PosterPDF Available

Cambios posturales estáticos después del entrenamiento con pesas en el antepié en atletas de larga distancia: ensayo clínico

Authors:

Abstract

TITLE Static postural changes after forefoot weight training in long-distance athletes: clinical trial KEYWORDS: Athletic Performance; Physical Education and Training; Running; Postural Balance; Sports Medicine. ABSTRACT The use of ballast in the forefoot during training is safe and well tolerated, and does not produce static postural changes in long-distance athletes. TEXT INTRODUCTION: The use of ballast on the forefoot during training modifies the biomechanics of the race by modifying the muscular activity and the plantar support of the foot on the ground. OBJECTIVE: Analyze the static postural changes in long-distance athletes after the use of ballast on the forefoot during training for 8 weeks. METHODOLOGY: controlled, randomized, open-label, multicenter clinical trial. Control group: habitual training; Intervention group: use of ballast in the forefoot during regular training (8 weeks); weight prescription according to gender and sex. Variables: morphometric (age, gender, weight, height), hours of training or weekly kilometers, type of training, static morphological variables (hip rotation, popliteal angle, ankle flexion-extension, forefoot pronosupination). Analysis of normality, homogeneity, univariate and bivariate. thics approva: Ethics Comission in Animal and Human Research, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona: CEEAH-UAB-4987. RESULTS: Sample: 54 participants (37 men, 17 women); mean age: 31.31 years; Average BMI: 22Kg/m2. No participant reported any discomfort or injury during the forefoot ballast period. Significant differences are observed between the intervention and control groups only in left midfoot supination (+0.71 vs. -0.91, respectively; p=0.024) and in right coxofemoral external rotation in the intervention group (men -1.06, women +1.67, p=0.050). All other parameters did not show any significant changes. DISCUSSION: Previous studies show that the use of ballast on the forefoot modifies the dynamic biomechanics of running. The present study demonstrates that these changes are not perpetuated, producing static postural modifications, except for small changes in supination in the left foot (non-dominant limb) and in right coxofemoral rotation (in the opposite direction between men and women in the intervention group). No participant reported discomfort or suffered any injury during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ballast in the forefoot during training is safe and well tolerated, and does not produce static postural changes in long-distance athletes. AUTHORS Jordi Esquirol Caussa; Pere Palmada Andreu; Martín Rueda Sánchez; Miquel À. Cos Morera; Marta Méndez Olavide; Josep Mª Padullés Riu. LINK: https://www.scientificmedicaldata.com//article.php?fKQ1V3T5abMigw6nQMtJg45iX58HdcWbgcgQcRNiFIo=
Static postural changes after forefoot weight training in long-distance athletes:
clinical trial
Authors:
Jordi Esquirol Caussa1; Pere Palmada Andreu1; Martín Rueda Sánchez2;
Miquel À. Cos Morera3; Marta Méndez Olavide1; Josep Mª Padullés Riu4.
Affiliations:
1 Escoles Universitàries Gimbernat (adscrites a la UAB), Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona (España). 2 Centro de Podología Martín Rueda.
3 Centre d’Alt Rendiment CAR Sant Cugat. 4 INEFC Institut Nacional d’Educació Física de Catalunya Barcelona.
INTRODUCTION
The use of ballast (50g, 100g, 150gor 200g weights) on the forefoot during training modifies the
biomechanics of the race by modifying the muscular activity and the plantar support of the foot on the
ground.
METHODOLOGY
Controlled, randomized, open-label, multicenter clinical trial. Control group: habitual training; Intervention group: use of ballast in the
forefoot during regular training (8 weeks);ballast prescription according to body weight. Variables: morphometric (age, gender, weight,
height), hours of training or weekly kilometers, type of training, static morphological variables (hip rotation, popliteal angle, ankle
flexion-extension, forefoot prono-supination). Analysis of normality, homogeneity, univariate and bivariate. Ethics approval: Ethics
Commission in Animal and Human Research, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona: CEEAH-UAB-4987.
RESULTS
Sample: 54 participants (37 men, 17 women); mean age: 31.31 years; Average BMI:
22Kg/m2. No participant reported any discomfort or injury during the forefoot
ballast period. Significant differences are observed between the intervention and
control groups only in left midfoot supination (+0.71 vs. -0.91, respectively; p=0.024)
and in right coxofemoral external rotation in the intervention group (men -1.06,
women +1.67,p=0.050). All other parameters did not show any significant changes.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of ballast in the forefoot during training is safe, well tolerated and does not
produce static postural changes in long-distance athletes.
REFERENCES:
Colomar, J., Baiget, E., Corbi, F., & Muñoz, J. (2020). Acute effects of in-step and wrist weights on change of direction speed, accuracy and stroke velocity in junior tennis players. PloS one,15(3), e0230631. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230631
Feser EH, Macadam P, Cronin JB. The effects of lower limb wearable resistance on sprint running performance: A systematic review. Eur J Sport Sci. 2020 Apr;20(3):394-406. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17461391.2019.1629631 .
Macadam, P., Cronin, J. B., Uthoff, A., & Feser, E. (2019). Effects of Different Wearable Resistance Placements on Sprint-Running Performance: A Review and Practical Applications. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 41(3), 79-96.
https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0000000000000444
Cos Morera MA, Esquirol Caussa J, Drobnic F, Bayo Tallón V, Sánchez Padilla M, & Ferrer V. (2018a) Efecto inmediato del lastre en empeine en la activación muscular durante la carrera. Proceedings of Congreso FTP18 (Col·legi de Fisioterapeutes de Catalunya).
https://:doi.org/10.24175/sbd.2018.000072
Cos Morera MA, Esquirol Caussa J, Drobnic F, Bayo Tallón V, Sánchez Padilla M, & Ferrer V. (2018b) Efecto inmediato del lastre en empeine en la biomecànica de la carrera. Proceedings of Congreso FTP18 (Col·legi de Fisioterapeutes de Catalunya).
https://:doi.org/10.24175/sbd.2018.000071
Ambit: Sport
©2022
SURIF E.U.Gimbernat
@EUGsurf
surif_eugimbernat
DISCUSSION
Previous studies show that the use of ballast on the forefoot modifies the dynamic
biomechanics of running. The present study demonstrates that these changes are
not perpetuated, producing static postural modifications, except for small changes in
supination in the left foot (non-dominant limb) and in right coxofemoral rotation (in
the opposite direction between men and women in the intervention group). No
participant reported discomfort or suffered any injury during the study period.
KEYWORDS
Athletic Performance; Physical Education and Training; Running; Postural Balance; Sports Medicine.
N Mín Max
Average
SD
Age
54
15
50
31,31
9,992
Weight
(Kg.)
54
45
105
67,04
11,672
Hight
(cm.)
54
155
197
173,39
8,975
BMI (Kg/m2)
54
18,06
30,02
22,14
2,31
Weekly
Km.
54
15
105
47,93
28,164
N
54
Final
-Initial differences
Group
N
Average
SD
-
Right
external coxofemoral rotation
Control
22
,50
1,766
Interv
.
24
-
,38
2,975
Left
external coxofemoral rotation
Control
22
,59
1,817
Interv
.
24
1,25
2,507
Right
internal coxofemoral rotation
Control
22
,36
2,498
Interv
.
25
-
1,04
2,993
Left
internal coxofemoral rotation
Control
22
,41
1,817
Interv
.
24
-
,29
2,941
Right
knee Q Angle
Control
22
,73
4,200
Interv
.
24
-
,58
5,299
Left
knee Q Angle
Control
22
,27
4,474
Interv
.
24
-
,79
6,454
Right
ankle plantar flexion
Control
22
-
1,00
2,160
Interv
.
24
-
,79
2,519
Left
ankle plantar flexion
Control
22
-
,36
2,194
Interv
.
24
-
,13
3,012
Right
ankle dorsal flexion
Control
28
8,39
7,264
Interv
.
26
8,62
4,428
Left
ankle dorsal flexion
Control
22
,23
1,998
Interv
.
24
,21
1,888
Right
midfoot pronation
Control
22
-
,41
1,992
Interv
.
24
-
,33
2,220
Left
midfoot pronation
Control
22
,55
1,654
Interv
.
24
,04
2,274
Right
midfoot supination
Control
22
-
,77
2,137
Interv
.
24
,00
2,322
Left
midfoot supination
Control
22
-
,91
2,617
Interv
.
24
,71
2,074
Group
-Sex N
Average
SD
p
-
value
Rigth
external coxofemoral
rotation
Interv
.-Men
18
-
1,06
2,261
Interv
-Women
6
1,67
4,082
.050
Left
external coxofemoral
rotation
Interv
.-Men
18
1,06
2,775
Interv
-Women
6
1,83
1,472
.522
Right
internal coxofemoral
rotation
Interv
.-Men
18
-
1,22
2,211
Interv
-Women
7
-
,57
4,650
.636
Left
internal coxofemoral
rotation
Interv
.-Men
18
-
,56
2,955
Interv
-Women
6
,50
3,017
.459
OBJECTIVE
Analyze the static postural changes in long-distance athletes after the use of ballast on the forefoot during
training for 8 weeks.
In collaboration with

Supplementary resource (1)

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.