对背越式跳高助跑技术的认识

背越式跳高的助跑技术是背越式跳高的关键技术之一,弧线助跑技术的好坏、速度的快慢直接影响成绩的提高。背越式跳高助跑技术的关键因素是助跑速度和弧形助跑路线。     

背越式跳高“小弧线教学法”原理与应用

笔者通过对体院学生背越式跳高常见错误动作类型及其产生原因的调查分析 ,根据小弧线助跑的生物力学原理与动作技能学习的类属同化理论 ,提出了背越式跳高的“小弧线教学法”及其应用原则。认为小弧线助跑可以使身体获得较大的内倾 ,可帮助初学者较好地体会和掌握助跑的节奏与起跳过杆技术 ,从而有利于提高背越式跳高教学效果     

背越式跳高快速弧线助跑起跳的理论探讨

为进一步研究背越式跳高起跳理论,对背越式跳高弧线助跑起跳过程进行分析,揭示背越式跳高的优越性在于充分发挥和利用助跑速度提高起跳效果,其实质是弧线助跑起跳为背越式跳高身体重心运动方向的提早转变和垂直速度的累积创造了有利条件。背越式跳高起跳是“两步”起跳     

试论如何掌握好背越式跳高的背弓动作

背越式跳高采用的是弧线助跑，即在弧线助跑的延长线上放脚完成起跳动作，使人体腾起后形成一处向上、向前的切线抛物线运动轨迹，上身背对横杆完成背弓的过杆动作。较合理利用起跳后人体所获得的有限高度完成好背弓过杆动作，则成为背越式跳高教学中的重点、难点。而掌握好背弓动作，又与准确的弧线助跑适宜起跳点有着密切的关系。     

背越式跳高小弧线助跑技术的教学与训练

论述了背越式跳高弧线助跑技术的教学方法与训练手段,旨在为提高运动员的成绩提供参考。     

背越式跳高助跑"曲率"与起跳技术的关系探讨

背越式跳高技术的问世和不断改进及技术环节上的创新，在田径运动技术发展史上有着重大意义。弧线助跑和起跳是背越式跳高完整技术中最重要的组成部分，尤其是后程2～3步助跑与起跳的有机衔接对强化起跳效果更为重要。研究助跑“曲率”与起跳衔接的关系，总结技术训练实践的经验并进行理论分析，以求达到更高的技术训练水平。     

背越式跳高助跑技术中常见错误及纠正方法

背越式跳高一般采用“J”的弧线助跑技术，助跑的主要任务是获得必要的水平速度，并为提高起跳效果和顺利地越过横杆创造条件。可以说成功的起跳是背越式跳高的关键。相比较跳远项目的助跑，背越式跳高的助跑就难多了，在短短的8～12步助跑中有方向的变化、路线的变化、速度的变化、重心的变化等等，所以初学者很难把握，有以下常见的错误：     

背越式跳高弧线助跑技术改进的有效途径及相关的探讨

弧线助跑是背越式跳高完整技术中一个重要组成部份。其环节技术及技术细节的改进完善, 对提高起跳效果进而提高运动成绩作用显而易见和不容忽视。笔者就上述问题进行了教学实验, 分析与探讨, 提出了一些改进完善弧线助跑的途径与方法     

运用反馈控制原理改进背越式跳高弧线助跑技术训练的研究

前言弧线助跑是背越式跳高的重要技术特点之一,弧线助跑技术的优劣对背越式跳高成绩具有十分重要的影响。因此,国内外学者对背越式跳高弧线助跑问题进行了许多研究,特别是关于最优助跑弧线的研究,更引起专家们的关注。然而,有关弧线助跑技术的控制训练问题的研究尚未见到。背越式跳高弧线助跑技术训练是训练中非常重要的一环。因此,进行这方面的研究是非常必要的。按照控制论的观点,可把训练过程看作一个系统,该系统是由教练员、运动员、知     

背越式跳高助跑的生物力学分析

背越式跳高的助跑是跳高技术的一个关键环节，助跑的成功与否又主要取决于助跑的弧线和速度，本文从生物力学角度对此进行了研究分析。     

弧圈球技术集击球稳健性和威胁性于一体的物理分析

运用物理方法,从弧圈球对乒乓球运行的速度、弧线形状、弧线高度、弧线方向等的影响,以及和球台、球拍作用的效果进行分析,揭示了孤圈球技术集击球稳健性和威胁性于一体的物理原因.     

800 m跑抢道标志线划法的疑议

800m抢道标志线从原来划等弧到现在划渐开线的曲线型划法，其理论上是正确的，但在实际操作过程中很难划规范和准确。通过裁判实践、查阅文献和专家座谈，重新计算了切入差并提出将抢道标志线划成直线，并划在第二直、曲段分界线前，优于曲线型划法，能为运动员、裁判员提供更加便利的判定方法，且不影响竞赛的公平性和起跑位置的变化。     

中跑(1 000m达标)教学方法的实验研究

长期以来，大学生在体育锻炼中对耐力跑项目尤其是一年一度的达标1000m跑，普遍存在害怕心理。在教学实验中，运用测心率、按规定时间匀速跑、逐渐加长跑的距离等简单、实用、易学的科学方法，以提高学生对中跑的认识和兴趣，逐步树立中跑健身锻炼的思想理念。     

Thinking about your running movement makes you less efficient: attentional focus effects on running economy and kinematics

A number of studies have shown that attentional focus instructions can effect running economy. This study assessed spiroergometry, as well as running kinematics as a possible mechanism to explain these effects. Twelve runners had to focus their attention on either their running movement, their breathing or on a video while running on a treadmill at a set, submaximum speed. Spiroergometry and running kinematics were measured. Results revealed worse running economy in both internal focus conditions (breathing and movement) compared to the external focus condition (video), replicating previous findings. In addition, vertical oscillation during the running movement was elevated in the movement compared to the video condition, indicating a less efficient running style. No changes in kinematics were found for the breathing compared to the video condition. Therefore, consciously focusing on the running movement moves runners away from their optimised running pattern and leads to detriments in economy. The decreases in running economy in the breathing condition can be better explained by changes in breathing patterns.     

The influence of a new sole geometry while running

Abstract

Running shoe construction influences the forces experienced by the human body while running. The aim of this study was to ascertain whether the new sole architecture of the On running shoe reduces ground reaction forces compared with running barefoot or with a conventional running shoe and whether it changes the physiological parameters of running in shoes. Thirty-seven trained male participants were studied while running at submaximal speeds wearing their conventional running shoe, wearing the On running shoe and while barefoot. Additional biomechanical and physiological values were investigated to determine whether the On running shoe induced any changes in these parameters compared with conventional running shoes. The On exhibited similar ground reaction forces as conventional shoes, and these were different from the forces experienced while running barefoot, showing that the On was more similar to typical shoed running. No difference was observed in running economy between the On and a conventional shoe model. However, a slightly lower heart rate (HR) (≈1.3%) and blood lactate concentration (≈5.5%) were observed during submaximal running with the On running shoe compared with a conventional running shoe, as well as a greater lateral deviation of the centre of pressure mid-stance. The ramifications of the reduced HR and blood lactate concentration for competitive performance are unknown.     

水中跑在康复训练中的应用及研究进展

水中跑是十分常见的水下训练手段,常见的运动方式有深水跑、浅水跑、水中跑台跑。水中跑同陆上跑相比,具有不同的特征,在康复训练中有重要的作用。通过文献资料法,总结分析国内外关于水中跑的应用和研究进展,为以后的科研和应用提供理论依据。     

Can minimal running shoes imitate barefoot heel-toe running patterns? A comparison of lower leg kinematics

BackgroundNumerous studies about the interaction between footwear (and barefoot) and kinematic and kinetic outcomes have been published over the last few years. Recent studies however lead to the conclusion that the assumed interactions depend mainly on the subjects' experience of barefoot (BF) walking/running, the preferred running strike pattern, the speed, the hardness of the surface, the thickness of the midsole material, and the runners' level of ability. The aim of the present study was to investigate lower leg kinematics of BF running and running in minimal running shoes (MRS) to assess comparability of BF kinematics in both conditions. To systematically compare both conditions we monitored the influencing variables described above in our measurement setup. We hypothesized that running in MRS does not alter lower leg kinematics compared to BF running.MethodsThirty-seven subjects, injury-free and active in sports, ran BF on an EVA foam runway, and also ran shod wearing Nike Free 3.0 on a tartan indoor track. Lower-leg 3D kinematics was measured to quantify rearfoot and ankle movements. Skin markers were used in both shod and BF running.ResultsAll runners revealed rearfoot strike pattern when running barefoot. Differences between BF and MRS running occurred particularly during the initial stance phase of running, both in the sagittal and the frontal planes. BF running revealed a flatter foot placement, a more plantar flexed ankle joint and less inverted rearfoot at touchdown compared to MRS running.ConclusionBF running does not change the landing automatically to forefoot running, especially after a systematic exclusion of surface and other influencing factors. The Nike Free 3.0 mimics some BF features. Nevertheless, changes in design of the Nike Free should be considered in order to mimic BF movement even more closely.     

关于我国越野跑赛事运营管理的若干问题探讨——基于第四届黄河石林百公里越野赛

近年来伴随着马拉松热,越野跑赛事在我国迅速发展。赛道路况复杂、户外天气多变等因素,导致越野跑赛事危险性较高。加之我国越野跑赛事起步晚,发展尚不充分,致使部分越野跑赛事的安全性得不到保障。第四届黄河石林山地马拉松百公里越野赛事故,更是敲响了警钟。安全性是越野跑赛事乃至整个体育赛事的根本,提高越野跑赛事的安全性迫在眉睫。通过文献资料研究、案例研究等方法,以提高越野跑赛事的安全性为逻辑主线,以第四届黄河石林百公里越野赛为例,对越野跑运动赛事组织标准、越野跑运动员的自身安全意识与赛事风险认知、越野跑赛事标准的执行、越野跑运动赛事准入制度、越野跑赛事监督等方面进行分析。基于此,对提高越野跑赛事的安全性提出建议。     

The effect of a cadence retraining protocol on running biomechanics and efficiency: a pilot study

Many studies have documented the association between mechanical deviations from normal and the presence or risk of injury. Some runners attempt to change mechanics by increasing running cadence. Previous work documented that increasing running cadence reduces deviations in mechanics tied to injury. The long-term effect of a cadence retraining intervention on running mechanics and energy expenditure is unknown. This study aimed to determine if increasing running cadence by 10% decreases running efficiency and changes kinematics and kinetics to make them less similar to those associated with injury. Additionally, this study aimed to determine if, after 6 weeks of cadence retraining, there would be carryover in kinematic and kinetic changes from an increased cadence state to a runner’s preferred running cadence without decreased running efficiency. We measured oxygen uptake, kinematic and kinetic data on six uninjured participants before and after a 6-week intervention. Increasing cadence did not result in decreased running efficiency but did result in decreases in stride length, hip adduction angle and hip abductor moment. Carryover was observed in runners’ post-intervention preferred running form as decreased hip adduction angle and vertical loading rate.     

Barefoot running survey: Evidence from the field

BackgroundRunning is becoming an increasingly popular activity among Americans with over 50 million participants. Running shoe research and technology has continued to advance with no decrease in overall running injury rates. A growing group of runners are making the choice to try the minimal or barefoot running styles of the pre-modern running shoe era. There is some evidence of decreased forces and torques on the lower extremities with barefoot running, but no clear data regarding how this corresponds with injuries. The purpose of this survey study was to examine factors related to performance and injury in runners who have tried barefoot running.MethodsThe University of Virginia Center for Endurance Sport created a 10-question survey regarding barefoot running that was posted on a variety of running blogs and Facebook pages. Percentages were calculated for each question across all surveys. Five hundred and nine participants responded with over 93% of them incorporating some type of barefoot running into their weekly mileage.ResultsA majority of the participants (53%) viewed barefoot running as a training tool to improve specific aspects of their running. However, close to half (46%) viewed barefoot training as a viable alternative to shoes for logging their miles. A large portion of runners initially tried barefoot running due to the promise of improved efficiency (60%), an attempt to get past injury (53%) and/or the recent media hype around the practice (52%). A large majority (68%) of runners participating in the study experienced no new injuries after starting barefoot running. In fact, most respondents (69%) actually had their previous injuries go away after starting barefoot running. Runners responded that their previous knee (46%), foot (19%), ankle (17%), hip (14%), and low back (14%) injuries all proceeded to improve after starting barefoot running.ConclusionPrior studies have found that barefoot running often changes biomechanics compared to shod running with a hypothesized relationship of decreased injuries. This paper reports the result of a survey of 509 runners. The results suggest that a large percentage of this sample of runners experienced benefits or no serious harm from transitioning to barefoot or minimal shoe running.