Author(s): PILERI, A., BUDEL, L., BOT, F., D’EMANUELE, S., DE DONATO, R., SCHENA, F., TARPERI, C., Institution: UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI VERONA, Country: ITALY, Abstract-ID: 1377

INTRODUCTION:
Boxing and Taekwondo are two of the most popular Olympic combat sports; both are striking disciplines with a similar work-rest ratio and match structure, but they are characterized by opposing limb involvement[1,2]. Given the need for discipline-specific athlete training prescriptions, our aim is to compare these two distinct sport-skills (kicking and punching) to assess the possible specific technique-adapted test[3]. Therefore, an existing taekwondo-specific test was modified to examine its validity for boxing by comparison with a maximal incremental treadmill ramp test (RampT)[4].
METHODS:
17 national-level boxing athletes (F=1;M=16; 27±5 years; 177.5±4.6 cm; 73.9±9,4 kg; 8±5 years of training experience) took part in the study. The assessments utilized were the RampT and the Intermittent Specific Test (IST), boxing-specific adaptation of the Short Intermittent Taekwondo Test (SITT)[4]; it includes 10 intermittent all-out stages performed at maximal hit frequency with alternating limbs, structured in 3 rounds with 30s rests: R1 with 4 progressive stages (10–25s), R2 and R3 with 3x25s stages and 5s inter-stage recovery. Subjects perform the two tests on separate days spaced by 7 to 15 days. Primary outcomes included VO2max, RER, blood lactate concentration after 3 min, HRmax, HR at 1 min recovery, and maximal perceived exertion (RPE 6-20 scale); the secondary outcome was the decline in striking frequency: Hit Fatigue Index (HFI). A Paired Samples T-Test and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for reliability were performed.
RESULTS:
Compared with RampT, IST elicited significantly lower VO₂max (-10.8%, -5.6 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹, p =0.006, d= 0.76), La⁺ (-16.1%, -1.7 mmol·L⁻¹, p = 0.038, d= 0.55), HRmax (-2.6%, -4.9 bpm, p= 0.002, d= 0.93), HR at 1 min recovery (-4.3%, -6.8 bpm, p=0.038, d= 0.55), and RER (-11.6%, -0.10, p=0.013, d= 0.68), whereas RPE was significantly higher (+7.3%, +1.2 AU, p=0.009, d= -0.72). HFI showed a limited decline in striking frequency (−3%). Agreement between IST and RampT was poor (ICC(2,1)= 0.467; 95% CI: 0.003–0.764).
CONCLUSION:
In national-level boxers, the boxing-adapted IST elicited lower maximal physiological responses than RampT but higher perceived exertion, indicating that it does not reproduce treadmill-derived maximal cardiorespiratory and metabolic responses. Agreement between tests was poor, suggesting limited concurrent validity of IST as a proxy of maximal aerobic fitness. The minimal decline in striking frequency further questions its sensitivity as a fatigue or profiling metric. The IST may nonetheless serve as a sport-specific, perceptually demanding assessment; however, its current structure may limit maximal aerobic involvement, and future work should explore modifications to work-rest ratios, test duration, or the integration of lower-limb actions prior to application in training prescription.

[1] Davis 2015 [2] Santos 2011 [3] Chaabene 2018 [4] Panascì 2023