The present study compared the kinematics of treadmill running (TR) with deep water running (DWR). Five  male middle-distance runners of national level were requested to run in intensities of regenerative effort, long aerobic, 5/10 km, 400/800 m and 100/200 m on treadmill and water. Three complete running steps were recorded. Two-dimensional analysis methods were employed to analyse the lower limb movement and general kinematics. The results revealed diferences (

Kruel, Luiz Fernando Martins

Larronda, Ana Carolina Chaves

Loss, Jefferson Fagundes

Tartaruga, Leonardo Alexandre Peyré

Tartaruga, Marcus Peikriszwilli

English

ISBS (International Society of Biomechanics in Sports): Conference Proceedings Archive

ISBS 2002, Caceres - Extremadura - Spain88 KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF MIDDLE-DISTANCE RUNNERS DURING TREADMILL RUNNING AND DEEP WATER RUNNING Luiz Fernando Martins Kruel, Leonardo Alexandre Peyre Tartaruga, Marcus Peikriszwili Tartaruga, Ana Carolina Chaves Larronda and Jefferson Fagundes Loss Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sui, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sui, Brazil The present study compared the kinematics of treadmill running (TR) with deep water running (DWR). Five male middle-distance runners of national level were requested to run in Intensities of regenerative effort, long aerobic, 5/10 km, 400/800 m and 100/200 m on treadmill and water. Three complete running steps were recorded. Two-dimensional analysis methods were employed to analyse the lower limb movement and general kinematics. The results revealed diferences (p<0.05) between TR and DWR on angular velocity and range of motion (ROM) of lower limb in most of running intensities, except in shank angular ROM on regenerative and long aerobic intensities, and thigh angular ROM on 100/200m intensities, where statistical differences were not observed. These findings suggest that the kinematics of DWR is different of TR. KEY WORDS: kinematics, deep water running, treadmill running, middle-distance. INTRODUCTION: DWR has become an attractive training method, especially during recovery from musculoskeletal injuries of the legs. Proponents of DWR suggest that this modality can be used to maintain aerobic fitness, but without the orthopedic trauma associated with on-land running. Coaches are also incorporating DWR as part of their regular training regimen even in the non-injuried runner (Town & Bradley, 1990). One reason why DWR has increased in popularity over the years is the concept that the running action during DWR is similar to TR while eliminating the repetitive high impact forces (Mayo, 2000). Yu et al. (1994) affirm that to understand better the alterations that happen in the ground and in water locomotion is necessary to study the biomechanical parameters of two activities. The purpose of this study was to determine if the DWR is similar to TR, in this way, certain analyses were carried on kinematic parameters of stride lenght (SL), stride frequency (SF), stride time (ST), horizontal velocity (HV), and temporal relations of thigh and shank limbs during DWR and TR of five male middle-distance runners experienced in the two environments. METHODS: Five Brazilian male middle-distance runners of national level (age 17.8 ± 2.6 years, mass 66.9 ± 2.8 kg and height 1.74 ± 0.05 m) participated in this study. The runners were requested to run in subjective intensities of regenerative effort, long aerobic, race of 5/10km, race of 400/800m and race of 100/200m on treadmill and in water. The running kinematics were registered with a video camera. The 2-D filming was obtained with a camera (Punix F4, 60 Hz) that was placed on the runner side, 3.5 m and 6.8 m distant from the treadmill and the water, respectively, linked to a video system (Peak Performance vs 5.3). Reflexive tape was used to obtain a better contrast of the hip, knee and ankle joint centers. The calibration in both the experimental conditions was executed each test started to decrease the distortion of the image in underwater analysis because of the refraction at the air-glass-water barrier. The treadmill used was of Quintan mark, with superfice of 2.0 m lenght and 0.7 m wide. The DWR tests were conduced in environment temperature varying from 19° C to 22° C. The data of DWR were collected in a swimming pool of 25x16 m, with 2m in depth, which the subjetcs used a float belt. The recording was across the lateral pool window. The deep water test was done in water temperature ranged between 29.5° C and 30.5° C. 89 very light light moderate hard very h",d Mavp = Mean of angular velocity peaks mm = positive velocity peak !ll!.Q =negative velocity peak Mavp =(pvp + nvp) / 2 ROM =Mean of angular amplitude 100 v«y light light moder.te hard v«y hard Time Intensities 10 min Warm-up Regenerative 2 min very light Regenerative - light jogging 2 min Light Long aerobic - long steady run 2 min Moderate 5km\1Okm - 5- to 10-km race 1 min Hard 400m\800m - 400- to 800-m track interval 30 sec very hard 100m\200m - sprinting 100-200 m 3 min Recovery Regenerative i 1.5 -; 1 E ." 0.5 For each subject, the mean values of the kinematic variables were calculated from three continuous strides, the medium values of all the kinematic variables. All the 5 individuals' mean values were divided by intensity of effort. Student's test-t paired was performed (p<O.05) for each effort intensities between the environments in the statistical package SPSS (vs 8). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: For the SF, in DWR, there was an increase according to the increase of effort intensity, while SL tended to decrease from light intensity (figure 3), with Figure 2. Mean values of HV (m/sec) and 8T (sec) on five effort intesities between DWR and TR. Stride Time Horizontal Velocity Table 1. Protocol developed by Wilder & Brennan (1993) and modified in this study. Between each intensity there was an active break (regenerative) of 30 sec.-1 min. The Wilder & Brennan's protocol with a subjective effort percetion scale was chosen because of the specific intensity of each runner. For instance, intensity 3 - moderate - pace of 5 km\ 10 km. ISBS 2002. Caceres - Extremadura - Spain Figure 1. ROM, positive velocity peak (pvp) and negative velocity peak (nvp), in three continuous steps (Peyre Tartaruga et aI., 2000). Data processing: The video recordings were manually digitized using a Peak Performance Measurement System (Peak Performance Technologies, Denver, CO, USA). All the curves were filtered with a Butterworth filter and a cut-off of 11 Hz. Besides the kinematic variables of ROM and angular velocity acquired through phase portraits, we also assess the following kinematic variables: SF, SL, ST e HV. To determine these variables the horizontal velocity (m/sec) in TR was considered, it was given by digital dial of the treadmill, and to horizontal velocity in DWR the mean horizontal velocity of anatomical hip point on three stride cicles was considered. ISBS 2002. Caceres - Exlremadura - Spain90 increase of intensity. In spite of this increase, the HV showed a light increase until the 400/800m with a decrease in very hard intensity of 100/200m, it makes us believe that the increase of effort intensity in DWR is mainly due to the increase of SF. In the comparison with TR values, we can state that in both environments the SF showed the same behaviour, it increased according to the addition of effort intensity, the HV increased with the elevation of effort in TR, as expected, however, in DWR there was a decrease of HV, this was caused by the behaviour SL. This trend in SL coincided with the decrease of shank ROM value (table 2), it makes us believe that increasing the angular limbs velocity has been necessary to decrease the thigh and shank ROM in this exercise way (DWR). ~ YH/I(,., 400r1lOO1II 1lX1o""2llO_1 Comprlmento de passada Frequencia de passada 250 -- ---~ 200 0 150 ~ 100ll. 50 In r- r i r Irate rodagem 5/10 Km 400/800 m 1001200 m _~u....... intensidade de esforr;o Figure 3. Mean Values of SL, SF in the five effort intensities between DWR and TR. Comparing the analysis of the two exercise ways in figures 2 and 3, it showed statistical significant differences (p<0,05) in all analysed variables. The kinematic variables of SF, SL and HV in DWR obtained less outcomes than the TR, while the ST of DWR was bigger than the TR, this decrease in movement velocity is also found in angular velocities in shank and thigh limbs, this behaviour is a result of the greater environment liquid viscousity in relation to the land environment. To Mayo (2000), there are little diferences between the on-land running and DWR mechanics; however, the outcome presents consistents differences, mainly in the angular velocity of lower limbs (table 2) and general kinematic variables (figure 2 and 3). Table 2. ROM (Mean and Standard deviation) whitin Three Steps on TR and DWR in the Five Intensities of Effort. (n =5, • p<0.05). INTENSITY ROM (decreesl SHANK THIGH TR DWR TR DWR very light 89.51 ± 6.96 110.95 ± 22.54 50.16 ± 3.22 87.07 ± 17.71 light 117.52±8.7 106.84 ± 21.44 64.16 ± 5.85 91.06 ± 12,98 moderate 137.73 ± 5.83 100.18 ± 17.1 78.09 ± 7.91 91,04 ± 12.08 hard 142.13 ± 16.05 97.78 ± 20.71 81.01 ± 11.52 • 96.21 ± 10.17 very hard 137.7 ± 20.09 93.8 ± 24.56 84.18 ± 9.49 87.51 ± 14.63 Despite the fact that the kinematic variability of DWR is greater than in TR, it was not big enough not to be able to determine determine a movement pattern of DWR, as stated Griffin (1993). The effect of float in lower limbs (ankle), used by the referred author, must have been the reason of the big variability in your results, while we choose for use a float belt. It is likely that this little variability has been the effect of placing the float the nearest center of mass. The outcomes of comparisons of angular velocity and ROM of shank and thigh between TR and DWR show statistical differences in angular velocity and ROM of lower limbs in nearly all the running intensities (table 2 and 3), with exception of the shank ROM in regenerative and long aerobic intensities, and the thigh ROM in subjective effort 100/200m (table 2), no statistical differences were observed (p>0.05). 91 ISBS 2002, Caceres - EXlremadura - Spain Table 3. Angular Velocity (Mean and Standard deviation) whitin Three Steps on TR and DWR in the Five Intensities of Effort. (n =5, • p<0.05). INTENSITY Anaular Veloc::itv Idearp'p'!'o'!'oec. \ SHANK THIGH TR DWR TR DWR very light 931.59 ± 126.87 • 209.72 ± 25.95 609.83 ± 159.47 175.22 ± 31.65 light 1065.75 ± 28.03 • 251.62 ± 116.16 764.26 ± 55.14 233.41 ± 92.86 moderate 1244.5 ± 104.69 • 280.98 ± 138.17 968.69 ± 128.12 260.13 ± 102.96 hard 1427.72 ± 102.05 • 340.79 ± 165.48 1153.1 ± 41.9 329.54 ± 112.18 very hard 1623.37 ± 207.96' 472.99 ± 214.32 1200.87 ± 121.54 • 447.36 ± 135.69 In 5/10 Km, 400/800 m, and 100/200 m rythms, the ar.gular shank ROM was bigger in TR than DWR, however, thigh ROM was greater in DWR than TR in regenerative, long aerobic, 5/10 km, and 400/800m subjective efforts intensities (table 2). The mechanism from this increase of limb thigh ROM, may be due to DWR, has not the support phase of on-land running. Frangolias & Rhodes (1996) indicate that in DWR a improvement in joint hip flexibility is possible. The angular thigh ROM in OWR was bigger than TR in regenerative, long aerobic, 5/10km, and 400/800m intensities, we indicate flexibility active work in muscles flexors and extensors hip groups in this effort intensities. The shank and thigh angular velocities in TR were bigger than in DWR, it can observe that angular velocity behavior of analysed lower limbs were increasing according to the increase of effort intensity in both of environment situations (table 3). It also observed a bigger variability between the subjects in DWR than TR, it was determined from standard deviation showed in table 2 and 3. CONCLUSION: The kinematics of DWR is different to kinematics of TR. The data of the present investigation demonstrated that DWR may work as a stretching training for the hip in the intensities of very light, light, moderate and hard. The angular velocities for DWR were greater than values presented for TR. Future studies on the electromyography of DWR are required to take into consideration the influence of muscle activation in this mode of exercise. REFERENCES: Frangolias, 0.0. & Rhodes, E.C. (1996). Metabolic Responses and Mechanisms During Water Immersion Running and Exercise, Sporls Medicine, 22 (1) 38-53. Griffin, L. A. (1993). A biomechanical comparison of running between media. Unpublished thesis. University of Oregon. Mayo, J. J. (2000). Practical guidelines for the use of deep-water running. National Strength & Conditioning Association, 22, N. 1, 26-29. Peyre Tartaruga, L. A., Larronda, A. C. C., Loss, J. F. & Kruel, L. F. M. (2000). Comparison of lower limb kinematics of middle-distance runners during treadmill running. Proceedings of XVI/I International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sporls, v. I, 89-93, ISBS: Hong Kong. Wilder, R.P. & Brennan, OK (1993). Phisiological Responses to Deep Water Running in Athletes. Sporls Medicine,16 (6), 374-380. Yu, E., Kitagawa, K., Mutoh, Y. & Miyashita, M. (1994). Cardiorespiratory Responses to Walking in Water. Medicine and Science in Aquatic Sporls, 35-41. Acknowledgement: Authors express gratitude to PROPESQ/UFRGS and CNPq for the financial assistance. 

KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF MIDDLE-DISTANCE RUNNERS DURING TREADMILL RUNNING AND DEEP WATER RUNNING

https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/download/632/557

KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF MIDDLE-DISTANCE RUNNERS DURING TREADMILL RUNNING AND DEEP WATER RUNNING

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ISBS (International Society of Biomechanics in Sports): Conference Proceedings Archive