The human foot is characterized by a pronounced longitudinal arch (LA) that compresses and recoils in response to external load during locomotion, allowing for storage and return of elastic energy within the passive structures of the arch and contributing to metabolic energy savings. Here, we examine the potential for active muscular contribution to the biomechanics of arch deformation and recoil. We test the hypotheses that activation of the three largest plantar intrinsic foot muscles, abductor hallucis, flexor digitorum and quadratus plantae is associated with muscle stretch in response to external load on the foot and that activation of these muscles (via electrical stimulation) will generate sufficient force to counter the deformation of LA caused by the external load. We found that recruitment of the intrinsic foot muscles increased with increasing load, beyond specific load thresholds. Interestingly, LA deformation and muscle stretch plateaued towards the maximum load of 150% body weight, when muscle activity was greatest. Electrical stimulation of the plantar intrinsic muscles countered the deformation that occurred owing to the application of external load by reducing the length and increasing the height of the LA. These findings demonstrate that these muscles have the capacity to control foot posture and LA stiffness and may provide a buttressing effect during foot loading. This active arch stiffening mechanism may have important implications for how forces are transmitted during locomotion and postural activities as well as consequences for metabolic energy saving.
This study identified small absolute strength differences and a wide overlap of the absolute strength measurements at the group level. The small associations between lower hamstring eccentric strength and lower quadriceps concentric strength with HSIs can only be considered as weak risk factors. The identification of these risk factors still does not allow the identification of individual players at risk. The use of isokinetic testing to determine the association between strength differences and HSIs is not supported.
BackgroundTo evaluate the efficacy of a single platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection in reducing the return to sport duration in male athletes, following an acute hamstring injury.MethodsA randomised, three-arm (double-blind for the injection arms), parallel-group trial, in which 90 professional athletes with MRI positive hamstring injuries were randomised to injection with PRP-intervention, platelet-poor plasma (PPP-control) or no injection. All received an intensive standardised rehabilitation programme. The primary outcome measure was time to return to play, with secondary measures including reinjury rate after 2 and 6 months.ResultsThe adjusted HR for the PRP group compared with the PPP group was 2.29 (95% CI 1.30 to 4.04) p=0.004; for the PRP group compared with the no injection group 1.48 (95% CI 0.869 to 2.520) p=0.15, and for the PPP group compared with the no injection group 1.57 (95% CI 0.88 to −2.80) p=0.13. The adjusted difference for time to return to sports between the PRP and PPP groups was −5.7 days (95% CI −10.1 to −1.4) p=0.01; between the PRP and no injection groups −2.9 days (95% CI −7.2 to 1.4) p=0.189 and between the PPP and no injection groups 2.8 days (95% CI −1.6 to 7.2) p=0.210. There was no significant difference for the secondary outcome measures. No adverse effects were reported.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that there is no benefit of a single PRP injection over intensive rehabilitation in athletes who have sustained acute, MRI positive hamstring injuries. Intensive physiotherapy led rehabilitation remains the primary means of ensuring an optimal return to sport following muscle injury.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT01812564.
Research questionDoes the Nordic hamstring exercise (NHE) prevent hamstring injuries when included as part of an injury prevention intervention?DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe considered the population to be any athletes participating in any sporting activity, the intervention to be the NHE, the comparison to be usual training or other prevention programmes, which did not include the NHE, and the outcome to be the incidence or rate of hamstring injuries.AnalysisThe effect of including the NHE in injury prevention programmes compared with controls on hamstring injuries was assessed in 15 studies that reported the incidence across different sports and age groups in both women and men.Data sourcesMEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL via Ebsco, and OpenGrey.ResultsThere is a reduction in the overall injury risk ratio of 0.49 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.74, p=0.0008) in favour of programmes including the NHE. Secondary analyses when pooling the eight randomised control studies demonstrated a small increase in the overall injury risk ratio 0.52 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.85, p=0.0008), still in favour of the NHE. Additionally, when studies with a high risk of bias were removed (n=8), there is an increase of 0.06 in the risk ratio to 0.55 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.89, p=0.006).ConclusionsProgrammes that include the NHE reduce hamstring injuries by up to 51%. The NHE essentially halves the rate of hamstring injuries across multiple sports in different athletes.Trial registration numberPROSPERO CRD42018106150.
Objective Our objective was to explore the training-related knowledge, beliefs, and practices of athletes and the influence of lockdowns in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods Athletes (n = 12,526, comprising 13% world class, 21% international, 36% national, 24% state, and 6% recreational) completed an online survey that was available from 17 May to 5 July 2020 and explored their training behaviors (training knowledge, beliefs/attitudes, and practices), including specific questions on their training intensity, frequency, and session duration before and during lockdown (March–June 2020). Results Overall, 85% of athletes wanted to “maintain training,” and 79% disagreed with the statement that it is “okay to not train during lockdown,” with a greater prevalence for both in higher-level athletes. In total, 60% of athletes considered “coaching by correspondence (remote coaching)” to be sufficient (highest amongst world-class athletes). During lockdown, < 40% were able to maintain sport-specific training (e.g., long endurance [39%], interval training [35%], weightlifting [33%], plyometric exercise [30%]) at pre-lockdown levels (higher among world-class, international, and national athletes), with most (83%) training for “general fitness and health maintenance” during lockdown. Athletes trained alone (80%) and focused on bodyweight (65%) and cardiovascular (59%) exercise/training during lockdown. Compared with before lockdown, most athletes reported reduced training frequency (from between five and seven sessions per week to four or fewer), shorter training sessions (from ≥ 60 to < 60 min), and lower sport-specific intensity (~ 38% reduction), irrespective of athlete classification. Conclusions COVID-19-related lockdowns saw marked reductions in athletic training specificity, intensity, frequency, and duration, with notable within-sample differences (by athlete classification). Higher classification athletes had the strongest desire to “maintain” training and the greatest opposition to “not training” during lockdowns. These higher classification athletes retained training specificity to a greater degree than others, probably because of preferential access to limited training resources. More higher classification athletes considered “coaching by correspondence” as sufficient than did lower classification athletes. These lockdown-mediated changes in training were not conducive to maintenance or progression of athletes’ physical capacities and were also likely detrimental to athletes’ mental health. These data can be used by policy makers, athletes, and their multidisciplinary teams to modulate their practice, with a degree of individualization, in the current and continued pandemic-related scenario. Furthermore, the data may drive training-related educational resources for athletes and their multidisciplinary teams. Such upskilling would provide athletes with evidence to inform their training modifications in response to germane situations (e.g., COVID related, injury, and illness).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.