{"title":"对大学生运动员体能表现的评估:随机对照试验:比较后向跑和前向跑","authors":"Firdaus Jawed , Sumbul Ansari , Rabia Aziz , Humaira Khan , Moazzam Hussain Khan , Saurabh Sharma , Turki Abualait , Shibili Nuhmani","doi":"10.1016/j.cegh.2024.101740","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Backward running (BR) and forward running (FR) activate distinct neuromuscular pathways and utilize differing biomechanical principles. Although FR is a well-established training modality, the potential advantages of BR for enhancing athletic performance and mitigating injury risk necessitate further exploration. Moreover, there exists a paucity of experimental data comparing these modalities in collegiate athlete populations.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>This study sought to quantify the differential effects of BR intervention, FR intervention, and no intervention on agility, power, and speed performance in collegiate athletes.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Thirty collegiate athletes (Aged 18–28 years) were randomly allocated to the BR group (n = 10), FR group (n = 10), and an absolute control (CON) group (n = 10). The BR and FR groups performed running sessions on a treadmill for matched time and intensity biweekly for eight weeks. All athletes were assessed for agility, speed, and power performance before and after the intervention.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Results revealed a significant main effect of time (<em>p</em> < 0.05) and significant group × time interactions (<em>p</em> < 0.05) for all outcomes, mean difference data showed BR outperformed FR & CON in countermovement jump (CMJ) (<em>p</em> < 0.05). For the 10-m sprint performance, a between-group difference was identified. A post-hoc Bonferroni test showed that the BR group performed better than the CON group (<em>p</em> = 0.02) but was not statistically different from the FR group (<em>p</em> > 0.05).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>BR intervention led to greater gains in CMJ performance and improved 10-m sprint performance compared to the control group, with little improvement compared to the FR group based on the mean difference data.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213398424002367/pdfft?md5=960db68d124f113507323ebe3b005009&pid=1-s2.0-S2213398424002367-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An evaluation of physical performance in collegiate athletes: A randomized controlled trial comparing backward and forward running\",\"authors\":\"Firdaus Jawed , Sumbul Ansari , Rabia Aziz , Humaira Khan , Moazzam Hussain Khan , Saurabh Sharma , Turki Abualait , Shibili Nuhmani\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cegh.2024.101740\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Backward running (BR) and forward running (FR) activate distinct neuromuscular pathways and utilize differing biomechanical principles. Although FR is a well-established training modality, the potential advantages of BR for enhancing athletic performance and mitigating injury risk necessitate further exploration. Moreover, there exists a paucity of experimental data comparing these modalities in collegiate athlete populations.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>This study sought to quantify the differential effects of BR intervention, FR intervention, and no intervention on agility, power, and speed performance in collegiate athletes.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Thirty collegiate athletes (Aged 18–28 years) were randomly allocated to the BR group (n = 10), FR group (n = 10), and an absolute control (CON) group (n = 10). The BR and FR groups performed running sessions on a treadmill for matched time and intensity biweekly for eight weeks. All athletes were assessed for agility, speed, and power performance before and after the intervention.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Results revealed a significant main effect of time (<em>p</em> < 0.05) and significant group × time interactions (<em>p</em> < 0.05) for all outcomes, mean difference data showed BR outperformed FR & CON in countermovement jump (CMJ) (<em>p</em> < 0.05). For the 10-m sprint performance, a between-group difference was identified. A post-hoc Bonferroni test showed that the BR group performed better than the CON group (<em>p</em> = 0.02) but was not statistically different from the FR group (<em>p</em> > 0.05).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>BR intervention led to greater gains in CMJ performance and improved 10-m sprint performance compared to the control group, with little improvement compared to the FR group based on the mean difference data.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46404,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213398424002367/pdfft?md5=960db68d124f113507323ebe3b005009&pid=1-s2.0-S2213398424002367-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213398424002367\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213398424002367","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
An evaluation of physical performance in collegiate athletes: A randomized controlled trial comparing backward and forward running
Background
Backward running (BR) and forward running (FR) activate distinct neuromuscular pathways and utilize differing biomechanical principles. Although FR is a well-established training modality, the potential advantages of BR for enhancing athletic performance and mitigating injury risk necessitate further exploration. Moreover, there exists a paucity of experimental data comparing these modalities in collegiate athlete populations.
Purpose
This study sought to quantify the differential effects of BR intervention, FR intervention, and no intervention on agility, power, and speed performance in collegiate athletes.
Methods
Thirty collegiate athletes (Aged 18–28 years) were randomly allocated to the BR group (n = 10), FR group (n = 10), and an absolute control (CON) group (n = 10). The BR and FR groups performed running sessions on a treadmill for matched time and intensity biweekly for eight weeks. All athletes were assessed for agility, speed, and power performance before and after the intervention.
Results
Results revealed a significant main effect of time (p < 0.05) and significant group × time interactions (p < 0.05) for all outcomes, mean difference data showed BR outperformed FR & CON in countermovement jump (CMJ) (p < 0.05). For the 10-m sprint performance, a between-group difference was identified. A post-hoc Bonferroni test showed that the BR group performed better than the CON group (p = 0.02) but was not statistically different from the FR group (p > 0.05).
Conclusions
BR intervention led to greater gains in CMJ performance and improved 10-m sprint performance compared to the control group, with little improvement compared to the FR group based on the mean difference data.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health (CEGH) is a multidisciplinary journal and it is published four times (March, June, September, December) a year. The mandate of CEGH is to promote articles on clinical epidemiology with focus on developing countries in the context of global health. We also accept articles from other countries. It publishes original research work across all disciplines of medicine and allied sciences, related to clinical epidemiology and global health. The journal publishes Original articles, Review articles, Evidence Summaries, Letters to the Editor. All articles published in CEGH are peer-reviewed and published online for immediate access and citation.