A New Direction to Athletic Performance: Understanding the Acute and Longitudinal Responses to Backward Running

Backward running (BR) is a form of locomotion that occurs in short bursts during many overground field and court sports. It has also traditionally been used in clinical settings as a method to rehabilitate lower body injuries. Comparisons between BR and forward running (FR) have led to the discovery that both may be generated by the same neural circuitry. Comparisons of the acute responses to FR reveal that BR is characterised by a smaller ratio of braking to propulsive forces, increased step frequency, decreased step length, increased muscle activity and reliance on isometric and concentric muscle actions. These biomechanical differences have been critical in informing recent scientific explorations which have discovered that BR can be used as a method for reducing injury and improving a variety of physical attributes deemed advantageous to sports performance. This includes improved lower body strength and power, decreased injury prevalence and improvements in change of direction performance following BR training. The current findings from research help improve our understanding of BR biomechanics and provide evidence which supports BR as a useful method to improve athlete performance. However, further acute and longitudinal research is needed to better understand the utility of BR in athletic performance programs

Force Generation Profiles of Para-Nordic Sit-Skiers Representing Different Physical Impairments

Purpose To biomechanically profile force generation connected to the complex role of the trunk in double poling in a representative sample of Para-Nordic sit-skiers. Methods Twelve male World Cup Para-Nordic sit-skiers (sport classes: LW10–12) were skiing on flat snow terrain at submaximal speed of 4.5 m/s (~ 73% maximum speed). 2D video (50 Hz) and pole force analyses (1000 Hz) were performed synchronously, examining angle, force and cycle characteristics to analyse the role of the trunk in generating propulsion. Results LW10–11.5 skiers lost between 21% and 4% propulsive force versus LW12 athletes only due to different geometrics of the trunk and pole angle at an equal axial pole force. While LW10–11 skiers indicated trunk extension or position maintenance during pole thrust, LW11.5–12 skiers showed strong trunk flexion combined with smaller pole angles to the ground. Hence, LW11.5–12 skiers could create larger propulsive forces and therefore greater cycle lengths at lower cycle rates at the same speed. Maximum speed increased from LW10 to LW12 and was significantly correlated to trunk flexion range of motion (r = 0.63) and cycle length (r = 0.59). Trunk flexion ROM showed a significant relationship to the impulse of propulsive force (r = 0.63) and pole angle to the ground (r = − 0.76) (all P < 0.05). Conclusion The impact of impairment on the force production profiles and its physiological-biomechanical consequences need further investigation also in other terrains and at wider spectrums of skiing speeds. The evident problem of low numbers of LW10–11 skiers in World Cup needs creative future solutions for research