Individual pathways in the development of forceful throwing

Halverson, Roberton, and Langendorfer (1982) reported the development of children ages 6-13 years filmed longitudinally performing the forceful overarm throw. These authors described the children's progress through developmental sequences for trunk, humerus, and forearm actions; however, they did not study developmental relationships ("profiles") across these components. This paper reports how the profiles changed in the same children across trials within filming sessions and over time. The data revealed both common and individual developmental pathways. The frequencies of some pathways were not chance occurrences (p < or = .01), suggesting that within-person constraints eliminated certain movement relationships while encouraging others. The authors hypothesize that the kinematics of trunk rotation may serve as a control parameter for pattern change.     

Index to Volume XLI

Other Index

Index to Volume XLI     

“Stop sending your kids across our border:” Discursively constructing the unaccompanied youth migrant

The recent migration of 65,000 children across the southwestern border, coupled with allegations of abuse by the U.S. Border Patrol, enables the investigation of an overlooked immigrant category: the unaccompanied youth migrant. Analyzing audience responses to news reports of the abuse, we find that established disparaging immigrant tropes apply, describing the children as an economic burden, disease carriers, and offspring of irresponsible families. We uncover two new themes: Youth migrants are channels whereby criminals may infiltrate the U.S., and manipulate legal authorities to remain in the U.S. Finally, we demonstrate how global compassion is strategically deployed to qualify harsh retaliatory measures.     

Effects of active and passive recovery on performance during repeated-sprint swimming

Abstract

The effect of active and passive recovery on repeated-sprint swimming bouts was studied in eight elite swimmers. Participants performed three trials of two sets of front crawl swims with 5 min rest between sets. Set A consisted of four 30-s bouts of high-intensity tethered swimming separated by 30 s passive rest, whereas Set B consisted of four 50-yard maximal-sprint swimming repetitions at intervals of 2 min. Recovery was active only between sets (AP trial), between sets and repetitions of Set B (AA trial) or passive throughout (PP trial). Performance during and metabolic responses after Set A were similar between trials. Blood lactate concentration after Set B was higher and blood pH was lower in the PP (18.29 ± 1.31 mmol · l^?1 and 7.12 ± 0.11 respectively) and AP (17.56 ± 1.22 mmol · l^?1 and 7.14 ± 0.11 respectively) trials compared with the AA (14.13 ± 1.56 mmol · l^?1 and 7.23 ± 0.10 respectively) trial (P < 0.01). Performance time during Set B was not different between trials (P > 0.05), but the decline in performance during Set B of the AP trial was less marked than in the AA or PP trials (main effect of sprints, P < 0.05). Results suggest that active recovery (60% of the 100-m pace) could be beneficial between training sets, and may compromise swimming performance between repetitions when recovery durations are short (< 2 min).