Biological Determinants of Track and Field Throwing Performance

Zaras, Nikolaos; Stasinaki, Angeliki-Nikoletta; Terzis, Gerasimos

doi:10.3390/jfmk6020040

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Increasing muscle mass is of high importance in (elite) sports (Del Vecchio et al, 2019;Kordi et al, 2020;Zaras et al, 2021), prevention -especially in age-related diseases such as sarcopenia (English and Paddon-Jones, 2010;Lopes et al, 2019;Vikberg et al, 2019) -and rehabilitation of orthopedic indications (Wada et al, 2020). Consequently, several training methods aim to improve muscle mass which is usually measured via muscle thickness (MT) or muscle cross-sectional area (MCSA) (Schoenfeld et al, 2016;Simpson et al, 2017;Wackerhage et al, 2019;May et al, 2021), also in rehabilitative settings (Guthrie et al, 2012;Larivière et al, 2019;Padulo et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical evaluation of commonly used methods to determine the concordance between sonography and magnetic resonance imaging: A comparative study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionAn increasing number of studies investigate the influence of training interventions on muscle thickness (MT) by using ultrasonography. Ultrasonography is stated as a reliable and valid tool to examine muscle morphology. Researches investigating the effects of a training intervention lasting a few weeks need a very precise measurement since increases in MT can be assumed as small. Therefore, the aim of the present work was to investigate the concordance between MT via sonography and muscle cross-sectional area (MCSA) determined via MRI imaging (gold standard) in the calf muscle.MethodsReliability of sonography measurement and the concordance correlation coefficient, the mean error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE) and the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) between sonography and MRI were determined.ResultsResults show intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) of 0.88–0.95 and MAPE of 4.63–8.57%. Concordance between MT and MCSA was examined showing ρ = 0.69–0.75 for the medial head and 0.39–0.51 c for the lateral head of the gastrocnemius. A MAPE of 15.88–19.94% between measurements were determined. Based on this, assuming small increases in MT due to training interventions, even with an ICC of 0.95, MAPE shows a high error between two investigators and therefore limited objectivity.DiscussionThe high MAPE of 15.88–19.94% as well as CCC of ρc = 0.39–0.75 exhibit that there are significant differences between MRI and sonography. Therefore, data from short term interventions using sonography to detect changes in the MT should be handled with caution.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical evaluation of commonly used methods to determine the concordance between sonography and magnetic resonance imaging: A comparative study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Higher RFD, strength, and lean mass have been frequently reported as crucial determinant parameters of track and field throwing performance (2,21,28,37,(39)(40)(41)(42). In addition, training-induced increases in the above parameters have also been linked with increases in throwing performances (2,21,28,37,(39)(40)(41)(42). The results of this study are further supported by previous reports about the role of lower-body RFD, maximum strength, and lean mass on competitive track and field throwing performance in well-trained throwers (2,33,34,40,41).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regression analysis showed that the linear combination of the percentage change in RFD 150ms , 1RM in snatch and back squat, and lean mass could predict approximately the 80% of competitive track and field throwing performance increase after both CPX and CPD training. Higher RFD, strength, and lean mass have been frequently reported as crucial determinant parameters of track and field throwing performance (2,21,28,37,(39)(40)(41)(42). In addition, training-induced increases in the above parameters have also been linked with increases in throwing performances (2,21,28,37,(39)(40)(41)(42).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Complex Vs. Compound Training on Competitive Throwing Performance

Kyriazis

Methenitis

Zaras

et al. 2022

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of complex (CPX; strength and power exercises in pairs) vs. compound (CPD; strength and power exercises in different days) training on competitive track and field throwing performance. Ten well-trained throwers (7 male throwers and 3 female throwers) followed a 34-week periodized training program including 2 preparation periods. During the winter 4-week, precompetition phase, athletes were randomly assigned to CPX or CPD groups, while the opposite assignment was performed during the spring precompetition phase (counterbalanced design). Before and after each training period competitive track and field throwing performance, shot put throws, snatch, squat and bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM), vertical jumps, rate of force development (RFD), and body composition were evaluated. Competitive track and field throwing performance increased significantly by 5.4 6 2.9% and 1.9 6 1.7%, after CPX and CPD, respectively, with a significant difference between groups (p , 0.001). Shot put throws and 1RM strength in bench press increased similarly after both programs (p , 0.05), but vertical jumps increased only after CPX training. CPX induced greater increases in 1RM strength in snatch and squat, RFD, and lean body mass compared with CPD (p , 0.005). The linear combination of training-induced changes in RFD 150ms, 1RM in squat, snatch, and total lean mass explained the 80% of the percentage increase in competitive track and field throwing performance (p 5 0.007). These results suggest that 4 weeks of CPX training during the precompetition period induce greater increases in competitive track and field throwing performance, 1RM strength, power, and RFD compared with CPD training.

show abstract

“…A few authors have identified some of the key factors influencing force magnitude in the thrower. Among these, lean mass, muscle fiber type and architectural characteristics of the muscles appear to predominantly contribute (Zaras et al, 2021 ). Mass significantly influences the amount of force produced because heavier throwers usually also have a greater volume of muscle allowing for an enhanced capacity to apply forces on the hammer cable (Billeter et al, 2003 ; Gutierrez-Davila and Rojas-Ruiz, 2005 ; Okamoto et al, 2007 ; Singh et al, 2011 ).…”

Section: Forces Involved In the Throwmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanics of the Hammer Throw: Narrative Review

Castaldi

Borzuola

Camomilla

et al. 2022

Front. Sports Act. Living

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hammer throw is a discipline characterized by unique biomechanical features, which have often captured the interest of scientists and coaches in athletics. However, most studies have been published on technical journals for coaches and there are only few works on the biomechanical aspects of hammer throw in scientific literature. This narrative review provides a critical evaluation of the articles published in scientific and the most relevant technical journals with a particular focus on the biomechanical aspects that underlie the throwing technique and contribute to performance enhancement. The modern throwing technique has many elements in common with that used by the best throwers in the Eighties, underlying a limited development in the biomechanical understanding of throwing motion in recent years. This review analyses the ballistic and environmental aspects of the discipline as well as the motion of the center of mass of both the hammer and thrower. Furthermore, the orbital movement of the hammer and the forces involved in the throw are evaluated. This review emphasizes the kinematic and dynamic parameters that emerge as the most relevant to improve the throwing performance. Among these, linear release velocity appears to be a fundamental element. To maximize this variable, the athlete is required to accelerate the hammer by applying force. The curve of the time-tangential velocity of the hammer follows a trajectory very similar to that of the forces applied to the hammer-thrower system indicating a strong relationship between the two variables. The thrower uses the action of the leg muscles to gain momentum, which is then transferred to the hammer through the trunk and arm muscles, thus obtaining an increase of the linear release velocity. This review provides coaches with a critical analysis of the hammer throw technique, highlighting relevant factors for future development of training programmes. Our work reveals a substantial gap in the literature, particularly concerning the evaluation of fundamental key aspects of the throw such as the assessment of preliminary winds, the entry to the first turn and the definition of the rotation axes involved in the throw. A more in-depth analysis of these key elements is required to improve the understanding of the biomechanics of hammer throw.

show abstract

Biological Determinants of Track and Field Throwing Performance

Cited by 18 publications

References 60 publications

Critical evaluation of commonly used methods to determine the concordance between sonography and magnetic resonance imaging: A comparative study

Critical evaluation of commonly used methods to determine the concordance between sonography and magnetic resonance imaging: A comparative study

Effects of Complex Vs. Compound Training on Competitive Throwing Performance

Biomechanics of the Hammer Throw: Narrative Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About