ΩΩ
Hip strengthening exercises performed by female runners not only significantly reduced patellofemoral pain -- a common knee pain experienced by runners -- but they also improved the runners' gaits, according to Indiana University motion analysis expert Tracy Dierks.
"The results indicate that the strengthening intervention was successful in reducing pain, which corresponded to improved mechanics," said Dierks, associate professor of physical therapy in the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. "The leg was going through more motion, suggesting that the (pain) guarding mechanism was reduced, and coordination or control of many of these peak or maximum angles in the leg were improved in that they were getting closer to occurring at the same time."
Only in recent years have researchers begun studying the hips as a possible contributor to patellofemoral pain (PFP). This study is the first to focus on hip strength and gait changes during prolonged running. Dierks, director of the Motion Analysis Research Laboratory at IUPUI, discussed his findings on Wednesday at the American College of Sports Medicine annual meeting in Denver.
The runners in Dierks' study received no training or coaching on proper running form, which makes the improvements more notable. The improvements in mechanics resembled those of uninjured runners, when muscles, joints and limbs move economically and in synch with each other.
About the study
The study involved four runners and a control group comprised of another four runners. Hip strength measurements and kinematic data -- minute measurements of how the women's hips, knees and shin bones moved and rotated while they ran -- were taken before and after the runners in the control group maintained their normal running schedule for six weeks. The measurements were repeated for all of the runners before and after the next six-week period in which they all performed the hip-strengthening exercises.
The exercises, performed twice a week for around 30 to 45 minutes, involved single-leg squats and exercises with a resistance band, all exercises that can be performed at home. This study is part of an ongoing study involving hip exercises and PFP pain, with 10 runners successfully using the intervention.
After the six-week program, the movement of the hips and knees in relation to each other improved for both groups of runners, demonstrating increases in joint angles between the foot, shin and thigh.
The study used a pain scale of zero to 10, with 3 representing the onset of pain and 7 representing very strong pain -- the point at which the runners normally stop running because the pain is too great. The injured runners began the six-week trial registering pain of 7 when they ran on a treadmill and finished the study period registering pain levels of 2 or lower; i.e. no onset of pain.
PFP, one of the most common running injuries, is caused when the thigh bone rubs against the back of the knee cap. Runners with PFP typically do not feel pain when they begin running, but once the pain begins, it gets increasingly worse. Once they stop running, the pain goes away almost immediately. Dierks said studies indicate PFP essentially wears away cartilage and can have the same effect as osteoarthritis. His study participants showed many of the classic signs of PFP, the most prominent being their knees collapsing inward when running or doing a squat exercise move.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Athletes competing against an opponent wearing red are more likely to lose
A new study, published in the latest issue of the journal Emotion, finds that when humans see red, their reactions become both faster and more forceful. And people are unaware of the color's intensifying effect.
The findings may have applications for sporting and other activities in which a brief burst of strength and speed is needed, such as weightlifting. But the authors caution that the color energy boost is likely short-lived.
"Red enhances our physical reactions because it is seen as a danger cue," explains coauthor Andrew Elliot, professor of psychology at the University of Rochester and a lead researcher in the field of color psychology. "Humans flush when they are angry or preparing for attack," he explains. "People are acutely aware of such reddening in others and it's implications."
But threat is a double-edged sword, argue Elliot and coauthor Henk Aarts, professor of psychology at Utrecht University, in the Netherlands. Along with mobilizing extra energy, "threat also evokes worry, task distraction, and self-preoccupation, all of which have been shown to tax mental resources," they write in the paper. In earlier color research, exposure to red has proven counterproductive for skilled motor and mental tasks: athletes competing against an opponent wearing red are more likely to lose and students exposed to red before a test perform worse.
"Color affects us in many ways depending on the context," explains Elliot, whose research also has documented how men and women are unconsciously attracted to the opposite sex when they wear red. "Those color effects fly under our awareness radar," he says.
The study measured the reactions of students in two experiments. In the first, 30 fourth-through-10th graders pinched and held open a metal clasp. Right before doing so, they read aloud their participant number written in either red or gray crayon. In the second experiment, 46 undergraduates squeezed a handgrip with their dominant hand as hard as possible when they read the word "squeeze" on a computer monitor. The word appeared on a red, blue, or gray background.
In both scenarios, red significantly increased the force exerted, with participants in the red condition squeezing with greater maximum force than those in the gray or blue conditions. In the handgrip experiment, not only the amount of force, but also the immediacy of the reaction increased when red was present.
The colors in the study were precisely equated in hue, brightness, and chroma (intensity) to insure that reactions were not attributable to these other qualities of color. "Many color psychology studies in the past have failed to account for these independent variables, so the results have been ambiguous," explains Elliot.
The study focused exclusively on isometric or non-directional physical responses, allowing the researcher to measure the energy response of participants, though not their behavior, which can vary among individuals and situations. The familiar flight or fight responses, for example, show differing reactions to threat.
The findings may have applications for sporting and other activities in which a brief burst of strength and speed is needed, such as weightlifting. But the authors caution that the color energy boost is likely short-lived.
"Red enhances our physical reactions because it is seen as a danger cue," explains coauthor Andrew Elliot, professor of psychology at the University of Rochester and a lead researcher in the field of color psychology. "Humans flush when they are angry or preparing for attack," he explains. "People are acutely aware of such reddening in others and it's implications."
But threat is a double-edged sword, argue Elliot and coauthor Henk Aarts, professor of psychology at Utrecht University, in the Netherlands. Along with mobilizing extra energy, "threat also evokes worry, task distraction, and self-preoccupation, all of which have been shown to tax mental resources," they write in the paper. In earlier color research, exposure to red has proven counterproductive for skilled motor and mental tasks: athletes competing against an opponent wearing red are more likely to lose and students exposed to red before a test perform worse.
"Color affects us in many ways depending on the context," explains Elliot, whose research also has documented how men and women are unconsciously attracted to the opposite sex when they wear red. "Those color effects fly under our awareness radar," he says.
The study measured the reactions of students in two experiments. In the first, 30 fourth-through-10th graders pinched and held open a metal clasp. Right before doing so, they read aloud their participant number written in either red or gray crayon. In the second experiment, 46 undergraduates squeezed a handgrip with their dominant hand as hard as possible when they read the word "squeeze" on a computer monitor. The word appeared on a red, blue, or gray background.
In both scenarios, red significantly increased the force exerted, with participants in the red condition squeezing with greater maximum force than those in the gray or blue conditions. In the handgrip experiment, not only the amount of force, but also the immediacy of the reaction increased when red was present.
The colors in the study were precisely equated in hue, brightness, and chroma (intensity) to insure that reactions were not attributable to these other qualities of color. "Many color psychology studies in the past have failed to account for these independent variables, so the results have been ambiguous," explains Elliot.
The study focused exclusively on isometric or non-directional physical responses, allowing the researcher to measure the energy response of participants, though not their behavior, which can vary among individuals and situations. The familiar flight or fight responses, for example, show differing reactions to threat.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Thoughts That Win
Ω
Back in high school, on the soccer field, poised to take a crucial penalty kick, “I always had a lot of thoughts going on in my head; I think most people do” says sports psychologist Antonis Hatzigeorgiadis. “I was setting the ball and planning my shot; I was the captain and never missed those types of shots; then I had that thought striking me that it was not going to be good. I knew I was going to miss,” he recalls, “and I did miss.” Even then, he could see that his mind had a big effect on his body.
From these unhappy experiences evolved Hatzigeorgiadis’ interest in the psychology of sport – the link between one’s thoughts and performance, and specifically in “self-talk”— the mental strategy that aims to improve performance through the use of self-addressed cues (words or small phrases), which trigger appropriate responses and action, mostly by focusing attention and psyching-up.
“We know this strategy works, and it works in sports,” says Hatzigeorgiadis. But what makes it work better, and in what situations? To find out, Hatzigeorgiadis and his colleagues at the Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences at the University of Thessaly, Nikos Zourbanos, Evangelos Galanis, and Yiannis Theodorakis conducted a meta-analysis of 32 sport psychological studies on the subject with a total of 62 measured effects. Their findings will be published in an upcoming issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.
As expected, the analysis revealed that self-talk improves sport performance.
But the researchers teased out more – different self-talk cues work differently in different situations. For tasks requiring fine skills or for improving technique “instructional self-talk”, such as a technical instruction (“elbow-up” which Hatzigeorgiadis coaches beginner freestyle swimmers to say) is more effective than ‘motivational self-talk’ (e.g., “give it all”), which seems to be more effective in tasks requiring strength or endurance, boosting confidence and psyching-up for competition. Thus, we should carefully design the self-talk athletes use according to needs.
Some other findings are that self-talk has a greater effect on tasks involving fine skills (such as sinking a golf ball) rather than gross skills (e.g., cycling); probably because self-talk is a technique which mostly improves concentration. Self-talk is more effective for novel tasks rather than well-learned tasks; because it is easier to improve at the early steps of learning. Nevertheless, both beginners and experienced athletes can benefit, especially when they practice the self-talk technique.
Most important, says Hatzigeorgiadis, is that athletes train to self-talk—they prepare their scripts and use them consistently in training under varying conditions to better prepare themselves for competition.
The main goals behind self-talk—like other techniques such as visualization to “rehearse” a performance or meditation to improve focus and relaxation—are twofold, says Hatzigeorgiadis: “to enhance your potential; and to perform during competition in terms of your ability and not less.”
The meta-analysis can help sports psychologists and athletes refine their training. But the strategy has implications beyond the playing field. “The mind guides action. If we succeed in regulating our thoughts, then this will help our behavior,” says Hatzigeorgiadis.
“The goal of being prepared is to do the best you can do.”
Back in high school, on the soccer field, poised to take a crucial penalty kick, “I always had a lot of thoughts going on in my head; I think most people do” says sports psychologist Antonis Hatzigeorgiadis. “I was setting the ball and planning my shot; I was the captain and never missed those types of shots; then I had that thought striking me that it was not going to be good. I knew I was going to miss,” he recalls, “and I did miss.” Even then, he could see that his mind had a big effect on his body.
From these unhappy experiences evolved Hatzigeorgiadis’ interest in the psychology of sport – the link between one’s thoughts and performance, and specifically in “self-talk”— the mental strategy that aims to improve performance through the use of self-addressed cues (words or small phrases), which trigger appropriate responses and action, mostly by focusing attention and psyching-up.
“We know this strategy works, and it works in sports,” says Hatzigeorgiadis. But what makes it work better, and in what situations? To find out, Hatzigeorgiadis and his colleagues at the Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences at the University of Thessaly, Nikos Zourbanos, Evangelos Galanis, and Yiannis Theodorakis conducted a meta-analysis of 32 sport psychological studies on the subject with a total of 62 measured effects. Their findings will be published in an upcoming issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.
As expected, the analysis revealed that self-talk improves sport performance.
But the researchers teased out more – different self-talk cues work differently in different situations. For tasks requiring fine skills or for improving technique “instructional self-talk”, such as a technical instruction (“elbow-up” which Hatzigeorgiadis coaches beginner freestyle swimmers to say) is more effective than ‘motivational self-talk’ (e.g., “give it all”), which seems to be more effective in tasks requiring strength or endurance, boosting confidence and psyching-up for competition. Thus, we should carefully design the self-talk athletes use according to needs.
Some other findings are that self-talk has a greater effect on tasks involving fine skills (such as sinking a golf ball) rather than gross skills (e.g., cycling); probably because self-talk is a technique which mostly improves concentration. Self-talk is more effective for novel tasks rather than well-learned tasks; because it is easier to improve at the early steps of learning. Nevertheless, both beginners and experienced athletes can benefit, especially when they practice the self-talk technique.
Most important, says Hatzigeorgiadis, is that athletes train to self-talk—they prepare their scripts and use them consistently in training under varying conditions to better prepare themselves for competition.
The main goals behind self-talk—like other techniques such as visualization to “rehearse” a performance or meditation to improve focus and relaxation—are twofold, says Hatzigeorgiadis: “to enhance your potential; and to perform during competition in terms of your ability and not less.”
The meta-analysis can help sports psychologists and athletes refine their training. But the strategy has implications beyond the playing field. “The mind guides action. If we succeed in regulating our thoughts, then this will help our behavior,” says Hatzigeorgiadis.
“The goal of being prepared is to do the best you can do.”
Friday, March 11, 2011
Off the Backboard Shots Better Bet
The Physics of Bank Shots
Released: 3/10/2011 3:45 PM EST
Source: North Carolina State University
Ω
New research by engineers at North Carolina State University show that you had a better chance of scoring that particular game-winning bucket with a bank shot than with a direct shot.
After simulating one million shots with a computer, the NC State researchers show that the bank shot can be 20 percent more effective when shooting at many angles up to a distance of about 12 feet from the basket. Bank shots are also more effective from the “wing” areas between the three-point line and the free-throw lane. However, straight-on shots – those corresponding to the area around the free-throw line – from further than 12 feet are not as well suited for bank shots.
The researchers also found the optimal points where the simulated made baskets were aimed. The results show the optimal aim points make a “V” shape near the top center of the backboard’s “square,” which is actually a 24-inch by 18-inch rectangle which surrounds the rim. Away from the free-throw lane, these aim points were higher on the backboard and thus further from the rim. From closer to the free-throw lane, the aim points were lower on the backboard and closer to the rim.
The researchers also discovered that if you imagine a vertical line 3.327 inches behind the backboard and found where it crossed the aim point on the “V” shape on the backboard, you’d find the optimal spot to bank the basketball to score a basket.
“Basketball players can’t take a slide rule out on the court, but our study suggests that a few intuitive assumptions about bank shots are true,” says Dr. Larry Silverberg, professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at NC State and the lead author of a paper describing the research. “They can be more effective than direct shots, especially from certain areas of the court – and we show which areas on the court and where the ball needs to hit the backboard.”
The researchers made a few assumptions while conducting the study. They used a men’s basketball, which is slightly bigger and heavier than a women’s basketball; launched the simulated shots from 6, 7, and 8 feet above the ground; and imparted 3 hertz of backspin – which means three revolutions per second – on the shots. The latter variable was shown in previous research to be optimal for successfully converting a free throw.
Released: 3/10/2011 3:45 PM EST
Source: North Carolina State University
Ω
New research by engineers at North Carolina State University show that you had a better chance of scoring that particular game-winning bucket with a bank shot than with a direct shot.
After simulating one million shots with a computer, the NC State researchers show that the bank shot can be 20 percent more effective when shooting at many angles up to a distance of about 12 feet from the basket. Bank shots are also more effective from the “wing” areas between the three-point line and the free-throw lane. However, straight-on shots – those corresponding to the area around the free-throw line – from further than 12 feet are not as well suited for bank shots.
The researchers also found the optimal points where the simulated made baskets were aimed. The results show the optimal aim points make a “V” shape near the top center of the backboard’s “square,” which is actually a 24-inch by 18-inch rectangle which surrounds the rim. Away from the free-throw lane, these aim points were higher on the backboard and thus further from the rim. From closer to the free-throw lane, the aim points were lower on the backboard and closer to the rim.
The researchers also discovered that if you imagine a vertical line 3.327 inches behind the backboard and found where it crossed the aim point on the “V” shape on the backboard, you’d find the optimal spot to bank the basketball to score a basket.
“Basketball players can’t take a slide rule out on the court, but our study suggests that a few intuitive assumptions about bank shots are true,” says Dr. Larry Silverberg, professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at NC State and the lead author of a paper describing the research. “They can be more effective than direct shots, especially from certain areas of the court – and we show which areas on the court and where the ball needs to hit the backboard.”
The researchers made a few assumptions while conducting the study. They used a men’s basketball, which is slightly bigger and heavier than a women’s basketball; launched the simulated shots from 6, 7, and 8 feet above the ground; and imparted 3 hertz of backspin – which means three revolutions per second – on the shots. The latter variable was shown in previous research to be optimal for successfully converting a free throw.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
For Hitters on Deck, Warm-Up Devices Don't Increase Bat Speed
Ω
Player Preference Should Determine Warm-Up Routine, Reports The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Donuts, bat wraps, weighted gloves…a wide array of devices are available to help baseball players warm up while waiting to go to bat. But a new study finds that none of ten commonly used warm-up devices has a significant effect on bat speed, reports the February issue of The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, official research journal of the National Strength and Conditioning Association.
"Furthermore, heavier warm-up devices did not provide greater bat velocity than the 'standard' bat or lighter devices," according to the new study, led by David J. Szymanski, PhD, CSCS*D, RSCC*D, of Louisiana Tech University, Ruston. They believe their results, combined with previous studies, have implications for recommended warm-up routines for batters in the on-deck circle.
Ten Different Warm-Up Devices Show No Difference in Bat Speed
In the study, 22 Division I college baseball players were tested using various devices designed for use in warming-up before batting. The devices ranged from a simple "donut ring," to weighted bat wraps and gloves, to special warm-up bats. The weight of the warm-up devices ranged from 22 to 96 ounces.
At each testing session, the players took three practice swings, as hard as possible, using one of the ten devices. Then, using a standard game bat (33 inches, 30 ounces), they hit a baseball off a tee, attempting to generate maximum bat velocity. A special device was used to measure the velocity of the bat head to see if any of the different warm-ups led to a significant change in bat speed.
Bat speed is thought to be an important component of hitting performance. "The idea is that swinging a heavy warm-up device in the on-deck circle will increase players’ bat velocity with their game bat when attempting to hit the baseball during an at-bat," Dr. Szymanski and co-authors explain. "If bat velocity is increased, this will allow the exit velocity of the batted ball to be greater, resulting in the baseball being hit farther."
In the study, however, none of the ten warm-up devices led to a significant increase (or decrease) in average bat velocity. Bat speed was no different when the players warmed up using heavier versus lighter devices, or with their usual game bat alone.
From Little League to the Big Leagues, batters in the on-deck circle use a variety of weighted devices to warm up for their turn at bat. Some previous studies have suggested that warming up with a heavier bat may lead to perceptual distortion, or a "kinesthetic aftereffect." Warming up with a weighted bat may make the standard bat feel lighter, providing the player with a psychological advantage.
However, the new report finds no evidence that any type of warm-up device affects objectively-measured bat velocity. "This study suggests that Division I intercollegiate players interested in having the highest bat velocity during a game at-bat can use any of the ten implements tested," Dr. Szymanski and co-authors write.
They note that their result differs from some previous baseball research—including a study by DeRenne and colleagues, which found that warming up with a weighted bat of plus or minus twelve percent (4 ounces) of game bat weight produced the greatest bat velocity (in high school players). Other studies have suggested that using a device that adds weight to the top of the bat, such as a donut or wrap, may actually slow bat speed. Dr. Szymanski comments, "Thus we'd suggest that, if players use a warm-up device, they should follow the recommendations of DeRenne and colleagues and use a weight within twelve percent of their standard game bat, and that the weight should be evenly distributed."
Player Preference Should Determine Warm-Up Routine, Reports The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Donuts, bat wraps, weighted gloves…a wide array of devices are available to help baseball players warm up while waiting to go to bat. But a new study finds that none of ten commonly used warm-up devices has a significant effect on bat speed, reports the February issue of The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, official research journal of the National Strength and Conditioning Association.
"Furthermore, heavier warm-up devices did not provide greater bat velocity than the 'standard' bat or lighter devices," according to the new study, led by David J. Szymanski, PhD, CSCS*D, RSCC*D, of Louisiana Tech University, Ruston. They believe their results, combined with previous studies, have implications for recommended warm-up routines for batters in the on-deck circle.
Ten Different Warm-Up Devices Show No Difference in Bat Speed
In the study, 22 Division I college baseball players were tested using various devices designed for use in warming-up before batting. The devices ranged from a simple "donut ring," to weighted bat wraps and gloves, to special warm-up bats. The weight of the warm-up devices ranged from 22 to 96 ounces.
At each testing session, the players took three practice swings, as hard as possible, using one of the ten devices. Then, using a standard game bat (33 inches, 30 ounces), they hit a baseball off a tee, attempting to generate maximum bat velocity. A special device was used to measure the velocity of the bat head to see if any of the different warm-ups led to a significant change in bat speed.
Bat speed is thought to be an important component of hitting performance. "The idea is that swinging a heavy warm-up device in the on-deck circle will increase players’ bat velocity with their game bat when attempting to hit the baseball during an at-bat," Dr. Szymanski and co-authors explain. "If bat velocity is increased, this will allow the exit velocity of the batted ball to be greater, resulting in the baseball being hit farther."
In the study, however, none of the ten warm-up devices led to a significant increase (or decrease) in average bat velocity. Bat speed was no different when the players warmed up using heavier versus lighter devices, or with their usual game bat alone.
From Little League to the Big Leagues, batters in the on-deck circle use a variety of weighted devices to warm up for their turn at bat. Some previous studies have suggested that warming up with a heavier bat may lead to perceptual distortion, or a "kinesthetic aftereffect." Warming up with a weighted bat may make the standard bat feel lighter, providing the player with a psychological advantage.
However, the new report finds no evidence that any type of warm-up device affects objectively-measured bat velocity. "This study suggests that Division I intercollegiate players interested in having the highest bat velocity during a game at-bat can use any of the ten implements tested," Dr. Szymanski and co-authors write.
They note that their result differs from some previous baseball research—including a study by DeRenne and colleagues, which found that warming up with a weighted bat of plus or minus twelve percent (4 ounces) of game bat weight produced the greatest bat velocity (in high school players). Other studies have suggested that using a device that adds weight to the top of the bat, such as a donut or wrap, may actually slow bat speed. Dr. Szymanski comments, "Thus we'd suggest that, if players use a warm-up device, they should follow the recommendations of DeRenne and colleagues and use a weight within twelve percent of their standard game bat, and that the weight should be evenly distributed."
Friday, February 18, 2011
Stretching before a run does not prevent injury
Ω
However, runners who typically stretch should continue, or risk injury
Stretching before a run neither prevents nor causes injury, according to a study presented today at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).
More than 70 million people worldwide run recreationally or competitively, and recently there has been controversy regarding whether runners should stretch before running, or not at all. This study included 2,729 runners who run 10 or more miles per week. Of these runners, 1,366 were randomized to a stretch group, and 1,363 were randomized to a non-stretch group before running. Runners in the stretch group stretched their quadriceps, hamstrings, and gastrocnemius/soleus muscle groups. The entire routine took 3 to 5 minutes and was performed immediately before running.
The study found that stretching before running neither prevents nor causes injury. In fact, the most significant risk factors for injury included the following:
history of chronic injury or injury in the past four months;
higher body mass index (BMI); and
switching pre-run stretching routines (runners who normally stretch stopping and those who did stretch starting to stretch before running).
"But, the more mileage run or the heavier and older the runner was, the more likely he or she was likely to get injured,"
"As a runner myself, I thought stretching before a run would help to prevent injury," said Daniel Pereles, MD, study author and orthopaedic surgeon from Montgomery Orthopedics outside Washington, DC. "However, we found that the risk for injury was the same for men and women, whether or not they were high or low mileage runners, and across all age groups. But, the more mileage run or the heavier and older the runner was, the more likely he or she was likely to get injured, and previous injury within four months predisposed to even further injury," he added.
Runners who typically stretch as part of their pre-run routine and were randomized not to stretch during the study period were far more likely to have an injury. "Although all runners switching routines were more likely to experience an injury than those who did not switch, the group that stopped stretching had more reported injuries, implying that an immediate shift in a regimen may be more important than the regimen itself," he added.
The most common injuries sustained were groin pulls, foot/ankle injuries, and knee injuries. There was no significant difference in injury rates between the runners who stretched and the runners who didn't for any specific injury location or diagnosis.
However, runners who typically stretch should continue, or risk injury
Stretching before a run neither prevents nor causes injury, according to a study presented today at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).
More than 70 million people worldwide run recreationally or competitively, and recently there has been controversy regarding whether runners should stretch before running, or not at all. This study included 2,729 runners who run 10 or more miles per week. Of these runners, 1,366 were randomized to a stretch group, and 1,363 were randomized to a non-stretch group before running. Runners in the stretch group stretched their quadriceps, hamstrings, and gastrocnemius/soleus muscle groups. The entire routine took 3 to 5 minutes and was performed immediately before running.
The study found that stretching before running neither prevents nor causes injury. In fact, the most significant risk factors for injury included the following:
history of chronic injury or injury in the past four months;
higher body mass index (BMI); and
switching pre-run stretching routines (runners who normally stretch stopping and those who did stretch starting to stretch before running).
"But, the more mileage run or the heavier and older the runner was, the more likely he or she was likely to get injured,"
"As a runner myself, I thought stretching before a run would help to prevent injury," said Daniel Pereles, MD, study author and orthopaedic surgeon from Montgomery Orthopedics outside Washington, DC. "However, we found that the risk for injury was the same for men and women, whether or not they were high or low mileage runners, and across all age groups. But, the more mileage run or the heavier and older the runner was, the more likely he or she was likely to get injured, and previous injury within four months predisposed to even further injury," he added.
Runners who typically stretch as part of their pre-run routine and were randomized not to stretch during the study period were far more likely to have an injury. "Although all runners switching routines were more likely to experience an injury than those who did not switch, the group that stopped stretching had more reported injuries, implying that an immediate shift in a regimen may be more important than the regimen itself," he added.
The most common injuries sustained were groin pulls, foot/ankle injuries, and knee injuries. There was no significant difference in injury rates between the runners who stretched and the runners who didn't for any specific injury location or diagnosis.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
New 10-Year Study Confirms Too Many Pitches Strike Out Youth Athletes Early
Ω
For years, sports medicine professionals have talked about youth pitching injuries and the stress the motion causes on developing bones and muscles. In a new, 10-year study published in the February issue of the American Journal of Sports Medicine, researchers showed that participants who pitched more than 100 innings in a year were 3.5 times more likely to be injured.
“The study proved a direct link between innings pitched in youth and adolescent baseball and serious pitching injuries. It highlights the need for parents and coaches to monitor the amount of pitching for the long-term success and health of these young athletes. We need to all work together to end the epidemic of youth sports injuries, and education through campaigns like STOP Sports Injuries is in excellent first step,” said lead researcher, Glenn S. Fleisig, PhD, of the American Sports Medicine Institute in Birmingham, Alabama.
The study followed 481 pitchers for 10-years (1999-2008). All were healthy, active youth (aged 9 to 14 years) baseball pitchers at the beginning of the study. Every year each participant was asked whether he played baseball in the previous 12 months and if so what positions, how many innings pitched, what types of pitches he threw, for what teams (spring, summer, fall, winter), and if he participated in baseball showcases. Each player was also asked every year if he had an elbow or shoulder injury that led to surgery or retirement from baseball.
During the 10-year span, five percent of the pitchers suffered a serious injury resulting in surgery or retirement. Two of the boys in the study had surgery before their 13th birthday. Only 2.2 percent were still pitching by the 10th year of the study.
“It is a tough balancing act for adults to give their young athletes as much opportunity as possible to develop skills and strength without exposing them to increased risk of overuse injury. Based on this study, we recommend that pitchers in high school and younger pitch no more than 100 innings in competition in any calendar year. Some pitchers need to be limited even more, as no pitcher should continue to pitch when fatigued,” said Fleisig.
The study also looked at the trend of playing pitcher and catcher in the same game, which did appear to double or triple a player’s risk of injury but the trend was not statistically significant. The study also could not determine if starting curveballs before age 13 increases the risk of injury.
Ω
For years, sports medicine professionals have talked about youth pitching injuries and the stress the motion causes on developing bones and muscles. In a new, 10-year study published in the February issue of the American Journal of Sports Medicine, researchers showed that participants who pitched more than 100 innings in a year were 3.5 times more likely to be injured.
“The study proved a direct link between innings pitched in youth and adolescent baseball and serious pitching injuries. It highlights the need for parents and coaches to monitor the amount of pitching for the long-term success and health of these young athletes. We need to all work together to end the epidemic of youth sports injuries, and education through campaigns like STOP Sports Injuries is in excellent first step,” said lead researcher, Glenn S. Fleisig, PhD, of the American Sports Medicine Institute in Birmingham, Alabama.
The study followed 481 pitchers for 10-years (1999-2008). All were healthy, active youth (aged 9 to 14 years) baseball pitchers at the beginning of the study. Every year each participant was asked whether he played baseball in the previous 12 months and if so what positions, how many innings pitched, what types of pitches he threw, for what teams (spring, summer, fall, winter), and if he participated in baseball showcases. Each player was also asked every year if he had an elbow or shoulder injury that led to surgery or retirement from baseball.
During the 10-year span, five percent of the pitchers suffered a serious injury resulting in surgery or retirement. Two of the boys in the study had surgery before their 13th birthday. Only 2.2 percent were still pitching by the 10th year of the study.
“It is a tough balancing act for adults to give their young athletes as much opportunity as possible to develop skills and strength without exposing them to increased risk of overuse injury. Based on this study, we recommend that pitchers in high school and younger pitch no more than 100 innings in competition in any calendar year. Some pitchers need to be limited even more, as no pitcher should continue to pitch when fatigued,” said Fleisig.
The study also looked at the trend of playing pitcher and catcher in the same game, which did appear to double or triple a player’s risk of injury but the trend was not statistically significant. The study also could not determine if starting curveballs before age 13 increases the risk of injury.
Ω
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
