Comparison of Balance and Strength Between Division I Collegiate Track & Field Athletes and Healthy, Active Individuals

Zack Olson, SPT, Trevor Bollinger, SPT, and Carl Schumann, SPT

(Click on image to expand)

14 Comments on “Comparison of Balance and Strength Between Division I Collegiate Track & Field Athletes and Healthy, Active Individuals

  1. Do you guys have a hypothesis as to why the the athletes had weaker ankles than the healthy controls?

    Like

    • We hypothesized that our athletes were primarily training in a linear direction on relatively flat surfaces, thus limiting the amount of ankle inversion and eversion strength gains to be made during their training regiments. This is compared to healthy college aged individuals who we believed may have been using multiple training surfaces and multi directional training.

      Like

  2. Is there a specific reason you guys chose to use the modified BESS to assess balance over any of the other outcome measures that could have been used?

    Like

    • As we were comparing to a previous study to look at the differences between track athletes and a general healthy population, we wanted to keep the outcome measures the same for better comparison and improved accuracy. Also, we worked in conjunction with the Y-balance research group who were focused more on the dynamic portion of the balance assessment in these same athletes.

      Like

  3. Great presentation, guys! What led to your decision to analyze specifically hip extension, hip abduction, ankle inversion, and ankle eversion strength? Was there a reason ankle dorsiflexion and plantarflexion weren’t included?

    Like

    • Hip abduction is known to be implemented in both multiple injuries and is a stabilizing muscle about the hips. ankle inversion and eversion were tested due to their implications on stability about the LE as a whole. There was no specific reason to leave out ankle DF and PF, other than limitations in time and resources.

      Like

  4. Great presentation. Do you believe that the middle distance runners had slightly stronger ankle inversion and eversion compared to the sprinting group but not as high as long distance group due to those individuals running outside on uneven surfaces on a regular basis though not as often as the long distance group?

    Like

    • They did have a higher ankle strength value however it was not statistically significant. This would be a good hypothesis to this phenomenon and would align with our current hypothesis.

      Like

  5. When analyzing the descriptive statistics did you find any differences between genders?

    Like

    • There was no significant different in any of these values when considering gender, considering these were strength ratios between muscle groups. There were more significant differences in event than gender.

      Like

  6. Great work guys. Your poster says that no differences were found between runners with an injury and without injury but do you know if there is a difference in injury rates within the different groups of runners due to the strength differences?

    Like

    • That is a good question Jon. We did not run the statistics to determine if injury and strength differences existed between different specialties. Based on the data I would not expect to see a different here but we did not run the data so I cannot say for sure.

      Like

  7. I like the formatting of your poster graphics and tables. I have a question about the last two sentences of your discussion/conclusion that may need some clarification. In the second to last sentence it says that long distance (may need to say sprinters?) runners have decreased eversion and inversion, and the following sentence seems to contradict it by saying long distance runners have stronger inverters and evertors. Please let me know if I am reading this improperly. Thank you!

    Like

    • Hey Micah, Nice catch we will need to edit this in our final submission. The distance athletes have stronger ankle stability musculature compared to the sprinter population. This was hypothesized to be due to training surfaces of the two groups. Thanks for the through evaluation of our poster, we appreciate the feedback!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s