| Literature DB >> 35736021 |
Vaclav Beranek1,2, Petr Stastny2, Frederic Turquier3, Vit Novacek1,4, Petr Votapek5.
Abstract
Performance in strike combat sports is mostly evaluated through the values of the net force, acceleration, or speed to improve efficient training procedures and/or to assess the injury. There are limited data on the upper limb striking area, which can be a useful variable for contact pressure assessment. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the contact area of the upper limb in three different strike technique positions. A total of 38 men and 38 women (n = 76, 27.3 ± 8.5 years of age, 73.9 ± 13.8 kg of body weight, 173.3 ± 8.4 cm of body height) performed a static simulation of punch with a fist, palm strike, and elbow strike, where three segments of the right upper limb were scanned. The analysis of 684 images showed a correlation (r = 0.634) between weight and punch technique position in men and significant differences in elbow strike (p < 0.001) and palm strike (p < 0.0001) between women and men. In both groups, the palm demonstrated the largest area and the elbow the smallest one. These data may be used to evaluate strike contact pressure in future studies in forensic biomechanics and assessment of injury in combat sports and self-defense.Entities:
Keywords: Mixed Martial Art; combat sports; direct punch; elbow strike; hand; injury; palm strike; self-defense
Year: 2022 PMID: 35736021 PMCID: PMC9224799 DOI: 10.3390/jfmk7020050
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Funct Morphol Kinesiol ISSN: 2411-5142
Summary of heights, weights, and ages of subjects. Average ± standard deviation (SD) and range (minimum-maximum) are shown.
| Men ( | Women ( | All Subjects ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 27.9 ± 7.0 (19–43) | 26.6 ± 9.8 (19–52) | 27.3 ± 8.5 (19–52) |
| Weight (kg) | 81.5 ± 13.8 (60–110) | 66.2 ± 8.8 (47–89) | 73.9 ± 13.8 (47–110) |
| Height (cm) | 178.2 ± 7.7 (160–198) | 168.4 ± 5.8 (158–178) | 173.3 ± 8.4 (158–198) |
Figure 1The body position for (a) straight punch, (b) palm strike, (c) elbow strike contact area on the measuring platform and (d) overall view.
Figure 2Illustration of image postprocessing for all three techniques. (a) The image is loaded and cropped to the relevant region of interest (same for all images). (b) The image is converted into CIELAB color space. The first channel is extracted and normalized to 16-bit grayscale and represented as a matrix. (c) The components of the matrix are squared to increase the contrast and normalized again to 16-bit grayscale. (d) A logical mask is created using a 40% contrast threshold. (e) Clusters smaller than 50 pixels are removed. (f) Possible holes in the mask are filled.
Figure 3Equivalent diameter (mm) dot plots for women and men groups and all three techniques.
Summary of Equivalent Diameter (mm) for different techniques. SD= standard deviation.
| Technique | Subjects | Mean ± SD (Minimum-Maximum) |
|---|---|---|
| Direct | All | 33.8 ± 8.9 (11.7–55.3) |
| Men | 33.7 ± 8.8 (19.5–55.3) | |
| Women | 33.8 ± 9.0 (11.7–50.2) | |
| Elbow | All | 17.2 ± 5.6 (6.0–33.4) |
| Men | 16.0 ± 4.6 (9.5–30.6) | |
| Women | 18.4 ± 6.3 (6.0–33.4) | |
| Palm | All | 45.8 ± 7.7 (27.6–67.2) |
| Men | 47.9 ± 8.2 (27.6–67.2) | |
| Women | 43.7 ± 6.5 (32.2–57.7) | |
| All | All ( | 33.8 ± 8.9 (11.7–55.3) |
Figure 4Illustration of variability in three consecutive trials for selected subject and direct technique.
Figure 5Equivalent diameter (mm) boxplot with median indicated by × symbol for all subjects, women and men, for all three strike techniques. Statistically significant differences are indicated with an asterisk symbol *.