IS THE RACEWALKING BIOMECHANICS SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCED BY COACHING?

IF 0.2 Q4 SPORT SCIENCES
Krešimir Jurlin, V. Babić, A. Dolenec
{"title":"IS THE RACEWALKING BIOMECHANICS SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCED BY COACHING?","authors":"Krešimir Jurlin, V. Babić, A. Dolenec","doi":"10.52165/kinsi.29.2.50-67","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While there is a significant number of analyses of influence of coaching and training content on performance, detailed analyses linking teaching the technique and biomechanics indicators in literature are rather scarce. The purpose of the study was to determine the differences between two groups of racewalkers in the selected variables describing their gaits. The research method consisted of measuring ground reaction forces as well as kinematics of motion recorded by video cameras and the OptoJumpNext system of 14 athletes from two distinct training groups of athletes walking at individually determined speed. To identify the differences in 9 key variables between the two groups, a two-sample unpaired T-test was performed, which was also controlled by Cohens' effect size indicator. The main finding of the study is that 5 key variables unrelated to walking speed were statistically different between the two groups, with Group A (predominantly \"M\"-shaped) having a lower ratio of peak ground reaction force (GRF) to GRF at 70% of the contact phase (p=0.0000), lower ratio of total GRF at the end and beginning of the interval 70% - 80% (p=0.0006), greater pelvic rotation (p=0.0056) and a more upright posture with lower forward pelvic tilt (p=0.0001) and lower backward thoracic tilt (p=0.0000). There were no significant differences between the two groups in two variables describing upper body movement i.e. arm-swing angle and thoracic rotation. Another variable (peak GRF) was also statistically different between the two group (p=0.0000), but this variable is related to the walking speed, which was not identical for the two groups. In conclusion, differences in the selected biomechanical indicators, that are trainable according to literature, may have been influenced by apparently different training approaches applied within the two groups of athletes. We suggest that, although the gait in racewalking is rather strictly defined by the rules, the above variables can and should be controlled and influenced by training to develop a smooth racewalking technique with lower peak ground reaction forces.","PeriodicalId":43206,"journal":{"name":"Kinesiologia Slovenica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kinesiologia Slovenica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52165/kinsi.29.2.50-67","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While there is a significant number of analyses of influence of coaching and training content on performance, detailed analyses linking teaching the technique and biomechanics indicators in literature are rather scarce. The purpose of the study was to determine the differences between two groups of racewalkers in the selected variables describing their gaits. The research method consisted of measuring ground reaction forces as well as kinematics of motion recorded by video cameras and the OptoJumpNext system of 14 athletes from two distinct training groups of athletes walking at individually determined speed. To identify the differences in 9 key variables between the two groups, a two-sample unpaired T-test was performed, which was also controlled by Cohens' effect size indicator. The main finding of the study is that 5 key variables unrelated to walking speed were statistically different between the two groups, with Group A (predominantly "M"-shaped) having a lower ratio of peak ground reaction force (GRF) to GRF at 70% of the contact phase (p=0.0000), lower ratio of total GRF at the end and beginning of the interval 70% - 80% (p=0.0006), greater pelvic rotation (p=0.0056) and a more upright posture with lower forward pelvic tilt (p=0.0001) and lower backward thoracic tilt (p=0.0000). There were no significant differences between the two groups in two variables describing upper body movement i.e. arm-swing angle and thoracic rotation. Another variable (peak GRF) was also statistically different between the two group (p=0.0000), but this variable is related to the walking speed, which was not identical for the two groups. In conclusion, differences in the selected biomechanical indicators, that are trainable according to literature, may have been influenced by apparently different training approaches applied within the two groups of athletes. We suggest that, although the gait in racewalking is rather strictly defined by the rules, the above variables can and should be controlled and influenced by training to develop a smooth racewalking technique with lower peak ground reaction forces.
竞走的生物力学是否受到教练的显著影响?
虽然有大量关于教练和训练内容对表现影响的分析,但文献中将技术教学和生物力学指标联系起来的详细分析却相当缺乏。本研究的目的是确定两组竞走运动员在描述步态的选定变量方面的差异。该研究方法包括测量地面反作用力以及摄像机和OptoJumpNext系统记录的14名运动员的运动运动学,这些运动员来自两个不同的训练组,以各自确定的速度行走。为了确定两组之间9个关键变量的差异,进行了两个样本的非配对T检验,该检验也受Cohens效应大小指标的控制。该研究的主要发现是,与步行速度无关的5个关键变量在两组之间存在统计学差异,其中A组(主要为“M”形)在接触阶段的70%处的峰值地面反作用力(GRF)与GRF的比率较低(p=0.0000),在间隔结束和开始时的总GRF比率较低70%-80%(p=0.0006),更大的骨盆旋转(p=0.0056)和更直立的姿势,骨盆前倾(p=0.0001)和胸部后倾(p=0.0000)较低。两组在描述上半身运动的两个变量(即手臂摆动角度和胸部旋转)方面没有显著差异。另一个变量(峰值GRF)在两组之间也存在统计学差异(p=0.0000),但该变量与行走速度有关,而这两组的行走速度并不相同。总之,根据文献可以训练的选定生物力学指标的差异可能受到两组运动员明显不同的训练方法的影响。我们建议,尽管竞走中的步态是由规则严格定义的,但上述变量可以也应该受到训练的控制和影响,以发展出一种具有较低峰值地面反作用力的平稳竞走技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Kinesiologia Slovenica
Kinesiologia Slovenica SPORT SCIENCES-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信