Reducing ground reaction forces in gymnastics’ landings may increase internal loading

Modifying landing mat material properties may decrease peak contact forces but increase forefoot forces in gymnastics landings

“…(Mills et al, 2009), and ensure the landing mat behaved within realistic limits. Landing mat constraints included ensuring the mat did not become excessively compressed and 'bottom out'.…”

“…It has been reported that up to 82 % of injuries in gymnastics are acute and that the lower extremity was the most injured, comprising 54 % to 70 % of all injuries (Harringe et al, 2006;Jensen, 1998;Meeusen and Borms, 1992). Several factors may contribute to the frequency and severity of injuries during landing, including body position at the instant of touchdown, landing technique and the landing surface (Dufek and Bates, 1991;McNitt-Gray et al, 1993;McNitt-Gray, 2000;Mills et al, 2009).…”

Greater lower limb flexion in gymnastic landings is associated with reduced landing force: a repeated measures study

“…Injuries have anecdotally been linked to training intensity and load, with landing increasingly recognised as a potentially important activity (Seegmiller & McCaw, 2003). Indeed, several studies have confirmed a link between the excessive load gymnasts must absorb during landings and the high rate of acute lower limb injuries gymnasts report (Daly et al, 2001;Kirialanis, Malliou, Beneka, & Giannakopoulos, 2003;Marshall, Covassin, Dick, Nassar, & Agel, 2007;McAuley et al, 1987;Mills, Pain, & Yeadon, 2008, 2009Seegmiller & McCaw, 2003;Wade, Campbell, Smith, Norcott, & O'Sullivan, 2012). Further, given that landing is a judged component of all gymnastic events, it is focused on throughout training and competition.…”

Comparing different approaches for determining joint torque parameters from isovelocity dynamometer measurements

“…The second approach has the advantage of allowing subject-specific torque functions to be readily obtained from maximum torque measurements on an isovelocity dynamometer (Yeadon et al, 2006) and hence model evaluation is more robust; however biarticular effects and antagonist coactivation are not fully accounted for. Regardless, the success of joint torque generators using measured torque functions has been demonstrated for many different activities (Yeadon and King, 2002;Sprigings and Miller, 2004;Mills et al, 2008, Mills et al, 2009Yeadon et al, 2010). However, challenges exist in obtaining accurate subject-specific torque functions from dynamometer measurements and the development of a more robust protocol for this process would further improve the models of dynamic human movement based on joint torque generators.…”