BODY COMPOSITION AND ANAEROBIC POWER IN ICE HOCKEY PLAYERSKRAJCIGR

Table III.—Wilcoxon Signed Rank test for the dominant and the Table IV.—Wilcoxon Signed Rank test for the right and the left
non-dominant leg. leg.
Variable z P r Variable z P r
Relative average power -3.850a 0.000 0.210* Relative average power -7.185a 0.000 0.392**
Relative average power/kg -3.730a 0.000 0.204* Relative average power/kg -7.146a 0.000 0.400**
Max. power average -2.034a 0.042 0.111* Max. power average -5.385a 0.000 0.294*
Max. power average/kg -1.969a 0.049 0.107* Max. power average/kg -5.423a 0.000 0.296*
Peak power -1.793a 0.073 0.098 Peak power -3.820a 0.000 0.208*
Peak power/kg -1.804a 0.071 0.098 Peak power/kg -3.882a 0.000 0.212*
Fat mass (FM) -2.912b 0.004 0.159* Fat mass (FM) -3.111b 0.002 0.170*
Muscle mass (MM) -5.566a 0.000 0.304** Muscle mass (MM) -11.229a 0.000 0.613***
The results of the WSRt are shown as dominant-non-dominant. The results of the WSRt are shown as left-right.
aBased on the positive ranks; bbased on the negative ranks; *- 0.1= small effect; aBased on the positive ranks; bbased on the negative ranks; *- 0.1 =small effect;
**0.3= medium effect. **0.3= medium effect; ***- 0.5= large effect.

limbs in all the cases. The preference was for the right leg Table VI shows bivariate correlation matrix using di-
in muscle mass, average power, average power/kg, and mensionless variables of the calculation of the non-dom-
max. power average, max. power average/kg, peak power, inant leg % from the dominant leg (ND-D%). The WAnT
peak power/kg, and for the left leg in fat mass. Those re- variables (RAP, MPA, and PP) per kg are not shown in
sults can be seen in Table IV. the table, as the results are the same for the absolute. The
table indicates if there is a correlation between differences
Correlation Matrix of lower extremities in different variables. Meaning that,
if there is a different between dominant and non-dominant
Table V shows a bivariate correlation matrix of rela- leg in muscle mass that there is also difference between
tions between lower extremity composition variables and
WAnT performance. The WAnT variables (MP, MP/kg,
RAP, RAP/kg, M5sP, M5sP/kg, C) highly correlated with Table VI.—Bivariate correlation matrix of the non-dominant leg
% from the dominant leg (ND-D%).
each other. The only not statistically significant correlation RAP MPA PP FM MM
was between cadence and maximal power and between ca- RAP
dence and maximal 5 s power. Lower extremities muscle MPA 0.741**
mass positively correlated with maximal power, relative PP 0.588** 0.682**
average power, and maximal 5 s power. Weight positively FM -0.155* -0.210** -0.134
MM 0.401** 0.390** 0.242** -0.533**
correlated with MP, and M5sP. Additionally, weight nega-
RAP: relative average power; MPA: maximal power average; PP: peak power;
tively correlated with RAP, RAP/kg, and C. TBFM nega- FM: fat mass; MM: muscle mass.
tively correlated with MP/kg, RAP/kg, M5sP/kg, and C. *P<0.05; **P<0.01.

Table V.—Bivariate correlation matrix.

MP MP/kg RAP RAP/kg M5sP M5sP/kg C Weight Height Age TBW TBFM TBMM LEMM
MP
MP/kg 0.800**
RAP 0.759** 0.437**
RAP/kg 0.376** 0.671** 0.396**
M5sP 0.949** 0.813** 0.766** 0.454**
M5sP/kg 0.700** 0.946** 0.370** 0.707** 0.775**
C 0.048 0.352** 0.167* 0.756** 0.140 0.410**
Weight 0.499** -0.016 -0.686** -0.298** 0.444** -0.131 -0.354**
Height 0.348** 0.089 0.477** 0.072 0.345** -0.007 0.020 0.399**
Age 0.323** 0.013 0.291** -0.331** 0.273** -0.014 -0.365** 0.583** 0.025
TBW -0.019 0.178* -0.053 0.364** 0.001 0.194* 0.449** -0.255** 0.170* -0.081
TBFM 0.004 -0.200** 0.031* -0.378** -0.021 -0.212* -0.456** 0.239** -0.180* 0.083 -0.991**
TBMM -0.010 0.189* -0.038 0.377** 0.015 0.212* 0.446** -0.245** 0.135 -0.079 0.962** -0.960**
LEMM 0.497** 0.036 0.691** -0.137 0.444** -0.060 -0.182* 0.852** 0.500** 0.500** 0.129 -0.147 0.126
MP: maximal power; RAP: relative average power; M5sP: maximal 5 s power; C: cadence; TBW: total body water; TBFM: total body fat mass; TBMM: total body
muscle mass; LEMM: lower extremities muscle mass.
*P<0.05; **P<0.01.

Vol. 63 - No. 10 The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 1047
KRAJCIGR
the power (RAP, MPA, and PP) of lower extremities and
it correlates with each other. A statistically significant cor-
relation was observed between all variables, except for the
correlation between FM and PP.
Discussion
To evaluate the relation between body composition and
anaerobic power of lower extremities with inter-limb dif-
ference dependence, this cross-sectional study measured
168 Czech elite ice hockey players. Body composition was
measured, and the 30-s WAnT was performed. In order to
evaluate the difference between lower limbs, a Wilcoxon
Signed Rank (WSRt) was performed. The WSRt showed
that the non-dominant leg had greater values in all cases
(muscle mass, average power, average power/kg, max.
power average, max. power average/kg, peak power, peak
power/kg) except for fat mass. Additionally, the WSRt for
right and left leg showed very similar results. The differ-
ence between the right and left leg was greater than the
difference between the dominant (D) and non-dominant
(ND) leg.
Many studies on asymmetry in ice hockey have been
conducted. The studies were focused on both anthropo-
metric and functional asymmetry. Zemková, Poor, and Jel-
en41 published a study focusing on peak power, and mean
power in the acceleration phase of trunk rotations was sig-
nificantly higher on the dominant than the non-dominant
side. For ice hockey players, the D/ND ratio was in ice-
hockey players (1.18, 1.19). Resta et al.25 published body
composition asymmetries in university ice hockey players
and their implications for lower back pain and leg injury.
Their findings revealed significant side-to-side asymme-
try in the arm and total bone mass in females, with higher
values on the right side. Both males and females also had
significantly greater trunk lean body mass on the left side.
Arboix-Alio et al.33 showed a significant relationship be-
tween asymmetry in the SLCJ-H test, 30-m sprint (r=0.63,
P<0.01), and CMJ performances (r=-0.52, P<0.05). Addi-
tionally, asymmetry in the SLCJ-V showed a significant
relation with CMJ performance (r=-0.46, P<0.05). These
findings suggest that training programs should aim to re-
duce the inter-limb asymmetries in rink hockey players to
improve their performance. This is precisely in-line with
the results of the presented study. The lower extremities
difference was greater when comparing the right and left
leg and lower when comparing the dominant and non-
dominant side. This suggests that the potential asymme-
try caused by the unilateral load may be compensated by
1048 The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness October 2023
BODY COMPOSITION AND ANAEROBIC POWER IN ICE HOCKEY PLAYERS
physical training and strengthening as it was previously
theorized.42 The non-dominant/right leg had greater mus-
cle mass values and lower fat values than the dominant/left
leg. Additionally, the ND/R leg had greater values of every
side-dependence variable (relative average power, relative
average power/kg, max. power average, max. power av-
erage/kg, peak power, peak power/kg) of the WAnT test.
These results are in line with the findings of Bahenský et
al.34 and based on them we can accept hypothesis 1 and 2.
The not side dependence variables (MP, MP/kg, RAP,
RAP/kg, M5sP, M5sP/kg, C) highly correlated with each
other. The only not statistically significant correlation was
between cadence and maximal power and between ca-
dence and maximal 5 s power. Based on the knowledge
that these variables correlated with each other, it may be
unnecessary to examine all of them in applied settings.
Regarding the correlation of the lower extremities muscle
mass (LEMM), LEMM positively correlated with maximal
power (MP), relative average power (RAP), and maximal
5 s power (M5sP). LEMM negatively correlated with and
cadence (C). Additionally, TBFM negatively correlated
with MP/kg, RAP/kg, M5sP/kg, and C. Total body muscle
mass (TBMM) positively correlated with MP/kg, RAP/
kg, MP5sP/kg, and C. Moreover, total body water (TBW)
positively correlated with MP/kg, RAP, M5sP/kg, and C.
Therefore, we might suggest that more TBMM, LEMM,
and TBW and less TBFM is better for WAnT. These find-
ings are not surprising in view of general physiology and
the fact that a large amount of water is contained in the
muscles. Regarding the TBFM, Potteiger et al.22 found that
first length skate-average and TLS-average skating times
were moderately correlated to TBFM ([r=0.53; P=0.013]
and [r=0.57; P=0.007]) such that a greater TBFM was re-
lated to slower skating speeds. TBFM (P=0.007; r=0.55)
also significantly correlated with total skate time in men
and significantly correlated with the change of direction
(P=0.022; r=0.54) and total skate times (P=0.016; r=0.56)
in women.28 In the study of Gilenstam et al.32 for wom-
en, BW was positively correlated (P<0.05) with ice skat-
ing performance and acceleration test. They also found a
negative correlation between the ice skating speed test and
muscle body mass. Nevertheless, for men, they did not find
a significant correlation between tests and BW and muscle
body mass. Delisle-Houde et al.31 studied on-ice metrics
in correlation with seasonal body composition changes
and off-ice preseason testing. The TBFM% change corre-
lated with shot differential (P<0.05), average shift length
(P<0.001), and average power play time (P<0.01). Body
weight correlated only with average shift length (P<0.05).