Volume 6, Issue 4 (3-2021)                   J Sport Biomech 2021, 6(4): 276-289 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Bahadori Z, Koohestani M, Sadeghi H. Comparing the Pattern of Lower Limb Joints Coordination in an Optional and Selective Sprint Start of Elite Women Runners. J Sport Biomech. 2021; 6 (4) :276-289
URL: http://biomechanics.iauh.ac.ir/article-1-239-en.html
1- Department of Sport Biomechanics, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Sports Biomechanics, Institute of Motor Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.
Full-Text [PDF 5164 kb]   (355 Downloads)     |   Abstract (HTML)  (470 Views)
Full-Text:   (217 Views)
1. Introduction
print running is an integral part of most sports [1]. A quick start is an important skill for the runner to have a maximum performance during the race. The initial phase is a complex skill that requires complex muscular coordination with several joints and in different movement planes to reach a large forward force in the shortest time [2]. Achieving adequate acceleration in the first part of a sprint is influenced by how the runner is positioned on the blocks and the mechanism of detachment from the block at the moment of gunshot [3]. The kinetic and kinematic patterns of elite athletes in the start and acceleration phases have received much attention in recent studies [4, 56].
 These studies’ results show an essential component of the starting technique is the geometry and the body’s position when sitting in the starting position including the block’s position, the center of mass, and the body’s angle. The optimal angle of the front and back legs in the posture position is the primary determinant of body shape to achieve a fast horizontal speed at the moment of detachment [8, 7]. However, accurate information about the initial phase and the first steps of running can be important for coaches to improve and develop their understanding of these two stages' movements. This study aimed to compare the lower limb kinematic parameters of elite female runners in two different types of starts. This analysis shows the coordination between the joints of the limb in the start phase.
2. Method
This study’s statistical population was women runners, 15 to 25 years old in Tehran city. From the statistical population, 15 people were participated by random sampling available method with a Mean±SD age of 3.57±17.93  years, Mean±SD weight 5±66.5 kg, Mean±SD height 166.26±4.99 cm, and a 100-meter running record of 13.88±0.33 seconds. 
The Noraxon-MyoMotion device made in the USA was used to measure the kinematic variables in the starting skill. Each subject warmed up for 10 minutes, and after placing the sensors, they each made their start, which they do in competitions, 3 times every 2 minutes. Then each subject made a long start 5 times every 2 minutes. The Continuous Relative Phase (CRP) method was used due to the importance of movement speed in starting skills [171819], in which a phase angle is obtained after obtaining the location of the normalized angle and the normalized angular velocity. 
To analyze the start skill data, all coordination data were normalized to 100% (from the first move of the subject to the first step after the start line) [212223]. The Continuous Relative Phase (CRP) of the hip and knee joint, thigh and ankle, knee and ankle during the start movement was calculated [171819]. The most common values derived from CRP data include the average over a separate period of the cycle, with angles averaging every 10% of the cycle [12]. The normalized data in this study were also averaged during every 10% of the cycle.
3. Results
The lower limb coordination pattern in the subjects was calculated and was drawn in graphs in 100 pieces. Then, for statistical calculations in every 10% of the cycle, averaging was performed, and the parts where the difference between the two starts was significant were listed. 
Results in knee-to-ankle coordination pattern: first phase: (P=0.021), second phase: (P=0.03); thigh-to-knee coordination pattern: second phase=(P=0.025), third phase=(P=0.041), fourth phase=(P=0.018), fifth phase=(P=0.01); thigh-back knee coordination pattern: first phase=(P=0.035), second phase=(P=012), and third phase=(P=0.008); thigh-to-ankle coordination pattern: ninth phase=(P=0.018); thigh-to-ankle coordination pattern: first phase=(P=0.01), second phase=(P=0.002), and seventh phase=(P=0.06) showed a significant difference and in other cases no significant difference was observed.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
This study showed that the initial phases’ lower limb coordination pattern was significantly different between the two types of starters, but no difference was noticed from the fourth phase. In general, in coordination diagrams, when CRP is equal to 0 degrees, the movement of the two oscillators is in a phase that is, the two oscillators move in the same direction, and the CRP angle of 180 degrees indicates a completely anti-phase of the two oscillators, they also show an opposite movement oscillator. Each CRP angle between 0 and 180 degrees indicates out-of-phase fluctuations that can be either in-phase or out of phase. Positive CRP values indicate that the distal limb is advanced in phase space, and negative CRP indicates proximal limb proximity. Scott stated that a quick start, higher speed, and long start cause the person to push forward more. Also, the running analysis shows that a long start is associated with longer stride length and high speed, which can be a good start for running [8].
Given that the selected start in this study was long, it can be seen that the difference between the two types of the start may be due to the preference of runners to use a short one. Kinematic variables such as knee angle, ankle angle, and shoulder rotation angle have critical importance in sprinting and have an apparent effect on sprint running performance [24]. In contrast, some researchers did not find significant relationships between knee, pelvic, and ankle angles with start performance in sprinting [25].
Researchers suggested the strongest and fastest runners have a fast speed when leaving the start board due to the acute angle of the lower limb joints in a position on the start board, which allows us to have a broader range of joint extensions [26]. This study’s selected start had a 100-degree angle in the back knee, which reduced the thigh angle in both legs due to its position. At first, the difference was only 40%, which could be due to this issue. Hunter et al. [27] stated an excellent start in a sprint can increase the horizontal forces when leaving the starting board and increase the horizontal forces in the following steps.

Ethical Considerations
Compliance with ethical guidelines

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Kinesiology Research Center, Kharazmi University. (Code:1000/1007‌).

Funding
The article was extracted from the MSc. thesis of the first author, at Department of Sport Biomechanics, Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Science, Kharazmi University. 

Authors' contributions
All authors equally contributed to preparing this article.

Conflicts of interest
The interest of conflict no declared authors.
 
 
References
  1. Cronin JB, Hansen KT. Strength and power predictors of sports speed. J Strength Cond. Res. 2005; 19(2): 349-57. [DOI:10.1519/00124278-200505000-00019] [PMID]
  2. Harland MJ, Andrews MH,  Steele JR. Instrumented start blocks: A quantitative coaching aid. ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive; 1995. https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/2952
  3. Tellez, T., & Doolittle, D.  Sprinting from start to finish. Track Tech. 1984; 88:2802-5. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=nl&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Sprinting+from+start+to+finish.&btnG=
  4. Bezodis NE, Salo AI, Trewartha G. Choice of sprint start performance measure affects the performance-based ranking within a group of sprinters: Which is the most appropriate measure? Sports Biomech. 2010; 9(4):258-69. [DOI:10.1080/14763141.2010.538713] [PMID]
  5. Čoh M, Tomažin K. Kinematic analysis of the sprint start and acceleration from the blocks. New Stud in Athletics. 2006; 21(3):23-33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298645089_Kinematic_analysis_of_the_sprint_start_and_acceleration_from_the_blocks
  6. Slawinski J, Bonnefoy A, Levêque JM, Ontanon G, Riquet A, Dumas R, et al. Kinematic and kinetic comparisons of elite and well-trained sprinters during sprint start. J Strength Cond. Res. 2010; 24(4):896-905. [DOI:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181ad3448] [PMID]
  7. Mero A, Kuitunen S, Harland M, Kyröläinen H, Komi PV. Effects of muscle-tendon length on joint moment and power during sprint starts. J Sports Sci. 2006; 24(2):165-73. [DOI:10.1080/02640410500131753] [PMID]
  8. Schot PK, Knutzen KM. A biomechanical analysis of four sprint start positions. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1992; 63(2):137-47. [DOI:10.1080/02701367.1992.10607573] [PMID]
  9. Thelen E. Motor development: A new synthesis. Am Psychol. 1995; 50(2):79-95. [DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.50.2.79]
  10. Bernstein N. The co-ordination and regulation of movements. 1st English ed. London: Pergamon; 1967.
  11. Stergiou N. Innovative Analyses of Human Movement. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL; 2004. https://www.amazon.com/Innovative-Analyses-Movement-Nicholas-Stergiou/dp/0736044671
  12. Robertson G, Caldwell G, Hamill J, Kamen G, et al. Research methods in biomechanics, 2nd edition. Human Kinetics; 2013. 291-315. [DOI:10.5040/9781492595809]
  13. Wolfgang T. Biomechanical quantification of the dynamic knee valgus using inertial sensor system myomotion. Gießen, Justus; 2016.
  14. Balasubramanian S. Comparison of Angle Measurements between Vicon and Myomotion System. Arizona State University. 2013. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/COMPARISON-OF-ANGLE-MEASUREMENTS-BETWEEN-VICON-AND/1641d6ece74c8e7e9e5f06595bad7b49540bc53a
  15. Noraxon. MyoMotion System User Guide 2014. 1-99
  16. Harland M, Steele JR. Biomechanics of the sprint start. J Sports Medicine. 1997; 23(1):11-20. [DOI:10.2165/00007256-199723010-00002] [PMID]
  17. Khezri D, Eslami M, Yaserifar M. The effect of variation of shoe sole stiffness on coordination pattern and it’s variability in tars-metatarsal and forefoot-hallux joints during stance phase of running (Persion)]. Iranian Association of Physical Education and Sports Sciences. 19-20 March 2016. Kharazmi University; 2016. https://www.sid.ir/Fa/Seminar/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=26874
  18. Silvernail JF, Boyer K, Rohr E, Brüggemann GP, Hamill J. Running mechanics and variability with aging. J Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015; 47(10):2175-80. [DOI:10.1249/MSS.0000000000000633] [PMID]
  19. Wheat JS, Glazier PS. Measuring coordination and variability in coordination. In: Movement System Variability. Davids K, Bennett S, Newel K, editors, Chapter 9. Human Kinetics. 2005; 167-81. [DOI:10.5040/9781492596851.ch-009]
  20. Hamill J, van Emmerik RE, Heiderscheit BC, Li L. A dynamical systems approach to lower extremity running injuries. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1999; 14(5):297-308. [DOI:10.1016/S0268-0033(98)90092-4]
  21. Milanese C, Bertucco M, Zancanaro C. The effects of three different rear knee angles on kinematics in the sprint start. J Biology of Sport. 2014; 31(3):209-15. [DOI:10.5604/20831862.1111848] [PMID] [PMCID]
  22. Ciacci S, Merni F, Bartolomei S, Di Michele R. Sprint start kinematics during competition in elite and world-class male and female sprinters. J Sports Sci. 2017; 35(13):1270-8. [DOI:10.1080/02640414.2016.1221519] [PMID]
  23. Chen Y, Wu KY, Tsai YJ, Yang WT, et al. The kinematic differences of three types of crouched position during sprint start. J Mech Med Biol. 2016; 16(7):1650099. [DOI:10.1142/S0219519416500998]
  24. Ansari NW, Paul Y, Sharma K. Kinematic analysis of competitive sprinting: Biomechanics. Afr J Phys Health Educ Recreat Dance. 2012; 18(4):662-71. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajpherd/article/view/83832
  25. Chakravarty R. The relationship of selected kinematical variables of the performance of runners in sprint start. Int J Sports Sci Fit. 2011; 1(1):60-7.
  26. Maulder PS, Bradshaw EJ, Keogh J. Jump kinetic determinants of sprint acceleration performance from starting blocks in male sprinters. J Sports Sci Med. 2006; 5(2):359-66. [PMID] [PMCID]
  27. Hunter JP, Marshall RN, McNair PJ. Interaction of step length and step rate during sprint running. J Med Sci Sports  Exerc. 2004; 36(2):261-71. [DOI:10.1249/01.MSS.0000113664.15777.53] [PMID]
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2020/11/16 | Accepted: 2020/11/21 | Published: 2021/03/1

References
1. Cronin JB, Hansen KT. Strength and power predictors of sports speed. J Strength Cond. Res. 2005; 19(2): 349-357. [DOI:10.1519/00124278-200505000-00019] [PMID]
2. Harland MJ, Andrews MH, Steele JR. instrumented start blocks: A quantitative coaching aid. In: XIII International Symposium for Biomechanics in Sport. Ed: Bauer T. Ontario. 1995; 1(1): 367-370.
3. Tellez T, Doolittle D. Sprinting from start to finish. Track Technique. 1984; 88: 2802-2805
4. Bezodis NE, Salo AI, Trewartha G. Choice of sprint start performance measure affects the performance-based ranking within a group of sprinters: which is the most appropriate measure? J ISBS. 2010; 9(4): 258-269. [DOI:10.1080/14763141.2010.538713] [PMID]
5. Čoh M, Tomažin K. Kinematic analysis of the sprint start and acceleration from the blocks. New Stud in Athletics. 2006; 21(3): 23-33.
6. Slawinski J, Bonnefoy A, Levêque JM, Ontanon G, et al. Kinematic and kinetic comparisons of elite and well-trained sprinters during sprint start. J Strength Cond. Res. 2010; 24(4): 896-905. [DOI:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181ad3448] [PMID]
7. Mero A, Kuitunen S, Harland M, Kyrolainen H, et al. Effects of muscle-tendon length on joint moment and power during sprint starts. J Sports Sci. 2006; 24(2): 165-173. [DOI:10.1080/02640410500131753] [PMID]
8. Schot PK, Knutzen KM. A biomechanical analysis of four sprint start positions. J Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 1992; 63(2): 137-147. [DOI:10.1080/02701367.1992.10607573] [PMID]
9. Thelen E. Motor development: A new synthesis. American Psychologist. 1995; 50(2): 79-95. [DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.50.2.79]
10. Bernstein N. The co-ordination and regulation of movements. London: Pergamon. 1967.
11. Stergiou N. Innovative Analyses of Human Movement. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL. 2004. 163-185.
12. Robertson G, Caldwell G, Hamill J, Kamen G, et al. Research methods in biomechanics, 2E. Human Kinetics. 2013. 291-315. [DOI:10.5040/9781492595809]
13. Wolfgang, T. Biomechanical Quantification of the Dynamic Knee Valgus using Inertial Sensor System MyoMotion, Gießen, Justus. 2016.
14. Balasubramanian S. Comparison of Angle Measurements between Vicon and Myomotion System. Arizona State University. 2013.
15. Harland M, Steele JR. Biomechanics of the sprint start. J Sports Medicine. 1997; 23(1): 11-20. [DOI:10.2165/00007256-199723010-00002] [PMID]
16. Khezri D, Eslami M, Yaserifar M. The effect of variation of shoe sole stiffness on coordination pattern and it's variability in tars-metatarsal and forefoot-hallux joints during stance phase of running [dissertation]. kharazmi university. 2016. [persion]
17. Silvernail JF, Boyer K, Rohr E, Brüggemann GP, et al. Running Mechanics and Variability with Aging. J Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015; 47(10): 2175-80. [DOI:10.1249/MSS.0000000000000633] [PMID]
18. Wheat JS, Glazier PS. Measuring coordination and variability in coordination. 2005. 167-181. [DOI:10.5040/9781492596851.ch-009]
19. Hamill J, van Emmerik RE, Heiderscheit BC, Li L. A dynamical systems approach to lower extremity running injuries. J Clinical Biomechanics. 1999; 14(5):297-308. [DOI:10.1016/S0268-0033(98)90092-4]
20. Milanese C, Bertucco M, Zancanaro C. The effects of three different rear knee angles on kinematics in the sprint start. J Biology of Sport. 2014; 31(3):209. [DOI:10.5604/20831862.1111848] [PMID] [PMCID]
21. Ciacci S, Merni F, Bartolomei S, Di Michele R. Sprint start kinematics during competition in elite and world-class male and female sprinters. J Sports Sci. 2017; 35(13):1270-8. [DOI:10.1080/02640414.2016.1221519] [PMID]
22. Chen Y, Wu KY, Tsai YJ, Yang WT, et al. The kinematic differences of three types of crouched position during sprint start. J Mechanics in Medicine and Biology. 2016; 16(7): 1650099. [DOI:10.1142/S0219519416500998]
23. Ansari NW, Paul Y, Sharma K. Kinematic analysis of competitive sprinting: biomechanics. African Journal for Physical Health Education, Recreation and Dance. 2012; 18(Issue-4_1):662-671.
24. Chakravarty R. The relationship of selected kinematical variables of the performance of runners in sprint start. International Journal of Sports Sciences & Fitness. 2011; 1(1): 60-67
25. Maulder PS, Bradshaw EJ, Keogh J. Jump kinetic determinants of sprint acceleration performance from starting blocks in male sprinters. J sports science & medicine. 2006; 5(2): 359-366.
26. Hunter JP, Marshall RN, McNair PJ. Interaction of step length and step rate during sprint running. J Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2004; 36(2): 261-71. [DOI:10.1249/01.MSS.0000113664.15777.53] [PMID]

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2021 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Sport Biomechanics

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb