Literature DB >> 24390689

The mechanics of jumping over an obstacle during running: a comparison between athletes trained to hurdling and recreational runners.

G Mauroy1, B Schepens, P A Willems.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study compares the mechanism of running in trained athletes (TA) experienced in hurdling and in recreational runners (RR), as they approach and jump over an obstacle.
METHODS: The movements of the centre of mass of the body (COM), the external muscular work (W ext) and the leg-spring stiffness (k leg) were evaluated in athletes approaching an obstacle at 18 km h(-1), from the ground reaction forces (measured by force-platforms) and the orientation of the lower-limb segments (measured by camera). These results were compared to those obtained in RR.
RESULTS: Two steps before the obstacle, k leg is reduced by 10-20 %; so, the COM is lowered and accelerated forward. During the step preceding the obstacle, k leg is increased by 40-60 %; so the COM is raised and accelerated upwards, whereas its forward velocity is reduced. This change in the running pattern is similar to the one observed in RR while leaping an obstacle. However, in TA, the change in stiffness is less pronounced. As a result, the orientation of the velocity vector at the beginning of the aerial phase over the obstacle is more horizontal than in RR, which involves a 10-20 % greater horizontal velocity and a 40-60 % smaller vertical excursion of the COM when crossing the obstacle; subsequently, W ext during contact before the obstacle is 10-20 % less.
CONCLUSION: Athletes use the same mechanisms as non-specialists to cross an obstacle. However, athletes adapt the mechanism of jumping to reduce the loss in the velocity of progression when crossing an obstacle.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24390689     DOI: 10.1007/s00421-013-2805-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol        ISSN: 1439-6319            Impact factor:   3.078


  23 in total

1.  A movement criterion for running.

Authors:  Andre Seyfarth; Hartmut Geyer; Michael Günther; Reinhard Blickhan
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 2.712

2.  Force platforms as ergometers.

Authors:  G A Cavagna
Journal:  J Appl Physiol       Date:  1975-07       Impact factor: 3.531

3.  Mechanical determinants of 100-m sprint running performance.

Authors:  Jean-Benoît Morin; Muriel Bourdin; Pascal Edouard; Nicolas Peyrot; Pierre Samozino; Jean-René Lacour
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2012-03-16       Impact factor: 3.078

4.  The mechanics of running: how does stiffness couple with speed?

Authors:  T A McMahon; G C Cheng
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 2.712

Review 5.  Biomechanics of sprint running. A review.

Authors:  A Mero; P V Komi; R J Gregor
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 11.136

6.  Changes in muscle activity with increase in leg stiffness during hopping.

Authors:  Hiroaki Hobara; Kazuyuki Kanosue; Shuji Suzuki
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  2007-03-02       Impact factor: 3.046

7.  Ability of the planar spring-mass model to predict mechanical parameters in running humans.

Authors:  Sharon R Bullimore; Jeremy F Burn
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  2007-06-11       Impact factor: 2.691

8.  3-D biomechanical analysis of sprint hurdles at different competitive levels.

Authors:  A Salo; P N Grimshaw; L Marar
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 5.411

9.  Training of muscle strength and power: interaction of neuromotoric, hypertrophic, and mechanical factors.

Authors:  P V Komi
Journal:  Int J Sports Med       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 3.118

10.  Linear kinematics of the men's 110-m and women's 100-m hurdles races.

Authors:  C McDonald; J Dapena
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 5.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.