Literature DB >> 26664268

A Comparison of the Habitual Landing Strategies from Differing Drop Heights of Parkour Practitioners (Traceurs) and Recreationally Trained Individuals.

Regan J Standing1, Peter S Maulder1.   

Abstract

Parkour is an activity that encompasses methods of jumping, climbing and vaulting. With landing being a pertinent part of this practise, Parkour participants (traceurs) have devised their own habitual landing strategies, which are suggested to be a safer and more effective style of landing. The purpose of this study was to compare the habitual landing strategies of traceurs and recreationally trained individuals from differing drop heights. Comparisons between landing sound and mechanical parameters were also assessed to gauge the level of landing safety. Ten recreationally trained participants and ten traceurs performed three landings from 25% and 50% body height using their own habitual landing strategies. Results at 25% showed significantly lower maximal vertical force (39.9%, p < 0.0013, ES = -1.88), longer times to maximal vertical force (68.6%, p < 0.0015, ES = 1.72) and lower loading rates (65.1%, p < 0.0002, ES = -2.22) in the traceur group. Maximal sound was also shown to be lower (3.6%), with an effect size of -0.63, however this was not statistically significant (p < 0.1612). At 50%, traceurs exhibited significantly different values within all variables including maximal sound (8.6%, p < 0.03, ES = -1.04), maximal vertical force (49.0%, p < 0.0002, ES = -2.38), time to maximal vertical force (65.9%, p < 0.0067, ES = 1.32) and loading rates (66.3%, p < 0.0002, ES = -2.00). Foot strike analysis revealed traceurs landed using forefoot or forefoot-midfoot strategies in 93.2% of trials; whereas recreationally trained participants used these styles in only 8.3% of these landings. To conclude, the habitual landings of traceurs are more effective at lowering the kinetic landing variables associated with a higher injury risk in comparison to recreationally trained individuals. Sound as a measure of landing effectiveness and safety holds potential significance; however requires further research to confirm. Key pointsHabitual traceur landings were observed to be safer landing techniques in comparison to those utilised by recreationally trained individuals, due to the lower maximal vertical forces, slower times to maximal vertical force, lesser loading rates and lower maximal sound.Traceurs predominantly landed with the forefoot only, whereas recreationally trained individuals habitually utilised a forefoot to heel landing strategy.The habitual landing techniques performed by traceurs may be beneficial for other landing sports to incorporate into training to reduce injury.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Kinetics; Parkour; dissipation; forefoot; kinematics

Year:  2015        PMID: 26664268      PMCID: PMC4657414     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Sports Sci Med        ISSN: 1303-2968            Impact factor:   2.988


  31 in total

1.  Muscle power patterns in the mid-acceleration phase of sprinting.

Authors:  M D Johnson; J G Buckley
Journal:  J Sports Sci       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 3.337

2.  Foot placement modifies kinematics and kinetics during drop jumping.

Authors:  I Kovács; J Tihanyi; P Devita; L Rácz; J Barrier; T Hortobágyi
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 5.411

3.  Interaction between pre-landing activities and stiffness regulation of the knee joint musculoskeletal system in the drop jump: implications to performance.

Authors:  T Horita; P V Komi; C Nicol; H Kyröläinen
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 3.078

4.  Gender differences in lower extremity kinematics, kinetics and energy absorption during landing.

Authors:  Michael J Decker; Michael R Torry; Douglas J Wyland; William I Sterett; J Richard Steadman
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 2.063

5.  Changes in ground reaction force during jump landing in subjects with functional instability of the ankle joint.

Authors:  Brian Caulfield; Mary Garrett
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.063

6.  Making meaningful inferences about magnitudes.

Authors:  Alan M Batterham; William G Hopkins
Journal:  Int J Sports Physiol Perform       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.010

7.  Ground reaction forces in running: a reexamination.

Authors:  C F Munro; D I Miller; A J Fuglevand
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 2.712

8.  Effects of Developmental Stage and Sex on Lower Extremity Kinematics and Vertical Ground Reaction Forces During Landing.

Authors:  Erik E Swartz; Laura C Decoster; Pamela J Russell; Ronald V Croce
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.860

9.  Decreasing landing forces: effect of instruction.

Authors:  P J McNair; H Prapavessis; K Callender
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 13.800

10.  Effects of a knee ligament injury prevention exercise program on impact forces in women.

Authors:  Bobbie S Irmischer; Chad Harris; Ronald P Pfeiffer; Mark A DeBeliso; Kent J Adams; Kevin G Shea
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.775

View more
  3 in total

1.  On the coordination of highly dynamic human movements: an extension of the Uncontrolled Manifold approach applied to precision jump in parkour.

Authors:  Galo Maldonado; François Bailly; Philippe Souères; Bruno Watier
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-08-15       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 2.  Eccentric Resistance Training in Youth: Perspectives for Long-Term Athletic Development.

Authors:  Benjamin Drury; Sébastien Ratel; Cain C T Clark; John F T Fernandes; Jason Moran; David G Behm
Journal:  J Funct Morphol Kinesiol       Date:  2019-11-28

3.  Changes in Lower-Limb Biomechanics, Soft Tissue Vibrations, and Muscle Activation During Unanticipated Bipedal Landings.

Authors:  Shen Zhang; Weijie Fu; Yu Liu
Journal:  J Hum Kinet       Date:  2019-07-05       Impact factor: 2.193

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.