{"id":4119,"date":"2015-11-12T23:53:03","date_gmt":"2015-11-12T22:53:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.isci.education\/?p=4119"},"modified":"2015-11-13T00:08:11","modified_gmt":"2015-11-12T23:08:11","slug":"a-physiological-review-of-american-football","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.isci.education\/it\/a-physiological-review-of-american-football\/","title":{"rendered":"A Physiological Review of American Football"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

A Physiological Review of American Football<\/h2>\n
(reprinted with the permission of the author)<\/h6>\n

Danny M . Pincivero and Tudor 0. Bompa<\/h3>\n
    \n
  • Sports Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennyslvania, USA<\/li>\n
  • Department of Kinesiology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Contents<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Summary\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Energy Systems .\u00a0 .\u00a0 .\u00a0 .\u00a0 .\u00a0 .\u00a0 .\u00a0 .\u00a0 .\u00a0 . .<\/li>\n
    2. Energy Systems Utilised in Football<\/li>\n
    3. Performance Measures<\/li>\n
    4. Size and Body Composition . . 5. Strength\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 . . . . . . . . .<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
        \n
      1. Speed and Anaerobic Power<\/li>\n
      2. Cardiovascular Endurance \u00a0.<\/li>\n
      3. Positional Requirements .<\/li>\n
      4. Performance Improvement \u00a0.<\/li>\n
      5. Conclusion .\u00a0 .\u00a0 .\u00a0 .\u00a0 . .<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

         <\/p>\n

        Summary\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

        American\u00a0 football\u00a0 has been\u00a0 one of the most\u00a0 popular\u00a0 sports in \u00a0North America within the past century and has recently received support and increased partici\u00ad pation from European nations. Two of the biggest concerns regarding\u00a0 participa\u00ad\u00a0 tion in American football are the high incidence of injury and the physical demand for preparation. A basic u nderstanding of the physiological systems utilised in the sport of football is necessary in order to develop optimal\u00a0 training\u00a0 programmes geared specifically for preparation as well as the requirements of individual field positions. Previously, it has been assumed that football relies primarily on an anaerobic source of energy for adenosine triphosphate (ATP) resynthesis with approximately 90% coming from the\u00a0 phosphocreatine\u00a0 (PCr)\u00a0 energy\u00a0 system.\u00a0 In lieu of research conducted specifically with football players, it appears that the energy contribution from the anaerobic glycolytic pathway in this sport has been underestimated.\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0 elevated\u00a0 blood\u00a0 lactate\u00a0 levels\u00a0 observed\u00a0 i n\u00a0 football \u00a0players following game participation cast doubt on this hypothesis. Identifying posi\u00adtion specific characteristics may also enhance the development of training pro\u00ad grammes based on the requirements of the different positions. It appears that offensive and defensive linemen are generally larger, have higher levels of percent body fat and have greater absolute strength scores than all other positions. Offens\u00ad ive backs, defensive backs and wide recei vers tend to display the lowest percent\u00ad ages of body fat, lower absolute strength scores, fastest times over 5, 10, 40 and 300m and the highest relative V02max values. Linebackers appeared to represent a tran\u00ad sition group mid way between the backs and linemen for size, body composition, strength, speed and endurance as well as positional duties. Findings within the literature suggest that a lack of cardiovascular development of university and professional football players may prove to be a hindrance to performance with specific regards to thermal regulation. Additional aerobic conditioning as well as the reduction of percent body fat would not only enhance performance, but might play a key role in preventing injuries and allowing a smoother transition into life after football.<\/p>\n

        _____________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

        To the novice observer American football may appear to be a game dependent upon brute force and the ability to overpower opponents. However, this game heavily taxes the physiological systems of those who take part. American football, in fact, has been reported to combine the physical qualities of nearly all other sports – size, strength, power, speed, agility and endurance) 1 1 The psychological capabilities of an individual as well as the strate\u00ad gies and tactics of a team are of vital importance to success. Physical preparation, however, is\u00a0 the prime concern in developing athletes into football players. American football is unlike other sports in that the potential and incidence of injury are very high and participants must be optimally developed physically in order to withstand the constant phys\u00ad ical contact and the physiological demands of the game.<\/p>\n

        The physical demands of the game include strength, speed, power, agility, flexibility, as well as aerobic and anaerobic endurance necessary. The objective of this review is to analyse the game of American football with regard to the different physical parameters previously stated. An analysis of the literature yields some interesting facts con\u00ad cerning the development of college and profes\u00ad sional football players. It appears that throughout the literature, a trend concerning the lack of cardio\u00ad vascular development in American football players is quite evident.r 1 -41 Furthermore, a relationship ap\u00ad pears to exist between body composition (i.e. per\u00ad cent body fat) and its relation to physical performance in tests of strength, speed, and endurance.13, 5-81<\/p>\n

        The physical requirements of American football will be discussed from 2 different viewpoints. Firstly, the basic characteristics of the sport and its elements will be examined with respect to the con\u00ad tribution of different biomotor abilities as well as the systems in which energy resynthesis takes place. Secondly, an analysis and grouping of the different positions into distinct categories will be addressed with respect to objective measures such as strength, speed, body composition and endur\u00ad ance. With this information established, the selec\u00ad tion of certain physical characteristics that are most important to the development of football players can take place. Furthermore, certain physical char\u00ad acteristics that appear to have been neglected or have the potential for performance improvement can be determined.<\/p>\n

        It is through this in-depth review and compila\u00ad tion of the existing research that a systematic and scientific approach to football can be taken, which may enhance the performance of individuals and teams. By means of this, proper training parame\u00ad ters can be set according to the specific needs of the sport, which may consequently alter traditional methods used in the past.<\/p>\n

        1. Energy Systems<\/strong><\/p>\n

        For muscular work the high energy compound ATP is required. When this chemical compound is broken down into its 2 constituent subunits, aden\u00ad osine diphosphate (ADP) and an inorganic phos\u00ad phate (Pi) molecule, energy is released and muscle contraction occurs.f91 ln order to contin ue muscular work, these 2 molecules must be resynthesised so as to be broken down again for continued energy release. But this resynthesis requires energy in it\u00ad self which is generally provided by 3 different metabolic pathways: the PCr system; anaerobic glycolysis; and the aerobic system.191<\/p>\n

        During the onset of high intensity exercise, ATP resynthesis occurs via the PCr system with the aid of the enzyme creatine kinase. This enzyme func\u00ad tions as a catalyst to the reaction between ADP and PCr resulting in the formation of ATP.f 1\u00b01 PCr is catalysed so that the liberated phosphate ion is do\u00ad nated to ADP to form ATP.llO, I I J This is the most rapid method of supplying ATP to the muscles and is the primary system used for ATP resynthesis at the onset of exercise and during short term and high intensity work as seen in American foot\u00ad ball) 1 2\u2022 1 31 However, PCr is stored within the mus\u00ad cle fibre in limited amounts and the duration of maximal intensity exercise utilising this energy
        \nsystem has been reported to last approximately I to 10 seconds.191<\/p>\n

        The second anaerobic method by which ATP formation takes place during short term, high in\u00ad tensity exercise\u00a0 is\u00a0 through\u00a0 anaerobic\u00a0 glycoly\u00ad sis.l9,1 1 \u00b71 3l This system, along with the PCr system, resynthesises ATP for muscular contraction in the absence of oxygen. Also referred to as fast glycol\u00ad ysis, this system functions by breaking down blood glucose\u00a0 or\u00a0 muscle\u00a0 glycogen\u00a0 to\u00a0 form\u00a0 pyruvic acid, and eventually its reduced form,\u00a0 lactic\u00a0 acid, \u00a0with the\u00a0 net\u00a0 formation\u00a0 of\u00a0 2\u00a0 or\u00a0 3\u00a0 ATP\u00a0 molecules.I 14\u00a01 Throughout this process, hydrogen ions (H+) are liberated into solution and bind with the \u00a0molecule \u00a0nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) to\u00a0 form the\u00a0 reducing\u00a0 equivalent\u00a0 NADH\u00a0 and\u00a0 H+.191 In the case of anaerobic glycolysis where oxygen is not adequately supplied to the working muscles, pyru\u00ad vic acid accepts the hydrogen ions donated by NADH, thereby liberating that molecule so that further binding\u00a0 with\u00a0 H+ may\u00a0 occur. Pyruvic acid then forms lactic acid and allows the continuation of glycolysis.191 However, during intense \u00a0exercise, large amounts of lactic acid are produced, which immediately dissociate and release H+ that can ad\u00ad versely affect exercise\u00a0 performance.\u00a0 This\u00a0 increase in intracellular H+ concentration\u00a0 reduces\u00a0 the\u00a0 abil\u00ad ity of muscle cells to resynthesise ATP and also hinders the contractile process of muscle contrac\u00ad tion.19\u00b7 1 1 l This metabolic system is the princi pal one used\u00a0 in\u00a0 those\u00a0 events\u00a0 lasting\u00a0 from\u00a0 “’30 sec to 2 min, such as a 400m race)9, 1 1 l There is evidence that the anaerobic glycolytic pathway is stimulated much earlier following the onset of high intensity exercise.l 1 3\u00b71\u00a05\u00b71\u00a06l<\/p>\n

        In the presence of oxygen, the glycolytic path\u00ad way is still active in the form of ‘slow’ or aerobic glycolysis.l 14l In this case, the hydrogen ions that are liberated in solution are bound to NAD and flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD) and transported to\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0 mitochondria\u00a0\u00a0 (in\u00a0 the\u00a0 electron\u00a0 \u00a0transport chain) in order to resynthesise ATP. It appears that this system operates in conjunction with the aero\u00ad bic or oxidative\u00a0 system,\u00a0 in which\u00a0 numerous ATP molecules\u00a0 are\u00a0 generated\u00a0 by\u00a0 the\u00a0 mitochondria.l 1 1 1<\/p>\n

        Exercise activities that exceed “‘4 min duration, or those of a lower exercise intensity, tend to use the aerobic system as the primary source of ATP pro\u00adduction.191 It should be noted that the transfer be\u00ad tween energy systems is a gradual one that occurs in a continuum and is a function of oxygen avail\u00ad ability, exercise intensity and duration.<\/p>\n

        2. Energy Systems Utilised in Football<\/strong><\/p>\n

        \u00a0<\/strong>American football requires many physical qual\u00ad ities that appear to be independent of playing posi\u00ad tion. Such abilities include rapid acceleration, high running speed, good\u00a0 jumping\u00a0 ability,\u00a0 explosive force of muscles, speed endurance, strength endur\u00ad ance, power of the throw and deceleration.1 1 1 The body must have certain qualities to perform these necessary abilities. Football players must have an aerobic capacity to provide power throughout a prolonged, intermittent duration and to recover quickly in short\u00a0 pauses.\u00a0 Maxi mu m\u00a0 anaerobic power is also necessary to perform powerful move\u00ad ments and quick start acceleration. Groups of mus\u00ad cles must have the ability to provide stabilisation thereby contributing to maximal muscle force and explosive\u00a0\u00a0 strength.\u00a0\u00a0 Local\u00a0 \u00a0muscular\u00a0\u00a0 endurance is necessary to provide consistently repeated\u00a0 ru nning at high\u00a0 speeds for long distances. I 1 1<\/p>\n

        American\u00a0 football can be classified as an\u00a0 \u00a0acy\u00adclic sport that is composed of integral functions performed in one action.I 1 7 1 For example, such functions\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 including\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 backpedalling,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 cutting\u00a0 \u00a0and tackling are often performed in one integrated ac\u00ad tion during a given play. On the other hand, running is classified as a cyclic sport since the motor acts of running comprise cyclic, repetitive move\u00ad ments.[ l ?J<\/p>\n

        With respect to the primary energy systems used in football, it appears that the PCr and lactic acid systems (anaerobic glycolysis) provide the bulk of energy productionJ2\u00b7 1 2\u00b71\u00a081 It has been suggested by Fox and Matthewsl 1 2l that the PCr system \u00a0provides 90% of energy production in football whereas the lactic acid system contributes the remaining 10%. This contribution of the energy systems may hold true for football since it is a sport in which very short, highly intense bursts of energy (2 to 5 sec) are required, followed by brief periods of recovery lasting from 25 to 40 sec.l 191 However, this ratio of the energy system contribution may be slightly el\u00ad evated in light of more current \u00a0research.<\/p>\n

        In a study conducted\u00a0 at the Canadian\u00a0 \u00a0Football League (CFL) all-star game in 1979, Zapiec and Taylor[ 201 noted that athletes’ playing time varied from 5 minutes and 42 seconds to 9 minutes and 48 seconds during a\u00a0 2-hour\u00a0 and\u00a0 19-minute\u00a0 game.\u00a0 In an earlier study carried out by\u00a0 Craigl 1 91 that\u00a0 \u00a0exam\u00adined exposure time in professional football it was determined that maximal partici pation was 13.5 minutes. The shorts bursts of activity over such a prolonged period of time are indicative of a \u00a0maxi\u00admal or near maximal\u00a0 intermittent\u00a0 work regimen.l 2 1<\/p>\n

        Lactate levels in the players examined by Zapiec and\u00a0 Taylor1201\u00a0 increased\u00a0 3-\u00a0 to\u00a0 5-fold \u00a0following completion\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 game,\u00a0 although, blood glucose levels were not significantly affected. Similar find\u00ad ings were also reported by Smith and \u00a0Jackson121 I who observed significantly higher blood lactate levels in college football players. Their results showed elevated blood lactate levels from a pre\u00ad game value of\u00a0 1.67 ml\/L, to 4.39 and 5.08 ml\/L at the half-time and postgame periods, respec\u00ad tively.l21 i<\/p>\n

        It was also observed that the professional play\u00ad ers in the Zapiec and Taylor120l study had a higher relative area of fast twitch (FT) muscle fibres to slow twitch (ST) muscle fibres. An important point to note from this study is that the postgame muscle glycogen stains showed a reduction in content pri\u00ad marily\u00a0 in the\u00a0 FT fibres.l 20l FT fibres are rich\u00a0 \u00a0in glycogen and glycolytic enzymes thereby enabling these fibres to have a large anaerobic\u00a0 \u00a0capacity.l9l<\/p>\n

        Since FT fibres contract rapidly and develop more force than ST muscle fibres, it appears that the re\u00ad sults reported by Zapiec and Taylor[ZOJ support the notion that football\u00a0 is a strenuous\u00a0 intermittent\u00a0 type of exercise that relies on the PCr and lactic acid system for energy production.l9.I I \u00a0J<\/p>\n

        It has been established that PCr is restored rap\u00ad idly following\u00a0 vigorous\u00a0 activity.l 1 2,22.231 However, since the recovery period during football is very short (25 to 40 seconds), the amount of PCr replen\u00ad ishment that occurs may be less than optimal. In fact, it has been demonstrated that the time required to replenish intramuscular CP stores in recreational individuals following isolated quadriceps \u00a0exercise may\u00a0 range\u00a0 from\u00a0 55\u00a0 to\u00a0 90\u00a0 seconds.l 22 1 \u00a0Repeated bouts of high intensity exercise incorporating brief periods of recovery\u00a0 suggest that football may rely more on the glycolytic pathway for its energy pro\u00ad duction that the I 0% previously cited.l9l This find\u00ading is reinforced by the elevated lactate levels mea\u00ad sured by Zapiec and Taylor.1201 However, it \u00a0should be stressed that the PCr system may still be the primary system for ATP resynthesis. Based on the research cited, the 9\/ I PCr to\u00a0 lactic\u00a0 acid\u00a0 system ratio may appear slightly\u00a0 elevated. Over the course\u00a0 of a football game, ATP resynthesis via anaerobic glycolysis may\u00a0 become\u00a0 a more\u00a0 important\u00a0 factor as a means for providing energy for work under con\u00ad ditions of PCr depletion\u00a0 and fatigue_l2, 9l<\/p>\n

        3. Performance Measures<\/strong><\/p>\n

        When an individual commences participation in football he must first acquire the basic skills nec\u00ad essary in order to be competitive. These skills in\u00ad clude catching and throwing, backpedalling and changing direction, blocking and tackling. As the individual progresses from the high school level to university or professional football, he will very likely specialise at a particular position. Playing different\u00a0\u00a0 positions\u00a0\u00a0 in\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 sport\u00a0 places \u00a0varying biomechanical and physiological demands on these individuals. The objective of the following section is to compare and contrast these physio\u00ad logical and biomechanical attributes and based on these findings, develop distinct categories of play\u00ad ers. Such variations include body size, body com\u00ad position, strength, speed and cardiovascular endur\u00ad ance. Since consistent data on quarterbacks and kickers is limited, these 2 positions will not be in\u00ad cluded in this analysis.<\/p>\n

        \u00a04. Size and Body Composition<\/strong><\/p>\n

        Traditionally, coaches have used the criteria of size and maximum strength as the most important variables in selecting top potential football players. However, the element of size can be a very mis\u00ad leading factor when selecting players. With respect to football or other types of athletic skills, body composition plays a large role in successful perfor\u00ad mance. Body composition has been shown to be related\u00a0 to strength,\u00a0 speed\u00a0 and cardiovascular \u00a0en\u00addurance in many\u00a0 studies conducted\u00a0 on university and professional football players.17,8\u00b724\u00b7251 In order to\u00a0 develop\u00a0 distinct\u00a0 groups\u00a0 of\u00a0 players\u00a0 by\u00a0 \u00a0position based on objective data, size and body composition appear to have been some of the most obvious and consistent measures utilised.<\/p>\n

        Various studies conducted on football players have yielded from 2 to 5 categories of\u00a0 posi\u00ad tions.17\u00b78\u00b71 8\u00b725\u00b7261 One of the consistent findings among these studies was that offensive and defen\u00ad sive linemen had statistically\u00a0 similar\u00a0 sizes\u00a0 as\u00a0 did the offensive backs, receivers and defensive backs. The linemen were taller and heavier\u00a0 than\u00a0 the backs in each of these studies. It appears that the linemen and backs represent opposite ends of the spectrum with\u00a0 linebackers midway\u00a0 between, thus yielding\u00a0 \u00a0at least 3 categories of players.12,7\u00b78\u00b727 1 With reference to body composition in percent fat and lean body\u00ad weight, similar results were also found. The line\u00ad men\u00a0 exhibited\u00a0 higher\u00a0 values\u00a0 for percent\u00a0 fat and lean bodyweight than the backs, who statistically displayed\u00a0 significantly\u00a0 lower values.12,5,7,8,24,271<\/p>\n

        Linebackers once again appeared to display values midway between these 2 groups, although in some of these studies, linebackers showed more similar\u00ad ities to backs while in other studies they had more in common with linemen (table I). This trend indicates the uniqueness of the linebacker position and therefore establishes these players as a distinct group.1281\u00a0 In\u00a0 fact, Wilmore\u00a0 et al.f 8l\u00a0 observed that professional linebackers were similar in size and body composition to world-class discus throwers as reported by Fahey et al.1291 Based on previous findings, it may be suggested that the\u00a0 recom\u00ad mended optimal percent body fat for college\u00a0 foot\u00ad ball players is as follows: defensive backs IO, offensive backs 12, linebackers 13, defensive line\u00ad men\u00a0 15, and offensive linemen 17%.161<\/p>\n

        5. Strength<\/strong><\/p>\n

        \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

        Strength training has been the cornerstone of football player development within the last 20 to 30 years. Strength can be defined as the maximum force that can be generated by\u00a0 a muscle or\u00a0 \u00a0group of muscles\u00a0 against a resistance.I 1 1 , 1 7 1\u00a0 Very \u00a0often when evaluating football players, the 1 repetition maximum ( 1 RM) is used. This method refers to the maximum amount of weight that can be\u00a0 \u00a0lifted during 1 complete dynamic repetition of a particular movement.191 The most commonly utilised ex\u00ad ercises are the bench press, the squat and the power clean, with the bench press being a test to evaluate upper body strength, the squat used to assess lower body\u00a0 strength\u00a0 and the power clean to test \u00a0overall strength\u00a0 \u00a0and \u00a0explosive \u00a0power.1281\u00a0 \u00a0Studies\u00a0 \u00a0that utilised dynamic methods have produced strength norms and averages for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) division I, II, and III university football players. It has been found in these\u00a0 studies\u00a0 that\u00a0 linemen\u00a0 (offensive\u00a0 and defensive) have significantly higher absolute strength values\u00a0 than\u00a0 backs.128\u00b730\u00b731 1\u00a0 These\u00a0 findings also demonstrate a tendency for linebackers to fall mid\u00ad way between the linemen and backs, which is con\u00ad sistent with respective size and body composition values. In a study that examined a number of \u00a0performance variables in division I -AA football play\u00ad ers, Barker et aJ.132 1 found that offensive and defensive\u00a0 backs\u00a0 had\u00a0 statistically\u00a0\u00a0 lower\u00a0 values\u00a0 for\u00a0 \u00a0a I -RM lift in the squat exercise than\u00a0 defensive\u00a0 line-\u00a0\u00a0 differences\u00a0 existed\u00a0 between\u00a0 any\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 positions.\u00a0 men. However, when strength was evaluated as the Black and Roundyl 331 demonstrated\u00a0 the consistent\u00a0 number of repetitions performed\u00a0 at a percentage of\u00a0\u00a0 trend with respect to absolute strength as division\u00a0 I -A each\u00a0 player’s\u00a0 respective\u00a0\u00a0 I -RM\u00a0 (70\u00a0 and\u00a0 90%),\u00a0 no\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 defensive\u00a0 linemen\u00a0 and\u00a0 offensive\u00a0 guards displayed higher mean values for the bench press and back squat as compared with cornerbacks and wide re\u00ad ceivers. As depicted in table II, there also appears to be a difference in strength levels between NCAA division I and division II college football players. Division I football players displayed statistically greater values for bench press and power clean strength than both division II and III players. Divi\u00ad sion II players were also found to have statistically greater bench press strength values than division III playersJ 31 I<\/p>\n

        With respect to relative strength, which is the ratio between an athlete’s absolute strength and his bodyweight, division II backs exhibited higher val\u00ad ues that those of the linemen.13\u00b01 Similar differ\u00ad ences in relative strength in division I-AA were also observed by Barker et aL,(321 who found that offensive backs and linebackers displayed higher values than offensive linemen. Contrary to these findings, Olson and Hunter[ 281 have shown that in division I football players, linemen exhibited the highest val ues for relative strength. The greater rel\u00ad ative strength values obtained by the linemen in the Olson and Hunter[ 281 study have been attributed to differences in the intensity and type of training reg\u00ad imen, variable emphasis on strength training or to genetic selection. Furthermore, because human muscle has been shown to generate a constant (spe\u00adcific) tension of approximately 30 N\/cm 2 of muscle cross-section, the muscular mass of the linemen is likely to be higher than that of players in other positions.[ 34-3s1<\/p>\n

        In a study conducted on National Football League (NFL) players by Wilmore et aL,[81 a sim\u00ad ilar trend appeared between backs and linemen with respect to absolute strength. Offensive and defensive linemen were stronger than offensive backs, receivers, and defensive backs with respect to the standing press, the curl and the bench press.181 Linebackers in this study, however, had similar strength val ues to those of the linemen and in fact, exhibited a higher average value for the bench press than did either offensive or defensive linemen. The linebackers also demonstrated higher average strength val ues for the standing press than the offensive linemen. Higher values of percent body fat observed in the linemen as compared with the linebackers may have played a significant and detrimental role in dynamic strength perfor\u00ad mance.181 Although this explanation is purely spec\u00ad ulative, a lower level of percent body fat may have the potential for improving the efficiency of move\u00ad ment ultimately enhancing muscular activation and, therefore, strength performance.<\/p>\n

        Another method that is used when assessing strength levels in football players is through isokinetic dynamometry, which evaluates muscle force against accommodating resistance at a prede\u00ad termined angular velocity.1391 A study that exam\u00ad ined division\u00a0 II football players found similar \u00a0re\u00adsults to the previous findings of Mayhew et al.f26.30J<\/p>\n

        Using a Cybex II dynamometer,\u00a0 distinct\u00a0 differ\u00ad ences were found between linemen and backs in regards to quadriceps and hamstring peak\u00a0 torque with linemen tending to be stronger than backsJ 26 1 However, when peak torque was determined per kilogram of\u00a0 bodyweight,\u00a0 backs\u00a0 demonstrated higher values than\u00a0 the \u00a0linemen.1261<\/p>\n

        Although it seems evident that a greater magni\u00ad tude of strength is required to play the position of offensive or defensive lineman, the literature ap\u00ad pears to support the notion that higher levels of body fat represent a factor limiting performance as shown by the lack of positional differences in rel\u00ad ative strength. Although linemen seem to display higher values for lean body mass (table I), the spe\u00ad cific tension generated by skeletal muscle suggests that these players should demonstrate greater rela\u00ad tive strength scores than backs. However, this does not appear to be the case. Further support for the adverse effects of excessive body fat are presented later in this review. Football is not just a game of size and strength but also of speed and power. The examination of speed and the role of cardiovascu\u00ad lar endurance may help to delineate this observed trend in grouping football players.<\/p>\n

        Table <\/strong>I. Body composition values and sizes of university and professional American football players<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
        Study<\/td>\nType<\/td>\nn<\/td>\nHeight (cm)<\/td>\nWeight (kg)<\/td>\nBody fat (%)<\/td>\nLean body mass (kg)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Wickkiser & Kellyl61<\/td>\nUniversity<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nDB<\/td>\n15<\/td>\n178.3<\/td>\n77.3<\/td>\n11.5<\/td>\n68.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nOB & WR<\/td>\n15<\/td>\n179.7<\/td>\n79.8<\/td>\n12.4<\/td>\n69.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nLB<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n180.1<\/td>\n87.2<\/td>\n13.4<\/td>\n75.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nOL & TE<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n186<\/td>\n99.2<\/td>\n19.1<\/td>\n79.8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nDL<\/td>\n15<\/td>\n186.6<\/td>\n97.8<\/td>\n18.5<\/td>\n79.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Wilmore & Haske1117l<\/td>\nProfessional<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nDB<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n184.4<\/td>\n85<\/td>\n7.7<\/td>\n78.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nOB & WR<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n184.2<\/td>\n91.8<\/td>\n8.3<\/td>\n84.1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nLB<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n189.7<\/td>\n107.6<\/td>\n18.5<\/td>\n87.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nOL& TE<\/td>\n12<\/td>\n193.5<\/td>\n113.2<\/td>\n15.5<\/td>\n95.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nDL<\/td>\n12<\/td>\n192.2<\/td>\n120.6<\/td>\n18.7<\/td>\n97.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Smith & Byrd13l<\/td>\nUniversity<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nDB<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n183.7<\/td>\n80.4<\/td>\n9.6<\/td>\n72.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nOB<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n181.5<\/td>\n183.1<\/td>\n13.8<\/td>\n71.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nOL<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n189.2<\/td>\n97.9<\/td>\n14.6<\/td>\n83.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nDL & LB<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n188.8<\/td>\n99.9<\/td>\n14.3<\/td>\n85.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Wilmore et al.18l<\/td>\nProfessional<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nDB<\/td>\n26<\/td>\n182.5<\/td>\n84.8<\/td>\n9.6<\/td>\n76.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nOB & WR<\/td>\n40<\/td>\n183.8<\/td>\n90.7<\/td>\n9.4<\/td>\n81.9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nLB<\/td>\n28<\/td>\n188.6<\/td>\n102.2<\/td>\n14<\/td>\n87.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nOL & TE<\/td>\n38<\/td>\n193<\/td>\n112.6<\/td>\n15.6<\/td>\n94.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nDL<\/td>\n32<\/td>\n192.4<\/td>\n117.1<\/td>\n18.2<\/td>\n95.8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Burke et al.124J<\/td>\nCollege<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nBacks<\/td>\n20<\/td>\n181.4<\/td>\n85.5<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n74.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nLinemen<\/td>\n33<\/td>\n187.3<\/td>\n101.6<\/td>\n21.8<\/td>\n79.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        White et al.15l<\/td>\nCollege<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nDB<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n178.9<\/td>\n77.6<\/td>\n7.3<\/td>\n72<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nOB<\/td>\n17<\/td>\n179.5<\/td>\n81.8<\/td>\n11.5<\/td>\n72.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nLB<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n181.8<\/td>\n90.2<\/td>\n11.6<\/td>\n79.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nOL<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n185.9<\/td>\n99.7<\/td>\n14.8<\/td>\n84.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nDL<\/td>\n14<\/td>\n183.1<\/td>\n96.6<\/td>\n13.2<\/td>\n83.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Gleim12l<\/td>\nProfessional<\/td>\n51<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nDB & WR<\/td>\n<\/td>\n173.4<\/td>\n83.6<\/td>\n5.7<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nOB<\/td>\n<\/td>\n183<\/td>\n90.7<\/td>\n9.6<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nLB & TE<\/td>\n<\/td>\n189.2<\/td>\n103.8<\/td>\n12.5<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nOL & DL<\/td>\n<\/td>\n191.2<\/td>\n117.6<\/td>\n17<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Housh et al.1251<\/td>\nUniversity<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nDB<\/td>\n14<\/td>\n172<\/td>\n83<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nOB & WR<\/td>\n14<\/td>\n172.4<\/td>\n81.2<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nOL<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n174.8<\/td>\n110.2<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nDL<\/td>\n14<\/td>\n173.8<\/td>\n100.1<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Seiler et al.l27J<\/td>\nUniversity<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nBacks<\/td>\n17<\/td>\n<\/td>\n83.6<\/td>\n9.7<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nLinebackers<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n<\/td>\n99.3<\/td>\n12.5<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\nLinemen<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n<\/td>\n117<\/td>\n16.5<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

        Abbreviations: <\/em>DB= defensive back; DL= defensive lineman; LB = linebacker; n = sample size; OB= offensive back; OL = offensive lineman; TE = tight-end;\u00a0 WR = wide receiver.<\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        6. Speed and Anaerobic Power<\/strong><\/p>\n

        Speed can be defined as the capacity to travel or move quickly from one point to another,\u00a0 \u00a0whereas power can be defined as mechanical work per\u00ad formed per unit of time.l9,,,,4o1 Since the predominant energy pathways utilised in football are the PCr and anaerobic glycolytic systems, the 40yd (36m) dash has been used as the standard test of football speed. However, the applicability of this test has been questioned since there are few times a player actu\u00ad ally runs 40yd during a game.l 25lA study by Crews and Meadorsl 25l on 48 university football players revealed high positive relationships\u00a0 between\u00a0 5 (4.5m) and 40yd run times and between 15 ( 13.Sm) and 40yd run times. Therefore, it\u00a0 was\u00a0 concluded\u00a0 that performance in a 40yd run is representative of how fast a player can move at 5 and I Syd and was therefore\u00a0 deemed\u00a0 to be\u00a0 an\u00a0 appropriate\u00a0 test\u00a0 of football speed. However, Seiler et al.r27 1 found low to moderate relationships between the mean running velocity after Syd and the mean running velocity in the final 35yd of a 40yd dash in division I college football players. These results subsequently led to the conclusion that the 40yd run may not be an accurate predictor of initial running velocity.1271 The confounding results in these studies indicate the necessity of utilising sport-specific as well as position-specific field tests that are more accu\u00ad rately related to football performance.<\/p>\n

        Studies carried out of 40yd dash times of pro\u00ad fessional and university football players have yielded results that have grouped players into the categories previously suggested (table IIl).12,28,30,331<\/p>\n

        When examining division I college football play\u00ad ers, wide receivers, offensive backs and defensive backs\u00a0 displayed\u00a0 the fastest\u00a0 times\u00a0 over 40yd with defensive and offensive linemen having the slowest times.l28,331 Linebackers, once again, tended \u00a0to fall midway between these 2 groups, This trend was also evident from an evaluation of 51 \u00a0professional\u00a0 NFL\u00a0 players\u00a0 by\u00a0 Gliem,l 21 who\u00a0 found \u00a0that defensive backs and wide receivers had the fastest times\u00a0 followed\u00a0 in order by\u00a0 offensive backs, linebackers and tight ends, and finally offensive and defensive linemen. Mayhew et a1.t 3o1 also observed this trend as division II backs demonstrated faster times over 40yd than linemen. More recently, how\u00ad ever, Barker et aJ.l32\u00a0l utilised a number of different running tests to evaluate positional group differ\u00ad ences: the 5, I O and 300yd shuttle ru n tests, Their results revealed that offensive linemen displayed slower times over 5 and l Oyd as well as the 300yd shuttle run than offensive backs, defensive\u00a0 backs and linebackers. Defensive linemen also displayed slower times during the 300yd shuttle run than the offensive\u00a0\u00a0 backs\u00a0\u00a0 but\u00a0\u00a0 did\u00a0\u00a0 not\u00a0\u00a0 display statistically different\u00a0 times\u00a0 than\u00a0 the\u00a0 backs\u00a0 for the\u00a0 5 and\u00a0 I Oyd backs as opposed to offensive linemen.l321 Further\u00ad more, offensive linemen were found to have lower val ues for vertical displacement than lineback\u00ad ers.1321 These findings appear to be consistent \u00a0with those\u00a0 of\u00a0 Black\u00a0 and\u00a0 Roundyl 33 1\u00a0\u00a0 who\u00a0 also \u00a0found higher vertical jump values\u00a0 for\u00a0 defensive\u00a0 backs\u00a0 and wide receivers\u00a0 as opposed\u00a0 to\u00a0 linemen.\u00a0 Barker et aJ.1321 attempted\u00a0 to explain\u00a0 the observed \u00a0differences in vertical jump power between the offensive linemen and backs based on the following factors:<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. the offensive linemen had the highest percent body fat of any other position thereby reducing jumping efficiency;<\/li>\n
        2. the offensive linemen demonstrated the lowest relative strength scores.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Results obtained by Mayhew et aJ.141 I lend support to these notions as significant negative correlations were observed between percent body fat and anaer\u00ad obic\u00a0 power\u00a0 corrected\u00a0 for\u00a0 bodyweight\u00a0 in college shuttle runs.1321 Black and Roundyl 331 also found this trend with respect to the 40yd dash, as offens\u00ad ive and defensive linemen displayed slower times than cornerbacks and wide receivers. Comparisons in 40yd\u00a0 run\u00a0 times\u00a0 have demonstrated differences between division I, II and III college football play\u00ad ers.1311 Fry and Kraemer131 I reported that division I and II football players displayed faster ru n times over 40yd than their division III counterparts. Sim\u00ad ilar to the highest strength values observed in divi\u00ad sion I players over division II and III players, it appears that a continuum from division I to III ex\u00ad ists regarding athletic fitness and performance. Such a trend may be attributed to superior player selection and recruitment as well as variable advancements in training.<\/p>\n

          Table III. Mean 40yd (36.6m) dash times (sec) for university and\u00a0professional American football players<\/p>\n

          Professional<\/p>\n

          DB, WR\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4.58 \u00b1 0.12<\/p>\n

          OB\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4.81 \u00b1 0.21<\/p>\n

          LB, TE\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4.93 \u00b1 0.14<\/p>\n

          OL, DL\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 5.08 \u00b1 0.21<\/p>\n

          University, Division 1<\/p>\n

          WR\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4.60<\/p>\n

          OB\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4.63<\/p>\n

          DB\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4.64<\/p>\n

          LB\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4.78<\/p>\n

          OL\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4.98<\/p>\n

          DL\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 5.08<\/p>\n

          University, Division II<\/p>\n

          Backs\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4.91 \u00b1 0.22<\/p>\n

          Linemen\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 5.22 \u00b1 0.26 University\u00a0 division 1A<\/p>\n

          Cornerback\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4.48 \u00b1 0.12<\/p>\n

          WR\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4.46 \u00b1 0.11<\/p>\n

          DL\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4.99 \u00b1 0.19<\/p>\n

          OL\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 5.08 \u00b1 0.15<\/p>\n

          University<\/p>\n

          Division I\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4.88 \u00b1 0.27<\/p>\n

          Division II\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4.92 \u00b1 0.26<\/p>\n

          Division Ill\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4.96 \u00b1 0.27<\/p>\n

          Abbreviations: <\/em>DB = defensive back; DL = defensive lineman; LB = linebacker; OB = offensive back; OL = offensive lineman; TE = tight-end; WR = wide receiver.<\/p>\n

          The assessment of power in American football players has often been accomplished by the \u00a0stand ing vertical jump\u00a0 test or the use of a power index. The ability to jump higher has been observed\u00a0 to\u00a0 be significantly greater for offensive and defensive players. Furthermore, significant positive correla\u00ad tion\u00a0 coefficients\u00a0 were also demonstrated between percent body fat and agility, 10 and\u00a0 40yd\u00a0 dash times. l41 1\u00a0 Seiler et al.l27 1 continued\u00a0 to observe this trend as backs generally had greater values for an\u00ad aerobic power corrected for bodyweight, as ob\u00ad tained through the Wingate and \u00a0Margaria-Kalamen tests, than linebackers and linemen. Although the linemen observed by Seiler et al.l 27 1\u00a0 generated\u00a0 \u00a0the highest absolute power indices of the 3 groups of players, their values appeared consistently lower than backs and linebackers when corrected for bodyweight. Since power production over repeated plays during the duration of a football game may be the key factor for successful performance on the offensive line, drastic improvements for this vari\u00ad able may be possible through changes in body com\u00ad position.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          7. Cardiovascular Endurance<\/strong><\/p>\n

          \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Endurance can be generally defined as the capacity to perform a type of activity which involves many muscle groups and systems for a\u00a0 \u00a0prolonged period\u00a0 of\u00a0 time.1 17 1\u00a0 The most\u00a0 common\u00a0 method of measuring cardiorespiratory function\u00a0 in\u00a0 athletes is an incremental treadmill test that measures the rate of oxygen consumption (v’02) This measure can be defined as the functional capacity of the cardiorespiratory system to deliver blood to the working\u00a0\u00a0 muscles\u00a0\u00a0 during\u00a0\u00a0 maximal\u00a0\u00a0 and\u00a0 \u00a0supramaximal (> 100% v’02max) work while maintaining mean arterial blood \u00a0pressure.191 It appears that football players generally do not have a well developed cardiovascular system as compared\u00a0 to\u00a0 athletes\u00a0 in\u00a0 other\u00a0 sports.17,81\u00a0\u00a0 In fact, with specific reference to v’02max, university and professional football players demonstrate similar values to those of age-matched controls.12,1 8,281 Since football is an anaerobic-type sport, the role\u00a0 of cardiovascular development has not been emphasised in training programmes for these players. It may be for this reason that there does not appear to be a distinct trend between groups of players as far as v’02max is concerned although backs\u00a0 tended\u00a0 to have\u00a0 higher\u00a0 relative\u00a0 values than linemen (table IV). These differences in v’02max may explain similar findings by Barker et aI.1321 who demonstrated that offensive\u00a0 and\u00a0 defensive backs had faster times over a 1.5 mile (3.2km) run\u00a0 test\u00a0 than\u00a0 offensive and defensive\u00a0 linemen,\u00a0 and linebackers. These observations reflect differences in the aerobic capacity between\u00a0 the different groups of players as well as demonstrating a trend among the linemen who displayed higher values of percent body fat. However, in addition to aerobic cardiorespiratory function, physiological fitness as measured through blood lactate analyses has lacked documentation within the literature and may there\u00ad fore be an important factor in demonstrating adaptive characteristics in American football as well as examining relationships with performance. Sub\u00ad sequent sections of this review will attempt to associate findings regarding size, body composition, strength, speed and endurance with performance requirements of different positions.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          8. Positional Requirements<\/strong><\/p>\n

          \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Based on measurements of size, body composition, strength, speed and endurance, 3 distinct groups of football players may be established: (i) offensive and defensive linemen; (ii) defensive backs, offensive backs and wide receivers; and (iii) line\u00ad backers and tight-ends. The position of tight-end may also represent a transitional\u00a0 group along with linebackers, although they have been grouped with either the offensive backs, the offensive linemen or the linebackers. Since the position of tight-end re\u00ad quires the player to make blocks on defensive line\u00ad men as well as to run down field to catch passes as a receiver, it would seem justifiable to place these players in a category with the linebackers as a transitional group between backs and \u00a0linemen.<\/p>\n

          The results of the different physical parameters previously cited appear to be representative of the requirements for different positions. For example, success while playing the offensive and defensive line\u00a0 depends\u00a0 on\u00a0 the ability\u00a0 to execute\u00a0 the movements of charging, blocking and tackling with greater force and greater speed of execution.142.431<\/p>\n

          Moreover, linemen must have a high degree of \u00a0instantaneous strength and, in the case of the defensive lineman, be able to move quickly, hit the offensive opponent with considerable impact and then be able to move away quickly to the point of action.(7.431 These facts clearly demonstrate that playing football, especially at the line position, is dependent upon power which is related to maxi\u00ad mum strength. Since maximum strength is one component that should be developed in all football players, it should be combined with the element of speed in order to produce a greater degree of power, particularly\u00a0 in the case of the lineman.<\/p>\n

          The positions of offensive back, defensive back, and wide receiver have been characterised as those having the lowest values for size and strength, a low percentage of body fat, yet demonstrating the fastest times over 40yd. With respect to the position of defensive back, quick, agile movements are required as well as a great deal of manouverability and speed in order to cover wide receivers _[ 3\u202271 These necessary qualities of the defensive\u00a0 back may offer an explanation as to why these players have one of the lowest percentages of body fat, since excessive levels of body fat may be detrimental to playing this position. Receivers and offensive backs also require a great deal of speed and finesse. As\u00a0 a result,\u00a0 strength\u00a0 development\u00a0 may\u00a0 not have been emphasised for these players. However, the lower relative absolute strength scores that appear to be characteristic of defensive backs and receivers suggest that this is one area of development that may need to be improved, since strength enhancement in the proper manner can increase power as long as a relatively low percentage of body fat is maintained.<\/p>\n

          The position of linebacker has been\u00a0 described as the core position of the defence aimed primarily at tackling the ball-carrier should they get past the line of scrimmage. Linebackers are also responsi\u00ad ble for covering tight-ends and offensive backs running downfield to receive passes. Therefore, it appears evident as to why those who play the line\u00ad backer position have size, strength and speed val\u00ad ues that fall midway between those of the backs and the linemen. These players are required to per\u00ad form duties similar to those of the defensive line\u00ad men and defensive backs. As a result, an equal de\u00ad velopment of power, strength, speed, endurance and agility is optimal for linebackers since their duties range from contacting offensive linemen and tackling running backs to running downfield\u00a0 to cover receivers and tight ends.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          The 3 distinct groups of players that have been established in this review can be used to develop a training programme for a football team keeping in mind the predominant energy systems and the characteristics of each position. Although more differences exist between specialty positions (e.g. a wide receiver spends more time catching footballs then a defensive back), dividing players into the 3 groups may be beneficial when the objectives are to develop strength, speed and endurance. How\u00ad ever, when designing such a programme based on these findings, 2 factors that should receive more consideration are body composition and cardiovascular fitness. In the past, these 2 aspects of training have been somewhat neglected. What appears to be uncertain at the present time, however, is whether improvement in these 2 areas can facilitate better performance.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Table<\/strong> IV. Endurance capacity (V02max) of university and professional American football players<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
          Study<\/td>\nType<\/td>\nN<\/td>\nUmin<\/td>\nml\/kg\/min<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          Wilmore & Haskelll71<\/td>\nProfessional<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          <\/td>\nDB<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n4.5<\/td>\n54.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          <\/td>\nOB, WR<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n5.1<\/td>\n52.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          <\/td>\nLB<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n5.4<\/td>\n51.1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          <\/td>\nOL, TE<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n6.2<\/td>\n52.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          <\/td>\nDL<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n5.6<\/td>\n43.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          Wilmore et al.181<\/td>\nProfessional<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          <\/td>\nDB<\/td>\n25<\/td>\n4.5 \u00b1 0.4<\/td>\n53.1 \u00b1 6.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          <\/td>\nOB. WR<\/td>\n39<\/td>\n4.7 \u00b1 0.5<\/td>\n52.2 \u00b1 5.0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          <\/td>\nLB<\/td>\n28<\/td>\n5.3 \u00b1 0.6<\/td>\n52.1 \u00b1 4.9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          <\/td>\nOL, TE<\/td>\n35<\/td>\n5.6 \u00b1 0.8<\/td>\n49.9 \u00b1 6.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          <\/td>\nDL<\/td>\n27<\/td>\n5.3 \u00b1 0.6<\/td>\n44.9 \u00b1 5.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          Smith & Byrdl31<\/td>\nUniversity<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          <\/td>\nDB<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n4.77 \u00b1 0.30<\/td>\n59.3 \u00b1 1.00<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          <\/td>\nOB<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n5.00 \u00b1 0.37<\/td>\n60.2 \u00b1 4.27<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          <\/td>\nOL<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n5.44 \u00b1 0.60<\/td>\n55.9 \u00b1 7.41<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          <\/td>\nDL, LB<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n5.28 \u00b1 0.68<\/td>\n53.2 \u00b1 7.32<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

          Abbreviations: <\/em>DB = defensive back; DL = defensive lineman; LB = linebacker; OB = offensive back; OL = offensive lineman; TE = tight end; WR = wide receiver.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          9. Performance Improvement<\/strong><\/p>\n

          \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

          The utilisation of tests designed to assess per\u00ad cent body fat and physiological\u00a0 fitness have been a necessary tool for many football coaches as a means of monitoring the physical state of an ath\u00ad lete. For example, 3 300lb (135kg) offensive line\u00ad men for a professional team reported early to sum\u00ad mer camp in 1988 specifically for a weight loss and conditioning programme developed by the team’s management.( 44 1\u00a0 University\u00a0 football\u00a0 coaches, also should be aware of the negative effects of a high percent body fat. Excessive body fat has been associated with a reduction in speed, power and en\u00ad durance.1451 Significant negative correlations have been found between percent body fat and 40yd ru n times.17- 251 Crews and Meadors125 1 observed that if players’ weights were higher than their optimal playing weight, they tended to display slower reaction times and slower run times at 5, 15, and 40yd. Further evidence of this finding can also be based on individual case information as well. Wilmore and HaskeJJ!7l examined 2 cases: a 27 llb (22.5% fat) defensive tackle and a 235lb ( 18.8% fat) running back who played for a professional team. After these 2 players were convinced to lower their playing weights, the defensive tackle dropped his weight to 2581b (13.9% fat) and the running back dropped to 2 I 61b ( 1 1.5% fat). Each player had what he and his coaches felt was his best year in professional football while playing at this new reduced weight.171<\/p>\n

          Another factor that may enhance the performance of football players is the development of cardiovascular fitness. It has been demonstrated that the majority of game injuries occur in the second and fourth quarters, which are the latter portions\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 2 halves.144.46.471 Players that demonstrate a reduced ability to utilise oxygen during recovery may increase the likelihood of fatigue toward the later stages of a game and therefore in\u00ad crease their risk of injury.181 Therefore, with a better developed cardiovascular system, players may be better able to maintain a higher performance level throughout a game with relatively less effort, resulting in better play.181 More specifically, endurance training has been shown to increase the capac\u00ad ity of the muscle to extract oxygen,\u00a0 which\u00a0 is believed to be primarily due to an increase in cap\u00ad illary density and secondarily to the increase in the myoglobin concentration and\u00a0 mitochondria\u00a0 num\u00ad ber. l 1 1 .481 Subsequently the body has a better ability to utilise oxygen to carry out muscular work which results\u00a0 in\u00a0 less\u00a0 PCr\u00a0 depletion\u00a0 and\u00a0 less\u00a0 lactate \u00a0and hydrogen\u00a0\u00a0 ion\u00a0 formation.191\u00a0 Further\u00a0 evidence presented by Takahashi et al.1221 found that endurance trained\u00a0 runners\u00a0 had\u00a0 a\u00a0 significantly\u00a0 greater\u00a0 \u00a0ability to resynthesise intramuscular PCr following severe and exhausting quadriceps exercise than untrained individuals. The combination of improved substrate resynthesis and lactic acidosis buffering would allow the football player to more efficiently utilise PCr as a rapid and immediate source for ATP production during game situations. Furthermore, during practice, less accumulation of lactic acid during submaximal drills would\u00a0 occur\u00a0 as a result of a faster rise in oxygen uptake.l 9l Another benefit that a well developed cardiovascular system may provide occurs during summer football practices where thermal load can potentially burden a play\u00ad ers’ physiological system. Since the principal role of aerobic conditioning on the heart is to augment its ability to function as a volume pump, a resulting increase in cutaneous blood flow enhances the\u00a0 \u00a0removal of internal heat which may reduce the chance of acute heat stress.f2A91 As a result of these adaptations, incorporating aerobic training may help prevent injuries, improve performance, de\u00ad crease the chance of fatal nontraumatic collapse, and condition the athlete to lead a healthier life after retirement. [21<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          10. Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

          \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Research into the literature has yielded some very interesting and useful information regarding American football. Firstly, American football can be classified as an intermittent type sport that primarily utilises the PCr system for its energy supply with secondary involvement of anaerobic glycolysis. In addition to this, 3 basic groups of players exist on a typical football team: (i) offensive and defensive linemen; (ii) offensive backs, defensive backs and wide receivers; and (iii) linebackers and tight ends. Based on parameters such as size, body composition, strength, speed and endurance while excluding some position-specific variables such as catching or throwing, an optimal training programme can be developed for each group of players in order to improve their performance. However, more attention should be directed towards the elements of body composition and cardiovascular endurance since development in these 2 areas may improve performance for the reasons previously cited. In addition, the improvement of body com\u00ad position with a decline of excessive weight may reduce the risk of coronary artery disease, hyper\u00ad tension, stroke and diabetes.l501 Aerobic conditioning assists with the problem of excessive weight since cardiovascular training increases the utilisation of free fatty acids for energy production.[ 91 Not only may an increased emphasis in these areas help to improve performance, but it may also assist one to live a more healthy\u00a0 lifestyle after football.<\/p>\n

          Acknowledgements<\/strong><\/p>\n

          \u00a0<\/strong>This paper is dedicated to the memory of Edgar R. Nowalkoski, MSc, ATC, CAT (C).<\/p>\n

          Original article:\u00a0American Football Physiology by Dott. Tudor Bompa<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

          ISCI events<\/strong><\/p>\n

          4th-5th December – London, UK – Event website: www.iscissc.com\/UK<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

          12th-13th December – Perth, Australia – Event website: www.iscissc.com<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

          References<\/strong><\/p>\n

          I . Soviet Lecture Series 3. Strength and conditioning considera\u00ad tions in American\u00a0 football. Natl Strength Conditioning Assn\u00a0 J\u00a0 1988; 10 (2): 70-1<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Gleim, GW. The profiling of professional football players. Clin Sports Med 1984; 3 ( I ): 185-97<\/li>\n
          2. Smith DP, Byrd RJ. Body composition, pulmonary function and maximal oxygen consumption of college football players. J Sports Med 1976; 16: 301 -8<\/li>\n
          3. Verrneil AL, Chu Theoretical approach to planning a football season. Natl Strength Conditioning J Jan\u00a0 1983; 33-5<\/li>\n
          4. White J, Mayhew JL, Piper FC. Prediction of body composition in college football players. J Sports Med 1980; 20: \u00a0317-24<\/li>\n
          5. Wickkiser JD, Kelly JM. The body composition of a college football team. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1975; 7 (3): \u00a0199-202<\/li>\n
          6. Wilmore JH, Haskell WL. Body composition and endurance capacity of professional football players. J Appl Physiol 1972; 33 (5): 564-7<\/li>\n
          7. Wilmore JH, Parr RB, Haskell WL, et Football pros strengths and CV weakness – charted. Phys Sports Med 1976; Oct: 45-54<\/li>\n
          8. Powers SK, Howley ET. Exercise physiology: theory and ap\u00ad plication to exercise and performance. Dubuque: WC Brown Publishers, 1990<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            I0. Houston ME. Biochemistry primer for exercise science. Cham\u00ad paign (IL): Human Kinetics Publishers,\u00a0 \u00a01995<\/p>\n

              \n
            1. McArdle WD, Katch Fl, Katch VL. Exercise physiology: en\u00ad ergy, nutrition, and human performance. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1991<\/li>\n
            2. Fox EL, Matthews Interval training: conditioning for sports and general fitness. Orlando: Saunders College\/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974<\/li>\n
            3. Spriet LL. Anaerobic metabolism during high-intensity exer\u00ad cise. In: Hargreaves M, Exercise metabolism. Cham\u00ad paign (IL): Human Kinetics Publishers, 1995: 1 -40<\/li>\n
            4. Brooks GA, Fahey TD. Exercise physiology: human bioenergetics and its applications. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1985<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              1 5. Hultman E, Sjoholrn H. Energy metabolism and contraction force of human skeletal muscle in situ <\/em>during electrical stim\u00ad ulation. J Physiol\u00a0 (Lond)\u00a0 1983; 345: 525-32<\/p>\n

                \n
              1. Hultman E, Sjohol rn Substrate availability. In: Knuttgen HG, Vogel JA, Poortrnans J, editors. Biochemistry of exercise. Champaign (IL): Human\u00a0 Kinetics Publishers,\u00a0 1983: 63-75<\/li>\n
              2. Bornpa T. Theory and methodology of training. 3rd ed. Dubuque: Kendall\/Hunt Publishing Co., 1994: \u00a06-7<\/li>\n
              3. Gleim GW, Witman PA, Nicholas JA. Indirect assessment of cardiovascular ‘demands’ using telemetry on professional football players. Arn J Sports Med 1981; 9 (3): \u00a0178-83<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                1 9.\u00a0 Craig\u00a0 Jr\u00a0 AB.\u00a0 Exposure\u00a0 time\u00a0 to\u00a0 injury\u00a0 in\u00a0 professional football.<\/p>\n

                Res Quart\u00a0 1968; 39: 789-91<\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. Zapiec Taylor AW. Muscle fiber composition and energy utilization in CFL football players. Can J Appl Sport Sci\u00a0 1979; 4\u00a0 (2): 140-2<\/li>\n
                2. Smith ME, Jackson CGR. Lactate response of college football players to practices and a game [abstract]. J\u00a0 Appl\u00a0 Sport\u00a0 Sci Res \u00a01991; 5:\u00a0 1 63<\/li>\n
                3. Takahashi H, lnaki M, Fujimoto K, et al. Control of the rate of phosphocreatine resynthesis after exercise in trained and un\u00ad trained human quadriceps muscles. Eur J Appl Physiol 1995; 71: 396-404<\/li>\n
                4. Hultman E, Bergstrom J, McLennan Anderson N. Breakdown and resynthesis of phosphorylcreatine and adenosine triphos\u00ad phate in connection with muscular work in man. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1967; 1 9: 56-66<\/li>\n
                5. Burke EJ, Winslow E, Strube WY. Measures of body composi\u00ad tion and performance in major college football\u00a0 \u00a0 J\u00a0 Sports Med\u00a0 1 980; 20: \u00a0173-80<\/li>\n
                6. Crews TR, Meadors WJ. Analysis of reaction time, speed, and body composition of college football players. J Sports Med\u00a0 1978;\u00a0 1 8: 169-74<\/li>\n
                7. Housh TJ, Johnson GO, Marty L, et al. Isokinetic leg flexion and extension strength of university football players. J Orthop Sport Phys Ther 1988; 9 (11 ): 365-9<\/li>\n
                8. Seiler S, Taylor M, Diana\u00a0 R, et al.\u00a0 Assessing\u00a0 anaerobic\u00a0 power\u00a0 in\u00a0 collegiate\u00a0 football\u00a0 \u00a0 J\u00a0 Appl\u00a0 Sport\u00a0 Sci\u00a0 Res\u00a0\u00a0 1990; 4 ( I ): 9-15<\/li>\n
                9. Olson JR, Hunter GR. A comparison of 1974 and\u00a0 1984 player sized and maximal strength and speed efforts for division I NCAA universities. Nat Strength Cond Assoc\u00a0 J\u00a0 I 985;\u00a0 Jan: 26-8<\/li>\n
                10. Fahey TD, Akka L, Ralph R. Body composition and V02max of exceptional weight trained athletes. J Appl Physiol 1975; 39: 559-61<\/li>\n
                11. Mayhew JL, Levy B, McCormick T, et al. Strength norms for NCAA division II college football players. Nat Strength Cond AssocJ 1987; 9 (3): 67-9<\/li>\n
                12. Fry AC, Kraemer Physical performance characteristics of American collegiate football players. J Appl Sport Sci Res 1991; 5 (3): 126-38<\/li>\n
                13. Barker M, Wyatt TJ, Johnson RL, et al. Performance factors, psychological assessment, physical characteristics, and foot\u00ad ball playing ability. J Strength Cond Res 1993; 7 (4): 224-33<\/li>\n
                14. Black W, Roundy E. Comparisons of size, strength, speed and power in NCAA di vision I -A football \u00a0 J\u00a0 Strength Cond\u00a0 Res\u00a0 1994; 8 (2): 80-5<\/li>\n
                15. Edgerton VR, Apor P, Roy Specific tension of human elbow flexion muscles. Acta Physiol (Hung)\u00a0 1990; 75: 205-16<\/li>\n
                16. Kanda K, Hashizume K. Factors causing difference in force output among motor units in the rat medial gastrocnemius muscle. J Physiol (Lond) 1992; 448: 677-95<\/li>\n
                17. McDonough MJN, Davies CTM. Adaptive response of mam\u00ad malian skeletal muscle to exercise with high loads. Eur J Appl Physiol 1984; 52: 139-55<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                    \n
                  1. Nygaard E, Houston ME, Suzuki Y, et al. Morphology of the brachia! biceps muscle and elbow flexion in man. Acta Phys\u00ad iol Scand 1983; 117: 287-92<\/li>\n
                  2. Roy RR, Edgerton VR. Skeletal muscle architecture and perfor\u00ad mance. In: Komi PV, editor. Strength and power in sport. Champaign (IL): Human\u00a0 Kinetics Publishers\u00a0 1992: 115-29<\/li>\n
                  3. Perrin DH. Isokinetic exercise and assessment. Champaign (IL): Human\u00a0 Kinetics Publishers, \u00a01993<\/li>\n
                  4. Enoka RM. Neuromechanical basis of kinesiology. 2nd ed. Champaign (IL): Human\u00a0 Kinetics Publishers, 1994<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    41 . Mayhew JL, Piper FC, Schwegler TM, et al. Contributions of speed, agility and body composition to anaerobic power measurements in college football players. J Appl Sport Sci Res\u00a0 1989; 3 (4): 101-6<\/p>\n

                      \n
                    1. Yessis M. Strength and power training program for football line\u00ad men. Nat\u00a0 Strength Cond\u00a0 Assoc J\u00a0 1983; 5 ( I ): 30-6<\/li>\n
                    2. Elam RP, Barth Bl. The relationship between tibial nerve con\u00ad duction velocity and selected strength and power variables in college football linemen. J Sports Med 1986; 26: 398-405<\/li>\n
                    3. Gauthier MM. Oversized athletes: fit or just fat1 Phys\u00a0 Sports\u00a0 Med\u00a0 1 988;\u00a0 16 (12): 20-2<\/li>\n
                    4. Kelly JM, Wickkiser JO. For ‘ideal’\u00a0 football\u00a0 weight\u00a0 assess\u00a0 fat, not\u00a0 \u00a0 Phys Sport\u00a0 Med\u00a0 1 975; 3 ( 1 2): 38-42<\/li>\n
                    5. Blomquist CG, Saltin B. Cardiovascular adaptations of physical training. Annual Rev Physiol\u00a0 1983; 45: 169-89<\/li>\n
                    6. National Football League 1974 Injury Study. Menlo Park (CA): Stanford Research Institute, 1974<\/li>\n
                    7. Hoette CA, Clark BA, Wolff GA. Cardiac function and physical response of 146 professional football players to graded tread\u00ad mill exercise stress. J Sports Med 1986; 26: 34-42<\/li>\n
                    8. Raskoff WJ, Goldman S, Cohn K. The ‘athletic heart’: preva\u00ad lence and physiologic significance of left ventricular enlarge\u00ad ment in distance runners. J AMA 1976; 126: 158-62<\/li>\n
                    9. A strand P, Rodahl K. Textbook of work physiology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1986<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                      Correspondence and reprints: Dr D.M. Pincivero, <\/em>50 Gulliver Rd #509, Toronto, ONT M6M2N2, Canada.<\/p>\n

                       <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                      \u00a0 A Physiological Review of American Football (reprinted with the permission of the author) Danny M . Pincivero and Tudor 0. Bompa Sports Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennyslvania, USA Department of Kinesiology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada   Contents Summary\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":3237,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"zakra_general_container_width":0,"zakra_general_content_width":0,"zakra_general_sidebar_width":0,"zakra_sticky_header":"customizer","zakra_header_main_area":true,"zakra_site_logo_width":0,"zakra_header_top_enabled":"customizer","zakra_header_top_style":"customizer","zakra_primary_menu_item_style":"customizer","zakra_page_header_text_color":"","zakra_page_header_layout":"customizer","zakra_page_title_bg":"","zakra_footer_widgets_bg_image":0,"zakra_page_title_bg_repeat":"customizer","zakra_page_title_bg_position":"customizer","zakra_page_title_bg_size":"customizer","zakra_page_title_bg_attachment":"customizer","zakra_breadcrumbs_enabled":"customizer","zakra_breadcrumbs_text_color":"","zakra_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","zakra_breadcrumbs_link_color":"","zakra_breadcrumbs_link_hover_color":"","zakra_page_title_bg_image":0,"zakra_footer_widgets_enabled":"customizer","zakra_footer_column_layout_1_style":"customizer","zakra_footer_widgets_bg":"","zakra_footer_widgets_bg_repeat":"customizer","zakra_footer_widgets_bg_position":"customizer","zakra_footer_widgets_bg_size":"customizer","zakra_footer_widgets_bg_attachment":"customizer","zakra_footer_bar_enabled":"customizer","zakra_footer_bar_style":"customizer","zakra_sidebar_layout":"customizer","zakra_remove_content_margin":false,"zakra_sidebar":"customizer","zakra_transparent_header":"customizer","zakra_logo":0,"zakra_main_header_style":"default","zakra_menu_item_color":"","zakra_menu_item_hover_color":"","zakra_menu_item_active_color":"","zakra_menu_active_style":"","zakra_page_header":true,"footnotes":""},"categories":[45],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4119","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-risorse-en"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.isci.education\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4119","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.isci.education\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.isci.education\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.isci.education\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.isci.education\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4119"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.isci.education\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4119\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.isci.education\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3237"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.isci.education\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4119"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.isci.education\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4119"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.isci.education\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4119"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}