Medicine and science in sports and exercise · 2012
Mechanics of the human hamstring muscles during sprinting.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schache Anthony G, Dorn Tim W, Blanch Peter D, Brown Nicholas A T, Pandy Marcus G
Аннотация
PURPOSE: An understanding of hamstring mechanics during sprinting is important for elucidating why these muscles are so vulnerable to acute strain-type injury. The purpose of this study was twofold: first, to quantify the biomechanical load (specifically, musculotendon strain, velocity, force, power, and work) experienced by the hamstrings across a full stride cycle; and second, to determine how these parameters differ for each hamstring muscle (i.e., semimembranosus (SM), semitendinosus (ST), biceps femoris long head (BF), biceps femoris short head (BF)).
METHODS: Full-body kinematics and ground reaction force data were recorded simultaneously from seven subjects while sprinting on an indoor running track. Experimental data were integrated with a three-dimensional musculoskeletal computer model comprised of 12 body segments and 92 musculotendon structures. The model was used in conjunction with an optimization algorithm to calculate musculotendon strain, velocity, force, power, and work for the hamstrings.
RESULTS: SM, ST, and BF all reached peak strain, produced peak force, and formed much negative work (energy absorption) during terminal swing. The biomechanical load differed for each hamstring muscle: BF exhibited the largest peak strain, ST displayed the greatest lengthening velocity, and SM produced the highest peak force, absorbed and generated the most power, and performed the largest amount of positive and negative work.
CONCLUSIONS: As peak musculotendon force and strain for BF, ST, and SM occurred around the same time during terminal swing, it is suggested that this period in the stride cycle may be when the biarticular hamstrings are at greatest injury risk. On this basis, hamstring injury prevention or rehabilitation programs should preferentially target strengthening exercises that involve eccentric contractions performed with high loads at longer musculotendon lengths.
METHODS: Full-body kinematics and ground reaction force data were recorded simultaneously from seven subjects while sprinting on an indoor running track. Experimental data were integrated with a three-dimensional musculoskeletal computer model comprised of 12 body segments and 92 musculotendon structures. The model was used in conjunction with an optimization algorithm to calculate musculotendon strain, velocity, force, power, and work for the hamstrings.
RESULTS: SM, ST, and BF all reached peak strain, produced peak force, and formed much negative work (energy absorption) during terminal swing. The biomechanical load differed for each hamstring muscle: BF exhibited the largest peak strain, ST displayed the greatest lengthening velocity, and SM produced the highest peak force, absorbed and generated the most power, and performed the largest amount of positive and negative work.
CONCLUSIONS: As peak musculotendon force and strain for BF, ST, and SM occurred around the same time during terminal swing, it is suggested that this period in the stride cycle may be when the biarticular hamstrings are at greatest injury risk. On this basis, hamstring injury prevention or rehabilitation programs should preferentially target strengthening exercises that involve eccentric contractions performed with high loads at longer musculotendon lengths.