Alfredo Bravo-Sánchez1, Javier Abián-Vicén1, Fernando Jiménez1, Pablo Abián2. 1. Performance and Sport Rehabilitation Laboratory, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain. 2. Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Comillas Pontifical University, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze the plantar pressures and bone stiffness of the calcaneus in badminton players compare to healthy participants, as well as to detect possible asymmetries and chronic adaptations derived from the prolonged practice of badminton. Methods: Twenty-two badminton players (35.2 ± 13.6 years, 169.4 ± 8.2 cm, 67.6 ± 13.7 kg) and 30 healthy controls (32.2 ± 12.8 years, 170.7 ± 9.5 cm, 66.25 ± 14.84 kg) volunteered to participate in this investigation. A Footwork® Pro pressure platform was used to study plantar pressures and an Achilles® bone scanner was used to record the bone stiffness of the calcaneus. The variables analyzed were plantar surface, percentage of force per area (forefoot and hindfoot), distance between the center of pressure and the projection of the center of mass in standing, and calcaneal bone stiffness. Results: The values of bone stiffness of the calcaneus were higher in badminton players than control group in the dominant lower limb (Badminton = 114.32 ± 18.97 U.A. vs. Control = 102.07 ± 16.36 U.A.; p = 0.019) and non-dominant lower limb (Badminton = 115.12 ± 21.95 U.A. vs Control = 101.37 ± 15.72 U.A.; p = 0.014). Badminton players showed asymmetric values in mean pressure (dominant = 35.41 ± 6.05 Kpa vs. non-dominant = 39.21 ± 6.54 Kpa; p = 0.011) and distance among center of pressure of each foot and center of mass (dominant = 11.28 ± 1.65 cm vs. non-dominant = 10.48 ± 1.63 cm; p = 0.025).Conclusions: The calcaneal stiffness of the badminton players was higher than control group, which places badminton in the category of osteogenic sports. The badminton players showed an asymmetric pattern during the static balance, which may be an indicative of asymmetries derived from the continued practice of badminton.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze the plantar pressures and bone stiffness of the calcaneus in badminton players compare to healthy participants, as well as to detect possible asymmetries and chronic adaptations derived from the prolonged practice of badminton. Methods: Twenty-two badminton players (35.2 ± 13.6 years, 169.4 ± 8.2 cm, 67.6 ± 13.7 kg) and 30 healthy controls (32.2 ± 12.8 years, 170.7 ± 9.5 cm, 66.25 ± 14.84 kg) volunteered to participate in this investigation. A Footwork® Pro pressure platform was used to study plantar pressures and an Achilles® bone scanner was used to record the bone stiffness of the calcaneus. The variables analyzed were plantar surface, percentage of force per area (forefoot and hindfoot), distance between the center of pressure and the projection of the center of mass in standing, and calcaneal bone stiffness. Results: The values of bone stiffness of the calcaneus were higher in badminton players than control group in the dominant lower limb (Badminton = 114.32 ± 18.97 U.A. vs. Control = 102.07 ± 16.36 U.A.; p = 0.019) and non-dominant lower limb (Badminton = 115.12 ± 21.95 U.A. vs Control = 101.37 ± 15.72 U.A.; p = 0.014). Badminton players showed asymmetric values in mean pressure (dominant = 35.41 ± 6.05 Kpa vs. non-dominant = 39.21 ± 6.54 Kpa; p = 0.011) and distance among center of pressure of each foot and center of mass (dominant = 11.28 ± 1.65 cm vs. non-dominant = 10.48 ± 1.63 cm; p = 0.025).Conclusions: The calcaneal stiffness of the badminton players was higher than control group, which places badminton in the category of osteogenic sports. The badminton players showed an asymmetric pattern during the static balance, which may be an indicative of asymmetries derived from the continued practice of badminton.
Entities:
Keywords:
Badminton; bone density; calcaneal stiffness; physical activity; plantar pressure
Authors: Francisco Pradas; Ignacio Ara; Víctor Toro; Javier Courel-Ibáñez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 3.390