An evaluation of physical performance in collegiate athletes: A randomized controlled trial comparing backward and forward running

IF 2.3 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health Pub Date : 2024-08-08 DOI:10.1016/j.cegh.2024.101740
Firdaus Jawed , Sumbul Ansari , Rabia Aziz , Humaira Khan , Moazzam Hussain Khan , Saurabh Sharma , Turki Abualait , Shibili Nuhmani
{"title":"An evaluation of physical performance in collegiate athletes: A randomized controlled trial comparing backward and forward running","authors":"Firdaus Jawed ,&nbsp;Sumbul Ansari ,&nbsp;Rabia Aziz ,&nbsp;Humaira Khan ,&nbsp;Moazzam Hussain Khan ,&nbsp;Saurabh Sharma ,&nbsp;Turki Abualait ,&nbsp;Shibili Nuhmani","doi":"10.1016/j.cegh.2024.101740","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Backward running (BR) and forward running (FR) activate distinct neuromuscular pathways and utilize differing biomechanical principles. Although FR is a well-established training modality, the potential advantages of BR for enhancing athletic performance and mitigating injury risk necessitate further exploration. Moreover, there exists a paucity of experimental data comparing these modalities in collegiate athlete populations.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>This study sought to quantify the differential effects of BR intervention, FR intervention, and no intervention on agility, power, and speed performance in collegiate athletes.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Thirty collegiate athletes (Aged 18–28 years) were randomly allocated to the BR group (n = 10), FR group (n = 10), and an absolute control (CON) group (n = 10). The BR and FR groups performed running sessions on a treadmill for matched time and intensity biweekly for eight weeks. All athletes were assessed for agility, speed, and power performance before and after the intervention.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Results revealed a significant main effect of time (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.05) and significant group × time interactions (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.05) for all outcomes, mean difference data showed BR outperformed FR &amp; CON in countermovement jump (CMJ) (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.05). For the 10-m sprint performance, a between-group difference was identified. A post-hoc Bonferroni test showed that the BR group performed better than the CON group (<em>p</em> = 0.02) but was not statistically different from the FR group (<em>p</em> &gt; 0.05).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>BR intervention led to greater gains in CMJ performance and improved 10-m sprint performance compared to the control group, with little improvement compared to the FR group based on the mean difference data.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health","volume":"29 ","pages":"Article 101740"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213398424002367/pdfft?md5=960db68d124f113507323ebe3b005009&pid=1-s2.0-S2213398424002367-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213398424002367","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Backward running (BR) and forward running (FR) activate distinct neuromuscular pathways and utilize differing biomechanical principles. Although FR is a well-established training modality, the potential advantages of BR for enhancing athletic performance and mitigating injury risk necessitate further exploration. Moreover, there exists a paucity of experimental data comparing these modalities in collegiate athlete populations.

Purpose

This study sought to quantify the differential effects of BR intervention, FR intervention, and no intervention on agility, power, and speed performance in collegiate athletes.

Methods

Thirty collegiate athletes (Aged 18–28 years) were randomly allocated to the BR group (n = 10), FR group (n = 10), and an absolute control (CON) group (n = 10). The BR and FR groups performed running sessions on a treadmill for matched time and intensity biweekly for eight weeks. All athletes were assessed for agility, speed, and power performance before and after the intervention.

Results

Results revealed a significant main effect of time (p < 0.05) and significant group × time interactions (p < 0.05) for all outcomes, mean difference data showed BR outperformed FR & CON in countermovement jump (CMJ) (p < 0.05). For the 10-m sprint performance, a between-group difference was identified. A post-hoc Bonferroni test showed that the BR group performed better than the CON group (p = 0.02) but was not statistically different from the FR group (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

BR intervention led to greater gains in CMJ performance and improved 10-m sprint performance compared to the control group, with little improvement compared to the FR group based on the mean difference data.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对大学生运动员体能表现的评估:随机对照试验:比较后向跑和前向跑
背景后向跑(BR)和前向跑(FR)激活不同的神经肌肉通路,并利用不同的生物力学原理。虽然前向跑是一种成熟的训练方式,但后向跑在提高运动成绩和降低受伤风险方面的潜在优势仍有待进一步探索。此外,在大学生运动员群体中对这些模式进行比较的实验数据也非常少。本研究旨在量化快速力量训练干预、快速力量训练干预和不干预对大学生运动员敏捷、力量和速度表现的不同影响。BR组和FR组在跑步机上进行跑步训练,时间和强度相匹配,每两周一次,持续八周。结果表明,在所有结果中,时间的主效应显著(p <0.05),组与时间的交互效应显著(p <0.05),平均差异数据显示,BR 在反向运动跳跃(CMJ)中的表现优于 FR & CON(p <0.05)。在 10 米短跑成绩方面,发现了组间差异。结论与对照组相比,BR 干预使 CMJ 成绩有了更大的提高,10 米短跑成绩也有所改善,但根据平均差异数据,与 FR 组相比,改善甚微。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health
Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
218
审稿时长
66 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health (CEGH) is a multidisciplinary journal and it is published four times (March, June, September, December) a year. The mandate of CEGH is to promote articles on clinical epidemiology with focus on developing countries in the context of global health. We also accept articles from other countries. It publishes original research work across all disciplines of medicine and allied sciences, related to clinical epidemiology and global health. The journal publishes Original articles, Review articles, Evidence Summaries, Letters to the Editor. All articles published in CEGH are peer-reviewed and published online for immediate access and citation.
期刊最新文献
Comparison of sonographic score and Bishop score in the prediction of successful labor induction in term patients: A prospective observational study Seroprevalence of strongyloidiasis and toxocariasis among hypereosinophilic patients seeking care at diagnostic centers in Tehran, Iran Educational intervention to raise awareness and foster responsibility for Chagas disease risk factors in the rural community of Texca, Guerrero, Mexico.” Circulating respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV-2 during 2021–2022 season in Tunisia: Epidemiological and dynamic changes Arabic validation and cross-cultural adaptation of climate anxiety scale
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1