The impact of the mechanical whole-body vibration experienced during military land transit on the physical attributes underpinning dismounted combatant physical performance: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this randomised controlled trial was to explore the impact of the mechanical WBV experienced during simulated military land transit on the physical attributes that underpin tasks performed by dismounted combatants. DESIGN: This study used a parallel group randomised control trial design. METHODS: Sixty participants were randomly assigned to one of four, 2-h laboratory-based simulations (restricted posture, sealed road, cross country or a control condition). A smaller sample of 16 Australian Defence Force infantry personnel served as a validation group and were exposed to the same conditions. Neither the restricted posture nor the control conditions were exposed to any WBV, but the former were secured in place using the built-in seat harness. Prior to, and following the assigned condition, participants performed a series of battlefield relevant physical performance tests including; drop jump, 20-m sprint, reactive agility, arm-hand steadiness, isometric mid-thigh pull, and sit-and-reach. RESULTS: Medium decreases in the drop jump were observed for both the sealed road (effect size [ES]=0.53) and cross-country (ES=0.97) simulation conditions indicating a decrease in performance of the jump phase. A large decrease in 20-m sprint performance was observed in both the sealed road (ES=1.37) and cross-country (ES=0.88) exposure conditions. Additionally, a large decrease in 20-m sprint performance was observed for the restricted posture (ES=1.02) exposure condition. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that exposure to WBV experienced during motorised land transit has a negative influence on aspects of lower body explosive strength.

Combining physical performance and Functional Movement Screen testing to identify elite junior Australian Football athletes at risk of injury.

The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) and physical performance testing are often suggested to be related to sports injury risk. This study explored if the combination of FMS and physical performance testing improved identification of non-contact injury risk over FMS testing alone in an elite junior Australian football cohort. Over a 3-year period, 573 players completed pre-season injury history questionnaires, FMS, physical performance testing (20-m sprint, vertical jump, planned agility testing, and shuttle run test), and subsequent in-season injury surveillance. Results: Neither previous injury or FMS score <14 were related to an increased risk of subsequent injury in isolation. The combination of FMS composite score ≤14 and previous injury moderately increased the risk of injury (Hazard ratio [HR] = 2.22 [1.09-4.54]). None of the physical performance measures improved the ability to predict injuries based on FMS composite score. FMS asymmetry was only associated with injury when combined with previous injury and vertical jump performance. Players with ≥1 FMS asymmetry and history of previous injury experienced a large increase in injury risk when vertical jump was poor (HR = 4.26 [1.35-13.42]) or good (HR = 3.17 [1.08-9.29]). Players with a combination of a good vertical jump, no previous injury, and no FMS asymmetries were also at moderately increased risk of injury (HR = 3.41 [1.11-10.42]). No physical performance tests improved the ability to identify non-contact injury risk using an FMS composite score threshold. However, a U-shaped relationship between vertical jump and injury risk was identified with both poor and good vertical jump height associated with a moderate-large increase in non-contact injury risk in the presence of ≥1 asymmetrical FMS sub-test.

Asymmetry during preseason Functional Movement Screen testing is associated with injury during a junior Australian football season.

OBJECTIVES: The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is a popular screening tool, however, the postulated relationship between prospective injury and FMS scoring remains sparsely explored in adolescent athletes. The aim of the study was to examine the association between pre-season FMS scores and injuries sustained during one regular season competition in elite adolescent Australian football players. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: 237 elite junior Australian football players completed FMS testing during the late pre-season phase and had their weekly playing status monitored during the regular season. The definition of an injury was 'a trauma which caused a player to miss a competitive match'. RESULTS: The median composite FMS score was 14 (mean=13.5±2.3). An apriori analysis revealed that the presence of ≥1 asymmetrical sub-test was associated with a moderate increase in the risk of injury (hazard ratio=2.2 [1.0-4.8]; relative risk=1.9; p=0.047; sensitivity=78.4%; specificity=41.0%). Notably, post-hoc analysis identified that the presence of ≥2 asymmetrical sub-tests was associated with an even greater increase in risk of prospective injury (hazard ratio=3.7 [1.6-8.6]; relative risk=2.8; p=0.003; sensitivity=66.7%; specificity=78.0%). Achieving a composite score of ≤14 did not substantially increase the risk of prospective injury (hazard ratio=1.1 [0.5-2.1]; p=0.834). CONCLUSIONS: Junior Australian football players demonstrating asymmetrical movement during pre-season FMS testing were more likely to sustain an injury during the regular season than players without asymmetry. Findings suggest that the commonly reported composite FMS threshold score of ≤14 was not associated with injury in elite junior AF players.

High prevalence of dysfunctional, asymmetrical, and painful movement in elite junior Australian Football players assessed using the Functional Movement Screen.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to describe the prevalence of dysfunctional, asymmetrical, and painful movement in junior Australian Football players using the Functional Movement Screen (FMS). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Elite junior male Australian Football players (n=301) aged 15-18 years completed pre-season FMS testing. The FMS consists of 7 sub-tests: deep squat, hurdle step, in-line lunge, shoulder mobility, active straight leg raise, trunk stability push-up (TSPU) and rotary stability. The shoulder mobility, TSPU, and rotary stability tests were combined with an accompanying clearing test to assess pain. Each sub-test was scored on an ordinal scale from 0 to 3 and summed to give a composite score out of 21. Composite scores ≤14 were operationally defined as indicating dysfunctional movement. Players scoring differently on left and right sides were considered asymmetrical. Players reported whether they missed any games due to injury in the preceding 22 game season. RESULTS: Sixty percent of players (n=182) had composite scores ≤14, 65% of players (n=196) had at least one asymmetrical sub-test, and 38% of players (n=113) had at least one painful sub-test. Forty-two percent of players (n=126) missed at least one game in the previous season due to injury. Previous injury did not influence composite score (p=0.951) or asymmetry (p=0.629). Players reporting an injury during the previous season were more likely to experience pain during FMS testing (odds ratio 1.97, 95% confidence interval 1.23-3.18; p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Junior Australian Football players demonstrate a high prevalence of dysfunctional, asymmetrical, and painful movement during FMS testing.

Predicting maximal aerobic speed through set distance time-trials.

PURPOSE: Knowledge of aerobic performance capacity allows for the optimisation of training programs in aerobically dominant sports. Maximal aerobic speed (MAS) is a measure of aerobic performance; however, the time and personnel demands of establishing MAS are considerable. This study aimed to determine whether time-trials (TT), which are shorter and less onerous than traditional MAS protocols, may be used to predict MAS. METHODS: 28 Australian Rules football players completed a test of MAS, followed by TTs of six different distances in random order, each separated by at least 48 h. Half of the participants completed TT distances of 1200, 1600 and 2000 m, and the others completed distances of 1400, 1800 and 2200 m. RESULTS: Average speed for the 1200 and 1400 m TTs were greater than MAS (P < 0.01). Average speed for 1600, 1800, 2000 and 2200 m TTs were not different from MAS (P > 0.08). Average speed for all TT distances correlated with MAS (r = 0.69-0.84; P < 0.02), but there was a negative association between the difference in average TT speed and MAS with increasing TT distance (r = -0.79; P < 0.01). Average TT speed over the 2000 m distance exhibited the best agreement with MAS. CONCLUSIONS: MAS may be predicted from the average speed during a TT for any distance between 1200 and 2200 m, with 2000 m being optimal. Performance of a TT may provide a simple alternative to traditional MAS testing.