Advertisement

Sports Medicine

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 171–176 | Cite as

Challenging Conventional Paradigms in Applied Sports Biomechanics Research

  • Paul S. GlazierEmail author
  • Sina Mehdizadeh
Current Opinion

Abstract

This paper evaluates the effectiveness of, and highlights issues with, conventional paradigms in applied sports biomechanics research and comments on their capacity to optimise techniques of individual athletes. In empirical studies, group-based analyses often mask variability between athletes and only permit probabilistic ‘in general’ or ‘on average’ statements that may not be applicable to specific athletes. In individual-based analyses, performance parameters typically exhibit a small range and a flat response over iterative performance trials, making establishing associations between performance parameters and the performance criterion problematic. In theoretical studies, computer simulation modelling putatively enables athlete-specific optimum techniques to be identified, but given each athlete’s unique intrinsic dynamics, it is far from certain that these optimum techniques will be attainable, particularly under the often intense psychological pressures of competition, irrespective of the volume of practice undertaken. Sports biomechanists and coaching practitioners are advised to be more circumspect with regard to interpreting the results of applied sports biomechanics research and have greater awareness of their assumptions and limitations, as inappropriate interpretation of results may have adverse consequences for performance and injury.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.

Conflict of interest

Paul Glazier and Sina Mehdizadeh declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Bartlett R, Bussey M. Sports biomechanics: reducing injury risk and improving sports performance. London: Routledge; 2012.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lees A. Biomechanical assessment of individual sports for improved performance. Sports Med. 1999;28:299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lees A. Technique analysis in sports: a critical review. J Sports Sci. 2002;20:813–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davids K, Glazier P, Araújo D, Bartlett R. Movement systems as dynamical systems: the functional role of variability and its implications for sports medicine. Sports Med. 2003;33:245–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bartlett R, Wheat J, Robins M. Is movement variability important for sports biomechanists? Sports Biomech. 2007;6:224–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Irwin G, Bezodis I, Kerwin D. Biomechanics for coaches. In: Jones RL, Kingston K, editors. An introduction to sports coaching: connecting theory and practice. London: Routledge; 2013. p. 145–60.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elliott B, Bartlett R. Sports biomechanics: does it have a role in coaching? Int J Sport Sci Coach. 2006;1:177–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li L. How can sport biomechanics contribute to the advance of world record and best athletic performance? Meas Phys Ed Exerc Sci. 2012;16:194–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hay JG, Vaughan CL, Woodworth GG. Technique and performance: identifying the limiting factors. In: Morecki A, Fidelus K, Kedzior K, Wit A, editors. Biomechanics VII-B. Baltimore: University Park Press; 1981. p. 511–20.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nelson W. Application of biomechanical principles: optimization of sport technique. In: Butts NK, Gushiken TT, Zarins B, editors. The elite athlete. Champaign: Life Enhancement Publications; 1985. p. 81–92.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glazier PS, Reid MM, Ball KA. Expertise in the performance of multi-articular sports actions. In: Baker J, Farrow D, editors. Routledge handbook of sport expertise. London: Routledge; 2015. p. 84–94.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chu Y, Sell TC, Lephart SM. The relationship between biomechanical variables and driving performance during the golf swing. J Sport Sci. 2010;28:1251–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Worthington PJ, King MA, Ranson CA. Relationships between fast bowling technique and ball release speed in cricket. J Appl Biomech. 2013;29:78–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ranson C, King M, Shine K, Worthington P. ECB Elite Fast Bowling Group: fast bowling performance. On the Up. 2011;7:70–2.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mullineaux DR, Bartlett RM, Bennett S. Research design and statistics in biomechanics and motor control. J Sports Sci. 2001;19:739–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fisher AJ, Medaglia JD, Jeronimus BF. Lack of group-to-individual generalizability is a threat to human subjects research. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115:e6106–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bouffard M. The perils of averaging data in adapted physical activity research. Adapt Phys Act Q. 1993;10:371–91.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Piantadosi S, Byar DP, Green SB. The ecological fallacy. Am J Epidemiol. 1988;127:893–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glazier PS. Could sports biomechanics provide the missing pieces to the talent identification and development puzzle? In: Baker J, Cobley S, Schorer J, Wattie N, editors. Routledge handbook of talent identification and development in sport. London: Routledge; 2017. p. 236–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ae M, Muraki Y, Koyama H, Fujii N. A biomechanical method to establish a standard motion and identify critical motion by motion variability: with examples of high jump and sprint running. Bull Inst Health Sport Sci Univ Tsukuba. 2007;30:5–12.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ae M. A biomechanical method for the evaluation of sports techniques by standard motion, motion variability and motion deviation. In: Kwon Y-H, Shim J, Shim JK, Shin I-S, editors. Proceedings of the 26th international conference on biomechanics in sports, July 14–18, 2008, International Society of Biomechanics in Sports, Seoul; 2008. pp. 33–7.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Glazier PS, Robins MT. Comment on “Use of deterministic models in sports and exercise biomechanics research” by Chow and Knudson (2011). Sports Biomech. 2012;11:120–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cavanagh PR. The cutting edge in biomechanics. In: Safrit MJ, Eckert HM, editors. The academy papers: the cutting edge in physical education and exercise science research. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 1987. p. 115–9.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brisson TA, Alain C. Should common optimal movement patterns be identified as the criterion to be achieved? J Mot Behav. 1996;28:211–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brisson TA, Alain C. Optimal movement pattern characteristics are not required as a reference for knowledge of performance. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1996;67:458–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gregor RJ. Locomotion: a commentary. In: Skinner JS, Corbin CB, Landers DM, Martin PE, Wells CL, editors. Future directions in exercise and sport science research. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 1989. p. 195–9.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    James CR, Bates BT. Experimental and statistical design issues in human movement research. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 1997;1:55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bates BT, James CR, Dufek JS. Single-subject analysis. In: Stergiou N, editor. Innovative analyses of human movement: analytical tools for human movement research. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2004. p. 3–28.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hay JG. Issues in sports biomechanics. In: Perren SM, Schneider E, editors. Biomechanics: current interdisciplinary research. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff; 1985. p. 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yeadon MR, Challis JH. The future of performance-related sports biomechanics research. J Sports Sci. 1994;12:3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ball KA, Best RJ, Wrigley TV. Inter- and intra-individual analysis in elite sport: pistol shooting. J Appl Biomech. 2003;19:28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yeadon MR. What are the limitations of experimental and theoretical approaches in sports biomechanics? In: McNamee M, editor. Philosophy and the sciences of exercise, health and sport: critical perspectives on research methods. London: Routledge; 2005. p. 133–43.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Myers J, Lephart S, Tsai Y-S, Sell T, Smoliga J, Jolly J. The role of upper torso and pelvis rotation in driving performance during the golf swing. J Sport Sci. 2008;26:181–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Newell KM, McGinnis PM. Kinematic information feedback for skilled performance. Hum Learn. 1985;4:39–56.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cavanagh PR, Hinrichs R. Biomechanics of sport: the state of the art. In: Brooks GA, editor. Perspectives on the academic discipline of physical education. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 1981. p. 137–57.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Loeb GE. Optimal isn’t good enough. Biol Cybern. 2012;106:757–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yeadon MR, King MA. Computer simulation modelling in sport. In: Payton CJ, Burden A, editors. Biomechanical evaluation of movement in sport and exercise: the British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences guide. London: Routledge; 2018. p. 221–54.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Umberger BR, Miller RH. Optimal control modeling of human movement. In: Müller B, Wolf SI, editors. Handbook of human motion. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 327–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Glazier PS, Davids K. Constraints on the complete optimization of human motion. Sports Med. 2009;39:15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Marshall RN, Elliott BC. The analysis and development of technique in sport. In: Elliott B, editor. Training in sport: applying sport science. Chichester: Wiley; 1998. p. 117–44.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sprigings EJ. Sport biomechanics: data collection, modelling, and implementation stages of development. Can J Sport Sci. 1988;13:3–7.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Irwin G. Biomechanics in sports medicine. In: Micheli LJ, editor. Encyclopedia of sports medicine. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2011. p. 163–76.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Seifert L, Komar J, Araújo D, Davids K. Neurobiological degeneracy: a key property for functional adaptations of perception and action to constraints. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016;69:159–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hicks JL, Uchida TK, Seth A, Rajagopal A, Delp SL. Is my model good enough? Best practices for verification and validation of musculoskeletal models and simulations of movement. J Biomech Eng. 2015;137:0209051–02090524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hatze H. Computerized optimization of sports motions: an overview of possibilities, methods and recent developments. J Sports Sci. 1983;1:3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hatze H. A comprehensive model for human motion simulation and its application to the take-off phase of the long jump. J Biomech. 1981;14:135–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Felton P, King M. Optimising individual performance in cricket fast bowling. ISBS Proc Arch. 2017;35:57–60. https://commons.nmu.edu/isbs/vol35/iss1/23.
  48. 48.
    Elliott BC. Back injuries and the fast bowler in cricket. J Sports Sci. 2000;18:983–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Vaughan CL. Computer simulation of human motion in sports biomechanics. In: Terjung RL, editor. Exercise and sport sciences reviews, vol. 12. Lexington: The Collamore Press; 1984. p. 373–416.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kostrubiec V, Zanone P-G, Fuchs A, Kelso JAS. Beyond the blank slate: routes to learning new coordination patterns depend on the intrinsic dynamics of the learner—experimental evidence and theoretical model. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012;6:222.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Muchisky M, Gershkoff-Stowe L, Cole E, Thelen E. The epigenetic landscape revisited: a dynamic interpretation. In: Rovee-Collier C, Lipsitt LP, editors. Advanced in infancy research, vol. 10. Norwood: Ablex Publishing; 1996. p. 121–59.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Neal R, Lumsden R, Holland M, Mason B. Body segment sequencing and timing in golf. Int J Sport Sci Coach. 2007;2(suppl 1):25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Whiteside D, Elliott B, Lay B, Reid M. A kinematic comparison of successful and unsuccessful tennis serves across the elite development pathway. Hum Mov Sci. 2013;32:822–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Sports Institute of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur Sports CityKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health NetworkTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations