% to 12.9%
with it being the most neglected public health disease with higher prevalence in urban than in rural areas.[2‑5] The
among developed and developing countries. Recently, main cause of increased weight, as per the WHO, is an
energy mismatch between the consumed and expended
Access this article online
Quick Response Code:
Website: This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution‑NonCommercial‑ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix,
www.ijptr.org tweak, and build upon the work non‑commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and
the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

DOI:
For reprints contact: reprints@medknow.com
10.4103/ijptr.ijptr_13_19
How to cite this article: Bera S, Dharmayat S. Effect of agility training
exercise on motor proficiency and anthropometry in 6–10-year-old children
Received: 11-11-2018, Accepted: 04‑04‑2019 with obesity. Indian J Phys Ther Res 2019;1:11-6.

© 2019 Indian Journal of Physical Therapy and Research | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 11
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijptr.org on Sunday, March 8, 2020, IP: 10.232.74.23]
Bera and Dharmayat: Agility training on motor proficiency
calories and a decrease in physical activity due to increasing
urbanization and also due to lack of or inadequate sleep
and increased consumption of aerated/carbonated
drinks which are high in sugar content.[6‑9] Gross motor
skills (GMS) or motor proficiency, generally termed
as fundamental movement skills  (FMS), are the basic
precursor movement patterns of the more specialized,
complex skills in organized or nonorganized sports,
games, recreational activities or even in structured or
nonstructured physical activity.[10]
A child with well‑developed motor skills is more likely
to be engaged with high level of physical activity in
comparison to a child with poorly developed motor
skills.[11] Several longitudinal analyses of gross motor
coordination among overweight and obese children
have reported that the weight status of a child negatively
influenced the gross motor coordination,[12] with obese
children having lower levels of fundamental movement
skills and motor coordination such as speed, agility, fine,
and gross motor skills as compared to their healthy weight
peers.[13]
Cur rently recommended inter ventions include
modifications of eating habits, increase in physical
activity, and addressing psychosocial issues.[14] Structured
aerobic exercise programs are frequently organized for
obese children, but the compliance to such programs
is often poor because of the obese children’s lack of
confidence and fear of failures.[15,16] Nowadays, physical
therapy programs have been introduced for obese
children at school or community level which help in
altering the quality of life of these children and also
affect the physical and emotional status.[17] School‑based
intervention programs might be feasible and may be the
ideal location for the prevention of obesity in children;
however, they might not be sufficiently intense to affect
both the school and family environment.[18,19] A review
done on the efficacy of an exercise intervention on
improving FMS and motor coordination in children and
adolescents who are overweight and obese suggested that
exercise or physical activity interventions are effective
in skill improvement, more focused on FMS, and motor
control (MC) activities that may help to break the cycle of
childhood obesity.[20]
There is a scarcity of literature to show the effect of an
agility training program on motor proficiency in Indian
obese children. Therefore, this study was undertaken to
study the effects of agility training on anthropometry and
motor proficiency in 6–10 years old school‑going obese
children.
12 Indian Journal of Physical Therapy and Research | Volume 1 | Issue 1 | January-June 2019
 
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants
Twenty obese children, body mass index (BMI) ≥25 (Asian
criteria),[21] from various schools using a convenience
sampling method were enrolled for this study. Children
with known physical disabilities, any diagnosed cardiac
conditions, any recent musculoskeletal injury in the past
6 months, and any known neurological condition affecting
lower extremity were excluded from the study.
Before the commencement of the study, the Institutional
Ethical Committee approved the protocol and the study
was carried out accordingly. Following this, permission
was obtained from the school authorities selected by a
computer‑generated random number table. Assent was
obtained from the parents of the children fulfilling the
inclusion criteria.
Outcome measures
Test of gross motor development‑3
It is a norm‑referenced measure of common GMS that
develop early in life. Test of gross motor development‑3 is
composed of two subtests for gross motor development,
namely locomotor and object control, of which locomotor
has six skills and object control has seven skills that assess
different aspects of gross motor development. It was used to
test the motor skills of all the children aged 6–10 years old.[22]
Body mass index measurement
BMI was calculated using the standard for mula
weight (kg)/height (m) 2 with the height and weight
measured as per the standard protocol.
Skinfold thickness
Skinfold thickness measurements at the following areas
were taken:
• Triceps: a fold along the vertical axis of the humerus
on the midline of the posterior aspect of the upper
arm, halfway between the acromion process of the
scapula, and the olecranon process of the ulna were
taken
• Abdomen: a longitudinal fold, 2 cm to the right of the
umbilicus was measured
• Thigh: a longitudinal fold on the anterior midline of
the thigh, halfway between the superior border of the
patella, and the inguinal crease were measured
• Lower‑extremity muscle strength: the strength of the
lower‑extremity musculature (quadriceps, hamstrings,
hip extensors, hip abductors, and dorsiflexors) was
measured in a standard testing position, respectively, on
both sides using a hand‑held push‑pull dynamometer.[23]
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijptr.org on Sunday, March 8, 2020, IP: 10.232.74.23]

Bera and Dharmayat: Agility training on motor proficiency 

The technique was demonstrated to perform the muscle Table 1: Training protocol
action required for assessing the strength. Three Training Training Agility training Sets ×
week days program repetitions
practice trials were given to understand the procedure
1st week Day 1 5 m forward run 2×1
following which the final measurement was taken. 5 m backward run
5 m shuffle to the right
Agility (modified t‑test) 5 m shuffle to the left
The t‑test includes forward and backward running and left Day 2 10 m forward run 2×2
10 m backward run
and right side shuffling. The time taken to complete the 10 m shuffle to the right
test was noted pre‑ and post‑training in seconds. 10 m shuffle to the left
Day 3 10 m forward run 2×3
10 m backward run
Procedure 10 m shuffle to the right
The training sessions were carried out under the supervision 10 m shuffle to the left
of the investigator with necessary safety precautions during 2nd week Day 1 5 m forward run 2×1
5 m backward run
the physical education class of the children with 12 sessions 5 m shuffle to the right
conducted over a 4‑week period and three sessions/week 5 m shuffle to the left
on nonconsecutive days [Table 1]. Day 2 10 m forward run 2×2
10 m backward run
10 m shuffle to the right
Each session lasted for 40 min with 20 min exercise and 10 min 10 m shuffle to the left
each of warm and cool down phase. The exercises under the Day 3 10 m forward run 2×3
10 m backward run
training program included a 5 m forward run, a 5 m backward 10 m shuffle to the right
run, a 5  m shuffle to the right, and a 5  m shuffle to the 10 m shuffle to the left
left (adopted from a protocol by Yanci et al.).[24] The distance 3rd week Day 1 5 m forward run 2×1
5 m backward run
of each exercise was progressively increased up to 10 m once 5 m shuffle to the right
the program started in weekly increments. The number of 5 m shuffle to the left
repetitions also increased from 1 to 3 for each exercise. Day 2 10 m forward run 2×2
10 m backward run
10 m shuffle to the right
All the outcome measures were measured at the end of 10 m shuffle to the left
the 2nd week and 4th week. Day 3 10 m forward run 2×3
10 m backward run
10 m shuffle to the right
Statistical analysis 10 m shuffle to the left
SPSS version 20.0 (SPSS 20, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) 4th week Day 1 5 m forward run 2×1
5 m backward run
was used for statistical analysis with the level of statistical 5 m shuffle to the right
significance taken as P < 0.05. Standard statistical measures 5 m shuffle to the left
such as the mean and standard deviation were used for the Day 2 10 m forward run 2×2
10 m backward run
demographic profile, and Chi‑square test used to assess 10 m shuffle to the right
their significance. Wilcoxon matched‑pairs test was used 10 m shuffle to the left
for comparing the pre to post of all outcome variables. Day 3 10 m forward run 2×3
10 m backward run
10 m shuffle to the right
RESULTS 10 m shuffle to the left

Eleven male  (55%) and nine female participants  (45%)

Table 2: Demographic profile
formed the sample of 20 children with a mean age of
n (%)
8.70 years. Maximum number of children was in the age
Gender
of 9 years [Table 2]. Males 11 (55.00)
Females 9 (45.00)
Statistically significant changes from pre to post 4 weeks Age (years)
6 1 (5.00)
intervention were noted in most of the outcome measures, 7 3 (15.00)
most notably motor proficiency  (both locomotor 8 3 (15.00)
and object control components; P =  0.0001), body 9 7 (35.00)
10 6 (30.00)
weight (P = 0.0004), triceps skinfold thickness (P = 0.0033), Mean age±SD 8.70±1.22
strength of hip extensors (P = 0.0002), and SD age 1.22
Total 20 (100.00)
agility (P = 0.0003) [Tables 3‑6].

Indian Journal of Physical Therapy and Research | Volume 1 | Issue 1 | January-June 2019 13
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijptr.org on Sunday, March 8, 2020, IP: 10.232.74.23]

Bera and Dharmayat: Agility training on motor proficiency 

Table 3: Pre‑post changes in weight (kg) and triceps skinfold measurements

Groups obese Time points Mean±SD Mean difference±SD difference Percentage of change Z P
Weight score Pretest 41.24±3.95 0.07±0.14 0.17 2.0226 0.0431*
2 weeks 41.17±3.86
Pretest 41.24±3.95 0.57±0.50 1.38 3.5162 0.0004*
4 weeks 40.67±4.00
2 weeks 41.17±3.86 0.50±0.53 1.21 3.1798 0.0015*
4 weeks 40.67±4.00
Triceps score Pretest 11.93±3.21 0.18±0.46 1.47 2.3664 0.0180*
2 weeks 11.76±3.06
Pretest 11.93±3.21 0.48±0.64 3.98 2.9341 0.0033*
4 weeks 11.46±2.80
2 weeks 11.76±3.06 0.30±0.54 2.55 2.3805 0.0173*
4 weeks 11.46±2.80
*P<0.05. SD: Standard deviation

Table 4: Pre‑post changes in hip extensors and dorsiflexors strength (kg)

Groups obese Time points Mean±SD Mean difference±SD difference Percentage of change Z P
Hip extensors Pretest 6.18±0.96 −0.41±0.36 −6.63 3.6214 0.0003*
score 2 weeks 6.59±0.97
Pretest 6.18±0.96 −0.96±0.52 −15.45 3.7236 0.0002*
4 weeks 7.14±0.83
2 weeks 6.59±0.97 −0.55±0.49 −8.27 3.2881 0.0010*
4 weeks 7.14±0.83
Dorsiflexors Pretest 6.37±0.85 −0.36±0.27 −5.66 3.6147 0.0003*
score 2 weeks 6.73±0.78
Pretest 6.37±0.85 −1.05±0.54 −16.50 3.9199 0.0001*
4 weeks 7.42±0.56
2 weeks 6.73±0.78 −0.69±0.51 −10.26 3.7236 0.0002*
4 weeks 7.42±0.56
*P<0.05. SD: Standard deviation

Table 5: Pre‑post changes in locomotor and object control scores (test of gross motor development‑2)
Item Time points Mean±SD Mean difference±SD difference Percentage of change Z P
Loco motor Pretest 3.30±0.66 −0.95±0.94 −28.79 2.9341 0.0033*
score 2 weeks 4.25±1.29
Pretest 3.30±0.66 −1.65±0.88 −50.00 3.8230 0.0001*
4 weeks 4.95±1.05
2 weeks 4.25±1.29 −0.70±0.73 −16.47 3.0594 0.0022*
4 weeks 4.95±1.05
Object Pretest 3.65±1.23 −0.35±0.49 −9.59 2.3664 0.0180*
control score 2 weeks 4.00±1.38
Pretest 3.65±1.23 −1.75±0.55 −47.95 3.9199 0.0001*
4 weeks 5.40±0.94
2 weeks 4.00±1.38 −1.40±0.50 −35.00 3.9199 0.0001*
4 weeks 5.40±0.94
*P<0.05. SD: Standard deviation

Table 6: Pre‑post changes in agility scores

Groups Time points Mean±SD Mean difference±SD difference Percentage of change Z P
Obese Pretest 22.33±5.02 0.87±0.85 3.88 3.5279 0.0004*
2 weeks 21.46±4.48
Pretest 22.33±5.02 1.66±1.22 7.43 3.9199 0.0001*
4 weeks 20.67±4.36
2 weeks 21.46±4.48 0.79±0.83 3.69 3.6620 0.0003*
4 weeks 20.67±4.36
*P<0.05. SD: Standard deviation

DISCUSSION
The effect of agility training exercise on motor proficiency
and anthropometry in obese children was studied in this
pre‑post experimental study. The participants trained
3 days a week for 4 weeks with each session lasting 40 min
including 10 min each of warm up and cool down.
Exercise training has shown to bring about significant
metabolic changes in the skeletal muscle. There is a

14 Indian Journal of Physical Therapy and Research | Volume 1 | Issue 1 | January-June 2019
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijptr.org on Sunday, March 8, 2020, IP: 10.232.74.23]
Bera and Dharmayat: Agility training on motor proficiency
substantial increase in both volume and density of
concentration of mitochondria. There is a significant
increase in myoglobin content of the muscle which causes
an increase in oxygen storage capacity of individual muscle
fibers. The muscle adapts to the stress imposed by exercise
by increasing capillarity, and hence, blood supply to the
trained muscle, greatly enhancing the oxidative capacity
of the muscle. Specific training may lead to an increase
in the glycogen stores in the muscle, the ability of the
muscle to mobilize free fatty acids and use it as energy.
Fatty acids are mobilized from fat stores due to increase
in enzymes responsible for oxidation following training.
Increased reliance of fat as fuel helps in conservation of
muscle glycogen.
As more fat mass is used for producing energy, it causes
a reduction in weight, thereby also affecting the BMI.
A similar picture was noted in this study where following
the 4 weeks training, the children showed a statistically
significant changes in the weight as well as BMI and
skinfold measurements, most notably triceps skin fold.
Development of FMS responds better to a structured
physical activity than nonstructured activity.[10] The agility
training in this study included specific training exercises
arranged in a blocked manner. The appropriate exercise
selection and proper prescription of number of sets and
repetitions during the 4 weeks in a progressive manner
may have contributed to the betterment of FMS in obese
children.
Cur rent evidence sug g ests that 30–40  min of
mild‑to‑moderate exercises/day is required to prevent
weight gain, whereas 60–90 min of moderate exercise is
required for sustained the long‑term weight reduction.[25]
Training in this study was done for 40 min in total with the
exercises being done for 20 min only. This could possibly
be the reason why major clinically significant changes were
not noted even though a statistical change was seen.
School‑based intervention programs have shown success
in lowering the BMI and also in altering anthropometric
parameters of BMI and motor skills among children using
different types of physical activity programs. In this study
also, a school‑based agility training was given to the children
for 4 weeks which resulted in statistically significant
reduction in weight and other parameters as well.[26] The
acceptance and feasibility of school‑based programs are
better as the children are not overburdened with additional
physical activity. The training protocol can easily be
incorporated in the regular physical education programs
prevalent in schools which might prove beneficial. In
Indian Journal of Physical Therapy and Research | Volume 1 | Issue 1 | January-June 2019 15
 
sprinting, muscles of the lower extremity, including those
of the hip, knee, and ankle are the key components for
forward propulsion of the body. As our training included
sprinting in a progressive manner and over a 4 week period,
the strength of the hip extensors, hamstrings, and ankle
dorsiflexors showed a statistically and clinically significant
change.[27] Due to the limited time allotted for the study
by the school authorities during school hours, longer
duration training could not be performed which could
have produced better results. Co‑curricular activities and
dietary intake of the child could not be monitored which
may influence the outcome. Uniformity in the training
time during the day was not possible due to varied school
protocols and time allotted by the authorities.
CONCLUSION
School‑based 4  weeks agility training program of
low‑to‑moderate intensity (contextual interference) is
effective in improving motor proficiency and also altering
anthropometric parameters in obese children of 6–10 years
old. Secondary changes in muscle strength of lower
extremity have been noted.
In future, a structured agility training program incorporated
into the regular physical education protocol in schools may
prove beneficial in managing the increasing menace of
overweight and obesity in children, especially in the lower
age groups. Studies incorporating dietary modifications
with active involvement of parents in training may add to
better results and also help in improving the maintenance
of weight changes and compliance to the program. An
assessment of psychological factors in the context of
increased weight and response to exercise may be done to
enable management of the children as a whole and also to
help improve the quality of life.
Acknowledgment
We are grateful to the parents of the children and school
authorities for granting permission to conduct the study
and most importantly grateful to all the participants for
being a part of this study.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
1. WHO. Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic, 2000
Report of a WHO consultation (WHO Technical Report series 894)
ISBN 9241208945.
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijptr.org on Sunday, March 8, 2020, IP: 10.232.74.23]
Bera and Dharmayat: Agility training on motor proficiency
2. Ramachandran A, Snehalatha C, Vinitha R, Thayyil M, Kumar CK,
Sheeba L, et al. Prevalence of overweight in urban Indian adolescent
school children. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2002;57:185‑90.
3. Kapil U, Singh P, Pathak P, Dwivedi SN, Bhasin S. Prevalence of obesity
amongst affluent adolescent school children in Delhi. Indian Pediatr
2002;39:449‑52.
4. Sidhu S, Kaur N, Kaur R. Overweight and obesity in affluent school
children of Punjab. Ann Hum Biol 2006;33:255‑9.
5. Chhatwal J, Verma M, Riar SK. Obesity among pre‑adolescent and
adolescents of a developing country (India). Asia Pac J Clin Nutr
2004;13:231‑5.
6. Ho M, Garnett SP, Baur L, Burrows T, Stewart L, Neve M, et al.
Effectiveness of lifestyle interventions in child obesity: Systematic
review with meta‑analysis. Pediatrics 2012;130:e1647‑71.
7. Poulsen AA, Desha L, Ziviani J, Griffiths L, Heaslop A, Khan A, et al.
Fundamental movement skills and self‑concept of children who are
overweight. Int J Pediatr Obes 2011;6:e464‑71.
8. Gutin B, Manos TM. Physical activity in the prevention of childhood
obesity. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1993;699:115‑26.
9. Gazzaniga  JM, Burns  TL. Relationship between diet composition
and body fatness, with adjustment for resting energy expenditure
and physical activity, in preadolescent children. Am J Clin Nutr
1993;58:21‑8.
10. Hands BP. How fundamental are fundamental movement skills? Active
Healthy Mag 2012;19:14-7.
11. Larouche R, Boyer C, Tremblay MS, Longmuir P. Physical fitness, motor
skill, and physical activity relationships in grade 4 to 6 children. Appl
Physiol Nutr Metab 2014;39:553‑9.
12. D’Hondt E, Deforche B, Gentier I, Verstuyf  J, Vaeyens R,
De Bourdeaudhuij I, et al. A longitudinal study of gross motor coordination
and weight status in children. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2014;22:1505‑11.
13. Liang J, Matheson BE, Kaye WH, Boutelle KN. Neurocognitive
correlates of obesity and obesity‑related behaviors in children and
adolescents. Int J Obes (Lond) 2014;38:494‑506.
14. Epstein LH, Valoski A, Wing RR, McCurley J. Ten‑year outcomes
of behavioral family‑based treatment for childhood obesity. Health
Psychol 1994;13:373‑83.
15. Au  AW, Leung SS. Effect of physical fitness programme on obese
children. Hong Kong J Paediatr 1995;12:40‑4.
16 Indian Journal of Physical Therapy and Research | Volume 1 | Issue 1 | January-June 2019
 
16. Sothern MS, Hunter S, Suskind RM, Brown R, Udall JN Jr., Blecker U.
Motivating the obese child to move: The role of structured exercise
in pediatric weight management. South Med J 1999;92:577‑84.
17. Topcu ZG, Ülger Ö. Comparison of the effects of physiotherapy
group exercise and basketball on quality of life of obese children.
Open J Ther Rehabil 2017;5:1.
18. Yackobovitch‑Gavan  M, Wolf Linhard  D, Nagelberg  N, Poraz  I,
Shalitin S, Phillip M, et al. Intervention for childhood obesity based
on parents only or parents and child compared with follow‑up alone.
Pediatr Obes 2018;13:647‑55.
19. Wilfley DE, Balantekin KN. Family‑based behavioral interventions for
childhood obesity. In: Pediatric Obesity. Cham: Humana Press; 2018.
p. 555‑67.
20. Han  A, Fu  A, Cobley  S, Sanders  RH. Effectiveness of exercise
intervention on improving fundamental movement skills and
motor coordination in overweight/obese children and adolescents:
A systematic review. J Sci Med Sport 2018;21:89‑102.
21. WHO Expert Consultation. Appropriate body‑mass index for Asian
populations and its implications for policy and intervention strategies.
Lancet 2004;363:157‑63.
22. Maeng  H, Webster  EK, Pitchford  EA, Ulrich  DA. Inter‑  and
intrarater reliabilities of the test of gross motor development‑third
edition among experienced TGMD‑2 raters. Adapt Phys Activ Q
2017;34:442‑55.
23. Lohman TG, Pollock ML, Slaughter MH, Brandon LJ, Boileau RA.
Methodological factors and the prediction of body fat in female
athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1984;16:92‑6.
24. Yanci J, Los Arcos A, Salinero JJ, Plana C, Gil E, Grande I. Effects
of different contextual interference programs in agility. Rev Int Med
Cienc Act Fis 2013;15:405-18.
25. Bouchard C, Katzmarzyk P. Physical Activity and Obesity. 2nd Ed,
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2010.
26. Graf  C, Koch B, Falkowski G, Jouck S, Christ H, Stauenmaier K, et al.
Effects of A school‑based intervention on BMI and motor abilities in
childhood. J Sports Sci Med 2005;4:291‑9.
27. Häkkinen K, Keskinen KL. Muscle cross‑sectional area and
voluntary force production characteristics in elite strength‑ and
endurance‑trained athletes and sprinters. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup
Physiol 1989;59:215‑20.