3 research outputs found

    Clinical Implications of Landing Distance on Landing Error Scoring System Scores

    Get PDF
    Context: The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) screens for the risk of non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injury. The LESS requires individuals to jump forward from a 30-cm box to a distance of 50% of their body height. However, different landing distances have been cited in the scientific literature. Objective: To examine whether landing distance influences LESS outcomes. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Laboratory. Participants or Other Participants: Seventy young active individuals (34 males, 36 females). Intervention(s): Participants performed 33 30-cm jump landing tasks under 2 landing conditions in randomized order: (1) 50% of body height (d50%), (2) self-selected distance (dss). Main Outcome Measure(s): Mean LESS scores, proportions of individuals categorized at high (LESS: 5 errors) and low (LESS: <5 errors) injury risk, and landing distances were compared between conditions using generalized estimating equations. Consistency of risk categorization was examined using odds ratios (ORs) and McNemar tests. McNemar and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare the occurrence of specific LESS errors. Results: Participants landed closer to the box under the dss condition (difference = 23.28 [95% CI = 20.73, 25.81]%, P < .001). Group mean LESS scores (difference = 0.01 [95% CI = 0.59, 0.57] error, P = .969) and risk categorization (OR = 0.94 [95% CI = 0.47, 1.88], P = .859) were similar between conditions. However, individual-level risk categorization was inconsistent in 33% of participants, as was the occurrence of specific errors. Conclusions: Using dss during the LESS might lead to different LESS errors and risk categorizations at an individual level than using d50%. Given that individual LESS scores are of primary interest in clinical and sport settings and the injury-risk threshold has not been validated for dss, we recommend the use of the original LESS protocol. When only group mean LESS scores or proportions of at-risk individuals are of interest, using dss is feasible to facilitate the testing of large cohorts

    COVID-19 lockdown : a global study investigating athletes’ sport classification and sex on training practices

    Get PDF
    PURPOSE : To investigate differences in athletes’ knowledge, beliefs, and training practices during COVID-19 lockdowns with reference to sport classification and sex. This work extends an initial descriptive evaluation focusing on athlete classification. METHODS : Athletes (12,526; 66% male; 142 countries) completed an online survey (May–July 2020) assessing knowledge, beliefs, and practices toward training. Sports were classified as team sports (45%), endurance (20%), power/technical (10%), combat (9%), aquatic (6%), recreational (4%), racquet (3%), precision (2%), parasports (1%), and others (1%). Further analysis by sex was performed. RESULTS : During lockdown, athletes practiced body-weight-based exercises routinely (67% females and 64% males), ranging from 50% (precision) to 78% (parasports). More sport-specific technical skills were performed in combat, parasports, and precision (∼50%) than other sports (∼35%). Most athletes (range: 50% [parasports] to 75% [endurance]) performed cardiorespiratory training (trivial sex differences). Compared to prelockdown, perceived training intensity was reduced by 29% to 41%, depending on sport (largest decline: ∼38% in team sports, unaffected by sex). Some athletes (range: 7%–49%) maintained their training intensity for strength, endurance, speed, plyometric, change-of-direction, and technical training. Athletes who previously trained ≥5 sessions per week reduced their volume (range: 18%–28%) during lockdown. The proportion of athletes (81%) training ≥60 min/session reduced by 31% to 43% during lockdown. Males and females had comparable moderate levels of training knowledge (56% vs 58%) and beliefs/attitudes (54% vs 56%). CONCLUSIONS : Changes in athletes’ training practices were sport-specific, with few or no sex differences. Team-based sports were generally more susceptible to changes than individual sports. Policy makers should provide athletes with specific training arrangements and educational resources to facilitate remote and/or home-based training during lockdown-type events.https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/ijspp/ijspp-overview.xmlhj2023Sports Medicin

    Training During the COVID-19 Lockdown: Knowledge, Beliefs, and Practices of 12,526 Athletes from 142 Countries and Six Continents (vol 52, pg 933, 2021)

    No full text
    Washif JA, Farooq A, Krug I, et al. Training During the COVID-19 Lockdown: Knowledge, Beliefs, and Practices of 12,526 Athletes from 142 Countries and Six Continents (vol 52, pg 933, 2021). Sports Medicine . 2022;52:933-948.Objective Our objective was to explore the training-related knowledge, beliefs, and practices of athletes and the influence of lockdowns in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods Athletes (n = 12,526, comprising 13% world class, 21% international, 36% national, 24% state, and 6% recreational) completed an online survey that was available from 17 May to 5 July 2020 and explored their training behaviors (training knowledge, beliefs/attitudes, and practices), including specific questions on their training intensity, frequency, and session duration before and during lockdown (March–June 2020). Results Overall, 85% of athletes wanted to “maintain training,” and 79% disagreed with the statement that it is “okay to not train during lockdown,” with a greater prevalence for both in higher-level athletes. In total, 60% of athletes considered “coaching by correspondence (remote coaching)” to be sufficient (highest amongst world-class athletes). During lockdown, < 40% were able to maintain sport-specific training (e.g., long endurance [39%], interval training [35%], weightlifting [33%], plyometric exercise [30%]) at pre-lockdown levels (higher among world-class, international, and national athletes), with most (83%) training for “general fitness and health maintenance” during lockdown. Athletes trained alone (80%) and focused on bodyweight (65%) and cardiovascular (59%) exercise/training during lockdown. Compared with before lockdown, most athletes reported reduced training frequency (from between five and seven sessions per week to four or fewer), shorter training sessions (from ≥ 60 to < 60 min), and lower sport-specific intensity (~ 38% reduction), irrespective of athlete classification. Conclusions COVID-19-related lockdowns saw marked reductions in athletic training specificity, intensity, frequency, and duration, with notable within-sample differences (by athlete classification). Higher classification athletes had the strongest desire to “maintain” training and the greatest opposition to “not training” during lockdowns. These higher classification athletes retained training specificity to a greater degree than others, probably because of preferential access to limited training resources. More higher classification athletes considered “coaching by correspondence” as sufficient than did lower classification athletes. These lockdown-mediated changes in training were not conducive to maintenance or progression of athletes’ physical capacities and were also likely detrimental to athletes’ mental health. These data can be used by policy makers, athletes, and their multidisciplinary teams to modulate their practice, with a degree of individualization, in the current and continued pandemic-related scenario. Furthermore, the data may drive training-related educational resources for athletes and their multidisciplinary teams. Such upskilling would provide athletes with evidence to inform their training modifications in response to germane situations (e.g., COVID related, injury, and illness)
    corecore