Validation of an integrated experimental set-up for kinetic and kinematic three-dimensional analyses in a training environment

Boisnoir, Alexandre; Decker, Leslie M.; Reine, Bruno; Natta, Françoise

doi:10.1080/14763140701324818

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Afterward, a 7-day food record with qualitative and quantitative data, along with a printed guide for proper filling, was given to the participants to calculate their daily average intake through the first week of the training program, and calculated using software (Cronometer Software Inc., , V.1.) [ 19 ]. This nutritional assessment was performed again when the training program finished and no differences were observed between the periodization models and moments.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hematological and Running Performance Modification of Trained Athletes after Reverse vs. Block Training Periodization

Martín

Clemente-Suárez

Ramos-Campo

2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of block (BP) and a reverse training periodization (RP) in the hematological and running performance of amateur trained athletes. Modifications in hematological, aerobic, and anaerobic running performance and countermovement jump before and after twelve weeks of BP vs. RP training programs were analyzed in 16 trained athletes (eight males: 40.0 ± 6.2 years; 179.2 ± 12.8 cm; 73.8 ± 12.2 kg; and eight females: 34.2 ± 4.1 years; 163.4 ± 9.6 cm; 57.0 ± 11.0 kg). A significant decrease in heart rate (HR) at ventilatory threshold (VT1) (p = 0.031; ES = 1.40) was observed in RP without changes in BP. In addition, RP increased significantly VO2max (p = 0.004; ES = 0.47), speed at VO2max (p = 0.001; ES = 1.07), HR at VT2 (p < 0.001; ES = 1.32) and VT1 (p = 0.046; ES = 0.57), while BP improved VO2max (p = 0.004; ES = 0.51), speed at VO2max (p = 0.016; ES = 0.92), and HR at VT2 (p = 0.023; ES = 0.78). In addition, only RP increased anaerobic performance in a running-based anaerobic sprint test (RAST) (mean sprint: p = 0.009; ES = 0.40, best sprint: p = 0.019; ES = 0.30 and total time: p = 0.009; ES = 0.40). Moreover, both types of training periodization proposed in this study maintained hematological values and efficiently improved jump performance (p = 0.044; ES = 0.6) in RP and p = 0.001; ES = 0.75 in BP). Therefore, twelve weeks of either RP or BP is an effective strategy to increase jump and aerobic running performance maintaining hematological values, but only RP increases anaerobic running performance.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hematological and Running Performance Modification of Trained Athletes after Reverse vs. Block Training Periodization

Martín

Clemente-Suárez

Ramos-Campo

2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other factors, such as disqualification rule changes [33], holding time [34, 35], start signal intensity [36], and the sprinter’s focus of attention [37], can also affect reaction times. Whilst excitation of lower limb muscles occurs prior to the first visible movement or force production against the blocks ([25, 38] see Sect. 3.3), and a sprinter’s ability to react is undeniably important, a more detailed discussion of the factors related to the processes that occur between the start signal and movement initiation is beyond the scope of our review; this section therefore focuses on motion during the push phase.…”

Section: The Push Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whilst muscle excitation can vary considerably between individuals [25], it typically commences prior to horizontal force production against the blocks [25, 38], and the earlier onset of muscle excitation relative to the onset of force production has been positively correlated with maximal horizontal block force and block velocity magnitudes [25]. The rear leg gluteus maximus is typically the first muscle excited during the block phase [25, 52], followed by the rear leg semitendinosus [61] and biceps femoris, and then the quadriceps and calf muscles [25, 51].…”

Section: The Push Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

The Biomechanics of the Track and Field Sprint Start: A Narrative Review

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The start from blocks is a fundamental component of all track and field sprint events (≤ 400 m). This narrative review focusses on biomechanical aspects of the block phase and the subsequent first flight and stance phases. We discuss specific features of technique and how they may be important for a high level of performance during the start. The need to appropriately quantify performance is discussed first; external power has recently become more frequently adopted because it provides a single measure that appropriately accounts for the requirement to increase horizontal velocity as much as possible in as little time as possible. In the "set" position, a relatively wide range of body configurations are adopted by sprinters irrespective of their ability level, and between-sprinter differences in these general positions do not appear to be directly associated with block phase performance. Greater average force production during the push against the blocks, especially from the rear leg and particularly the hip, appears to be important for performance. Immediately after exiting the blocks, shorter first flight durations and longer first stance durations (allowing more time to generate propulsive force) are found in sprinters of a higher performance level. During the first stance phase, the ankle and knee both appear to play an important role in energy generation, and higher levels of performance may be associated with a stiffer ankle joint and the ability to extend the knee throughout stance. However, the role of the sprinter's body configuration at touchdown remains unclear, and the roles of strength and anatomy in these associations between technique and performance also remain largely unexplored. Other aspects such as the sex, age and performance level of the studied sprinters, as well as issues with measurement and comparisons with athletes with amputations, are also briefly considered.

show abstract

“…Many authors have been interested in the biomechanical factors of these 2 phases to explain the key factors of sprint performance (7)(8)(9)11,16,(18)(19)(20)24,25). The starting block phase refers to the time during which the sprinter is in contact with the blocks (24).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinematic and Kinetic Comparisons of Elite and Well-Trained Sprinters During Sprint Start

Slawinski

Bonnefoy‐Mazure

Levêque

et al. 2010

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

113

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to compare the main kinematic, kinetic, and dynamic parameters of elite and well-trained sprinters during the starting block phase and the 2 subsequent steps. Six elite sprinters (10.06-10.43 s/100 m) and 6 well-trained sprinters (11.01-11.80 s/100 m) equipped with 63 passive reflective markers performed 4 maximal 10 m sprint starts on an indoor track. An opto-electronic motion analysis system consisting of 12 digital cameras (250 Hz) was used to record 3D marker trajectories. At the times "on your marks," "set," "clearing the block," and "landing and toe-off of the first and second step," the horizontal position of the center of mass (CM), its velocity (XCM and VCM), and the horizontal position of the rear and front hand (X(Hand_rear) and X(Hand_front)) were calculated. During the pushing phase on the starting block and the 2 first steps, the rate of force development and the impulse (F(impulse)) were also calculated. The main results showed that at each time XCM and VCM were significantly greater in elite sprinters. Moreover, during the pushing phase on the block, the rate of force development and F(impulse) were significantly greater in elite sprinters (respectively, 15,505 +/- 5,397 N.s and 8,459 +/- 3,811 N.s for the rate of force development; 276.2 +/- 36.0 N.s and 215.4 +/- 28.5 N.s for F(impulse), p < or = 0.05). Finally, at the block clearing, elite sprinters showed a greater XHand_rear and X(Hand_front) than well-trained sprinters (respectively, 0.07+/- 0.12 m and -0.27 +/- 0.36 m for X(Hand_rear); 1.00 +/- 0.14 m and 0.52 +/- 0.27 m for X(Hand_front); p < or = 0.05). The muscular strength and arm coordination appear to characterize the efficiency of the sprint start. To improve speed capacities of their athletes, coaches must include in their habitual training sessions of resistance training.

show abstract

Validation of an integrated experimental set-up for kinetic and kinematic three-dimensional analyses in a training environment

Cited by 7 publications

References 7 publications

Hematological and Running Performance Modification of Trained Athletes after Reverse vs. Block Training Periodization

Hematological and Running Performance Modification of Trained Athletes after Reverse vs. Block Training Periodization

The Biomechanics of the Track and Field Sprint Start: A Narrative Review

Kinematic and Kinetic Comparisons of Elite and Well-Trained Sprinters During Sprint Start

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About