No Cover Image

Journal article 907 views 75 downloads

Ratio of forces during sprint acceleration: A comparison of different calculation methods

Neil Bezodis Orcid Logo, Steffi Colyer, Ryu Nagahara, Helen Bayne, Ian Bezodis, Jean-Benoît Morin, Munenori Murata, Pierre Samozino

Journal of Biomechanics, Volume: 127, Start page: 110685

Swansea University Author: Neil Bezodis Orcid Logo

  • 57614.pdf

    PDF | Accepted Manuscript

    ©2021 All rights reserved. All article content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License (CC-BY-NC-ND)

    Download (619.98KB)

Abstract

The orientation of the ground reaction force (GRF) vector is a key determinant of human sprint acceleration performance and has been described using ratio of forces (RF) which quantifies the ratio of the antero-posterior component to the resultant GRF. Different methods have previously been used to...

Full description

Published in: Journal of Biomechanics
ISSN: 0021-9290
Published: Elsevier BV 2021
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa57614
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
first_indexed 2021-08-13T09:31:08Z
last_indexed 2021-09-08T03:21:55Z
id cronfa57614
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2021-09-07T15:53:56.7554535</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>57614</id><entry>2021-08-13</entry><title>Ratio of forces during sprint acceleration: A comparison of different calculation methods</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>534588568c1936e94e1ed8527b8c991b</sid><ORCID>0000-0003-2229-3310</ORCID><firstname>Neil</firstname><surname>Bezodis</surname><name>Neil Bezodis</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2021-08-13</date><deptcode>STSC</deptcode><abstract>The orientation of the ground reaction force (GRF) vector is a key determinant of human sprint acceleration performance and has been described using ratio of forces (RF) which quantifies the ratio of the antero-posterior component to the resultant GRF. Different methods have previously been used to calculate step-averaged RF, and this study therefore aimed to compare the effects of three calculation methods on two key &#x201C;technical&#x201D; ability measures: decline in ratio of forces (DRF) and theoretical maximal RF at null velocity (RF0). Twenty-four male sprinters completed maximal effort 60 m sprints from block and standing starts on a fully instrumented track (force platforms in series). RF-horizontal velocity profiles were determined from the measured GRFs over the entire acceleration phase using three different calculation methods for obtaining an RF value for each step: A) the mean of instantaneous RF during stance, B) the step-averaged antero-posterior component divided by the step-averaged resultant GRF, C) the step-averaged antero-posterior component divided by the resultant of the step-averaged antero-posterior and vertical components. Method A led to significantly greater RF0 and shallower DRF slopes than Methods B and C. These differences were very large (Effect size Cohen&#x2019;s d = 2.06 &#x2013; 4.04) and varied between individuals due to differences in the GRF profiles, particularly during late stance as the acceleration phase progressed. Method B provides RF values which most closely approximate the mechanical reality of step averaged accelerations progressively approaching zero and it is recommended for future analyses although it should be considered a ratio of impulses.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Journal of Biomechanics</journal><volume>127</volume><journalNumber/><paginationStart>110685</paginationStart><paginationEnd/><publisher>Elsevier BV</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint>0021-9290</issnPrint><issnElectronic/><keywords>ground reaction force, impulse, sprinting, technique</keywords><publishedDay>11</publishedDay><publishedMonth>10</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2021</publishedYear><publishedDate>2021-10-11</publishedDate><doi>10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110685</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Sport and Exercise Sciences</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>STSC</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><lastEdited>2021-09-07T15:53:56.7554535</lastEdited><Created>2021-08-13T10:28:51.2882888</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Science and Engineering</level><level id="2">School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Neil</firstname><surname>Bezodis</surname><orcid>0000-0003-2229-3310</orcid><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Steffi</firstname><surname>Colyer</surname><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Ryu</firstname><surname>Nagahara</surname><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>Helen</firstname><surname>Bayne</surname><order>4</order></author><author><firstname>Ian</firstname><surname>Bezodis</surname><order>5</order></author><author><firstname>Jean-Beno&#xEE;t</firstname><surname>Morin</surname><order>6</order></author><author><firstname>Munenori</firstname><surname>Murata</surname><order>7</order></author><author><firstname>Pierre</firstname><surname>Samozino</surname><order>8</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>57614__20619__ef9ca776a455409c93ba38fe294f7a8f.pdf</filename><originalFilename>57614.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2021-08-13T10:30:54.7889068</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>634864</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Accepted Manuscript</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><embargoDate>2022-08-13T00:00:00.0000000</embargoDate><documentNotes>&#xA9;2021 All rights reserved. All article content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License (CC-BY-NC-ND)</documentNotes><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language><licence>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/</licence></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2021-09-07T15:53:56.7554535 v2 57614 2021-08-13 Ratio of forces during sprint acceleration: A comparison of different calculation methods 534588568c1936e94e1ed8527b8c991b 0000-0003-2229-3310 Neil Bezodis Neil Bezodis true false 2021-08-13 STSC The orientation of the ground reaction force (GRF) vector is a key determinant of human sprint acceleration performance and has been described using ratio of forces (RF) which quantifies the ratio of the antero-posterior component to the resultant GRF. Different methods have previously been used to calculate step-averaged RF, and this study therefore aimed to compare the effects of three calculation methods on two key “technical” ability measures: decline in ratio of forces (DRF) and theoretical maximal RF at null velocity (RF0). Twenty-four male sprinters completed maximal effort 60 m sprints from block and standing starts on a fully instrumented track (force platforms in series). RF-horizontal velocity profiles were determined from the measured GRFs over the entire acceleration phase using three different calculation methods for obtaining an RF value for each step: A) the mean of instantaneous RF during stance, B) the step-averaged antero-posterior component divided by the step-averaged resultant GRF, C) the step-averaged antero-posterior component divided by the resultant of the step-averaged antero-posterior and vertical components. Method A led to significantly greater RF0 and shallower DRF slopes than Methods B and C. These differences were very large (Effect size Cohen’s d = 2.06 – 4.04) and varied between individuals due to differences in the GRF profiles, particularly during late stance as the acceleration phase progressed. Method B provides RF values which most closely approximate the mechanical reality of step averaged accelerations progressively approaching zero and it is recommended for future analyses although it should be considered a ratio of impulses. Journal Article Journal of Biomechanics 127 110685 Elsevier BV 0021-9290 ground reaction force, impulse, sprinting, technique 11 10 2021 2021-10-11 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110685 COLLEGE NANME Sport and Exercise Sciences COLLEGE CODE STSC Swansea University 2021-09-07T15:53:56.7554535 2021-08-13T10:28:51.2882888 Faculty of Science and Engineering School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences Neil Bezodis 0000-0003-2229-3310 1 Steffi Colyer 2 Ryu Nagahara 3 Helen Bayne 4 Ian Bezodis 5 Jean-Benoît Morin 6 Munenori Murata 7 Pierre Samozino 8 57614__20619__ef9ca776a455409c93ba38fe294f7a8f.pdf 57614.pdf 2021-08-13T10:30:54.7889068 Output 634864 application/pdf Accepted Manuscript true 2022-08-13T00:00:00.0000000 ©2021 All rights reserved. All article content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License (CC-BY-NC-ND) true eng https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/
title Ratio of forces during sprint acceleration: A comparison of different calculation methods
spellingShingle Ratio of forces during sprint acceleration: A comparison of different calculation methods
Neil Bezodis
title_short Ratio of forces during sprint acceleration: A comparison of different calculation methods
title_full Ratio of forces during sprint acceleration: A comparison of different calculation methods
title_fullStr Ratio of forces during sprint acceleration: A comparison of different calculation methods
title_full_unstemmed Ratio of forces during sprint acceleration: A comparison of different calculation methods
title_sort Ratio of forces during sprint acceleration: A comparison of different calculation methods
author_id_str_mv 534588568c1936e94e1ed8527b8c991b
author_id_fullname_str_mv 534588568c1936e94e1ed8527b8c991b_***_Neil Bezodis
author Neil Bezodis
author2 Neil Bezodis
Steffi Colyer
Ryu Nagahara
Helen Bayne
Ian Bezodis
Jean-Benoît Morin
Munenori Murata
Pierre Samozino
format Journal article
container_title Journal of Biomechanics
container_volume 127
container_start_page 110685
publishDate 2021
institution Swansea University
issn 0021-9290
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110685
publisher Elsevier BV
college_str Faculty of Science and Engineering
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofscienceandengineering
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Science and Engineering
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofscienceandengineering
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Science and Engineering
department_str School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Science and Engineering{{{_:::_}}}School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description The orientation of the ground reaction force (GRF) vector is a key determinant of human sprint acceleration performance and has been described using ratio of forces (RF) which quantifies the ratio of the antero-posterior component to the resultant GRF. Different methods have previously been used to calculate step-averaged RF, and this study therefore aimed to compare the effects of three calculation methods on two key “technical” ability measures: decline in ratio of forces (DRF) and theoretical maximal RF at null velocity (RF0). Twenty-four male sprinters completed maximal effort 60 m sprints from block and standing starts on a fully instrumented track (force platforms in series). RF-horizontal velocity profiles were determined from the measured GRFs over the entire acceleration phase using three different calculation methods for obtaining an RF value for each step: A) the mean of instantaneous RF during stance, B) the step-averaged antero-posterior component divided by the step-averaged resultant GRF, C) the step-averaged antero-posterior component divided by the resultant of the step-averaged antero-posterior and vertical components. Method A led to significantly greater RF0 and shallower DRF slopes than Methods B and C. These differences were very large (Effect size Cohen’s d = 2.06 – 4.04) and varied between individuals due to differences in the GRF profiles, particularly during late stance as the acceleration phase progressed. Method B provides RF values which most closely approximate the mechanical reality of step averaged accelerations progressively approaching zero and it is recommended for future analyses although it should be considered a ratio of impulses.
published_date 2021-10-11T04:13:29Z
_version_ 1763753915455635456
score 11.017731