共 13 条
Ratio of forces during sprint acceleration: A comparison of different calculation methods
被引:4
作者:
Bezodis, Neil
[1
]
Colyer, Steffi
[2
]
Nagahara, Ryu
[3
]
Bayne, Helen
[4
]
Bezodis, Ian
[5
]
Morin, Jean-Benoit
[6
]
Murata, Munenori
[3
]
Samozino, Pierre
[7
]
机构:
[1] Swansea Univ, Appl Sports Technol Exercise & Med Res Ctr, Swansea, W Glam, Wales
[2] Univ Bath, Dept Hlth, Bath, Avon, England
[3] Natl Inst Fitness & Sports Kanoya, Kanoya, Japan
[4] Univ Pretoria, Fac Hlth Sci, Dept Physiol, Pretoria, South Africa
[5] Cardiff Metropolitan Univ, Cardiff Sch Sport & Hlth Sci, Cardiff, Wales
[6] Univ Lyon, UJM St Etienne, Interuniv Lab Human Movement Biol, EA 7424, St Etienne, France
[7] Univ Savoie Mt Blanc, Interuniv Lab Human Movement Biol, EA 7424, F-73000 Chambery, France
基金:
英国工程与自然科学研究理事会;
关键词:
Ground reaction force;
Impulse;
Sprinting;
Technique;
D O I:
10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110685
中图分类号:
Q6 [生物物理学];
学科分类号:
071011 ;
摘要:
The orientation of the ground reaction force (GRF) vector is a key determinant of human sprint acceleration performance and has been described using ratio of forces (RF) which quantifies the ratio of the antero-posterior component to the resultant GRF. Different methods have previously been used to calculate step-averaged RF, and this study therefore aimed to compare the effects of three calculation methods on two key "technical" ability measures: decline in ratio of forces (DRF) and theoretical maximal RF at null velocity (RF0). Twenty-four male sprinters completed maximal effort 60 m sprints from block and standing starts on a fully instrumented track (force platforms in series). RF-horizontal velocity profiles were determined from the measured GRFs over the entire acceleration phase using three different calculation methods for obtaining an RF value for each step: A) the mean of instantaneous RF during stance, B) the step-averaged antero-posterior component divided by the stepaveraged resultant GRF, C) the step-averaged antero-posterior component divided by the resultant of the stepaveraged antero-posterior and vertical components. Method A led to significantly greater RF0 and shallower DRF slopes than Methods B and C. These differences were very large (Effect size Cohen's d = 2.06 - 4.04) and varied between individuals due to differences in the GRF profiles, particularly during late stance as the acceleration phase progressed. Method B provides RF values which most closely approximate the mechanical reality of step averaged accelerations progressively approaching zero and it is recommended for future analyses although it should be considered a ratio of impulses.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文