Analysis Of Linear Running Versus Curve Running Among Female Sprinters

In the sport of track and field, runners excel at their events due not only to physiological characteristics but aspects in their form. Characteristics in form help runners achieve the goal in completing their event in the least amount of time possible. For sprinters, this is done by having a shorter swing phase and ground time along with greater power and a longer stride length. Distance runners accomplish the goal of quicker speeds by balancing it with running economy by spending greater time on the ground with shorter stride lengths compared to those in shorter distance running events. Middle distance runners must find a balance between power and running economy for greater success in the 800 meter and 1600 meter runs. If these characteristics are true for runners while competing in their event, would they also be seen at speeds slower and faster than what they compete at? Purpose: This study was conducted to determine if sprinters, middle distance runners, and distance runners running at the same speeds would exhibit different characteristics in their form which aid them in their events. Methods: Thirty female Division I collegiate runners participated in this study. Runners were separated into categories based on the events they were currently training in: 10 sprinters, 10 middle distance runners, and 10 distance runners. All participants were asked to run for twenty two steps at 3.17 m/s (8:27 min/mile), 3.58 m/s (7:30 min/mile), 4.11 m/s (6.31 min/mile), 4.87 m/s (5:30 min/mile), and 5.95 m/s (4:30 min/mile) pace. Motion analysis was captured at each speed recording knee angles, ground time, center of mass separation, and stride length at 240 Hz. Data was then processed using ANOVA and a Tukey post hoc analysis. Results: Significant differences (p

In the sport of track and field, sprinting and distance running represent two major categories of athletes. Sprinting is associated with power and speed, whereas distance running focuses on the economy of movement. With distance running there are elements of sprint technique that overlap. With distance events, there comes a time near the end of the race where economy gives way to speed. If the distance runners knew how to alter their technique in a way to become more sprint-like, this process could possibly be more successful.

Biomechanical Basis of Human Movement integrates basic anatomy, physics, calculus, and physiology for the study of human movement. The book provides a uniquely quantitative approach to biomechanics, and is organized into three parts: Foundations of Human Movement, Functional Anatomy, and Mechanical Analysis of Human Motion. New to this edition: basic mathematics information, increased practical applications, and a new chapter on emphasizing techniques for measuring the strength of human tissue. Now every copy of the book comes with Innovision Systems' MaxTRAQ software specially customized for Biomechanical Basis of Human Movement, Second Edition. This downloadable motion analysis software offers you an easy to use tool to track data and analyze various motions selected by the authors.

Since the first athletic events found a fan base, sports and statistics have always maintained a tight and at times mythical relationship. As a way to relay the telling of a game's drama and attest to the prodigious powers of the heroes involved, those reporting on the games tallied up the numbers that they believe best described the action and bes

Bullshit isn’t what it used to be. Now, two science professors give us the tools to dismantle misinformation and think clearly in a world of fake news and bad data. “A modern classic . . . a straight-talking survival guide to the mean streets of a dying democracy and a global pandemic.”—Wired Misinformation, disinformation, and fake news abound and it’s increasingly difficult to know what’s true. Our media environment has become hyperpartisan. Science is conducted by press release. Startup culture elevates bullshit to high art. We are fairly well equipped to spot the sort of old-school bullshit that is based in fancy rhetoric and weasel words, but most of us don’t feel qualified to challenge the avalanche of new-school bullshit presented in the language of math, science, or statistics. In Calling Bullshit, Professors Carl Bergstrom and Jevin West give us a set of powerful tools to cut through the most intimidating data. You don’t need a lot of technical expertise to call out problems with data. Are the numbers or results too good or too dramatic to be true? Is the claim comparing like with like? Is it confirming your personal bias? Drawing on a deep well of expertise in statistics and computational biology, Bergstrom and West exuberantly unpack examples of selection bias and muddled data visualization, distinguish between correlation and causation, and examine the susceptibility of science to modern bullshit. We have always needed people who call bullshit when necessary, whether within a circle of friends, a community of scholars, or the citizenry of a nation. Now that bullshit has evolved, we need to relearn the art of skepticism.

In the sport of track and field, sprinting and distance running represent two major categories of athletes. Sprinting is associated with power and speed, whereas distance running focuses on the economy of movement. With distance running there are elements of sprint technique that overlap. With distance events, there comes a time near the end of the race where economy gives way to speed. If the distance runners knew how to alter their technique in a way to become more sprint-like, this process could possibly be more successful. PURPOSE: This study compared the differences in technique between sprinters and distance runners while running at equal and maximal speeds. METHODS: Subjects for the study consisted of 10 Division I collegiate distance runners, 10 Division I collegiate sprinters, and 10 healthy non-runners. The subjects performed two tests, with each consisting of a 60 meter run completed on the track. Test 1 was run at a pace of 5.81 m/s (4:37 min/mile), while Test 2 was completed at maximal speed. Video footage of each trial was collected at 180 Hz, monitoring hip, knee, thigh, and shank positions, as well as stride length, and contact time. RESULTS: Significant differences (p