MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2073171594 · doi:10.1097/00005768-200205001-01804

Metatarsophalangeal Joint Movement in Olympic Sprinters

2002· article· en· W2073171594 sur OpenAlexaff
Darren J. Stefanyshyn, Jason R. Krell, Dann L. Chow

Notice bibliographique

RevueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésForefootJoint (building)KinematicsTrack and field athleticsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAthletesMathematicsEnergy (signal processing)Movement (music)SimulationPhysical therapyComputer scienceMedicineStatisticsAcousticsEngineeringPhysicsStructural engineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: In sprinting, the metatarsophalangeal (MP) joint flexes as an athlete rolls onto the forefoot but does not extend until after take-off (Stefanyshyn and Nigg, 1997). As a result, energy absorbed at the MP joints is substantial, however, the energy produced in the second half of the stance-phase at this joint is minimal. Since the absorbed energy is dissipated and not stored for later re-use, one could speculate that a reduction of such energy absorption may lead to an increase in performance. That is, if all the energy can be directed toward the movement task and not wasted on auxiliary tasks, performance may be improved. The amount of energy absorbed at the MP joint is a function of both the moment generated about the joint as well as the maximal joint movement. Thus, if either of these variables is decreased, the amount of energy absorbed at the MP joint should be decreased, potentially resulting in an increase in performance. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to determine the relationship between metatarsophalangeal joint movement and sprinting performance during an elite competition. Methods: Kinematic data were recorded during the heats, semi-final and final races of the mens and womens 100m sprints at the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. In total, measurements were performed on 70 athletes (50 males and 20 females). The data were collected at approximately the 60m mark of the race using two high-speed digital cameras (JVC 9800) sampling at 120 Hz. Both cameras were set with the fields of view focussed on a 1.5m section of track. The first camera was focused between lanes 3 and 4 while the second camera was focused on lanes 6 and 7. The video data were hand digitised and the MP joint angle was defined as the angle between the plantar surface of the forefoot and rearfoot of the shoe. A correlational analysis was performed to quantify the relationship between MP joint bending and sprint performance. Results: The average peak extension at the MP joint was similar between males and females, 36.5° and 37.7° respectively. Very low and non-significant correlations were found between peak extension at the MP joint and 100m sprint time for both male (r = 0.351, p = 0.994) and female (r = 0.180, p = 0.777) athletes. Discussion: On average, during competition the MP joint underwent a large range of movement, which corresponded well with values previously reported from in lab testing (Stefanyshyn and Nigg, 1997). Similar to the in lab testing, the athletes only flexed their MP joint minimally at take-off. It has been shown that increasing the bending stiffness of a shoe and decreasing the extension of the MP joint leads to improvements in vertical jump performance (Stefanyshyn and Nigg, 2000). However, there was no relation between the maximal extension of the MP joint and sprinting performance in this study. Thus, it may be that the concept of reducing the energy lost does not apply to sprinting performance. However, recent pilot studies with increased bending stiffness in sprint shoes have shown positive improvements in sprinting performance. Alternatively, it is possible that kinematics alone may not be sufficient to predict performance measures in sprinting. Further investigation into the kinetics and energy absorption at the MP joint is necessary to fully understand the role of the MP joint in sprinting performance. Acknowledgements: Funding for this study was provided from a grant by the International Olympic Committee, Medical Commission.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,664
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,025
Tête enseignante GPT0,235
Écart entre enseignants0,210 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2002
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseMême sujetLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesTravaux en français237 207