An Analysis of Running Impact on Different Surfaces for Injury Prevention.

The impact that occurs on the runner's foot when it lands on the ground depends on numerous factors: footwear, running technique, foot strike and landing pattern, among others. However, the surface is a decisive factor that can be selected by the runner to improve their sports practice, thereby avoiding injuries. This study aimed to assess the number and magnitude of accelerations in impact (produced by the runner when their foot strikes the ground) on three different surfaces (grass, synthetic track, and concrete) in order to know how to prevent injuries. Thirty amateur runners (age 22.6 ± 2.43 years) participated in the study. They had to run consecutively on three different surfaces at the same speed, with a three axis-accelerometer placed on the sacrum and wearing their own shoes. The results showed that the running impacts differed based on the type of surface. Higher mean acceleration (MA) and mean peak acceleration (PA) in the impacts were observed on concrete compared to the other two surfaces. There were small differences for MA: 1.35 ± 0.1 g (concrete) vs. 1.30 ± 0.1 g (synthetic track) SD: 0.43 (0.33, 0.54) and 1.30 ± 0.1 g (grass) SD: 0.36 (0.25, 0.46), and small differences for PA: 3.90 ± 0.55 g (concrete) vs. 3.68 ± 0.45 g (synthetic track) SD 0.42 (0.21, 0.64) and 3.76 ± 0.48 g (grass) SD 0.27 (0.05, 0.48), implying that greater impacts were produced on concrete compared to synthetic track and grass. The number of peaks of 4 to 5 g of total acceleration was greater for concrete, showing small differences from synthetic track: SD 0.23 (-0.45, 0.9). Additionally, the number of steps was higher on synthetic track (34.90 ± 2.67), and small differences were shown compared with concrete (33.37 ± 2.95) SD 0.30 (-0.25, 0.85) and with grass (35.60 ± 3.94) SD 0.36 (-0.19, 0.91). These results may indicate a change in technique based on the terrain. Given the increasing popularity of running, participants must be trained to withstand the accelerations in impact that occur on different surfaces in order to prevent injuries.

How Does Instability Affect Bench Press Performance? Acute Effect Analysis with Different Loads in Trained and Untrained Populations.

(I) The execution of different sports involves a significant number of throws, jumps, or direction changes, so the body must be as stable as possible while performing a specific action. However, there is no classification of unstable devices and their influence on performance variables. Furthermore, the effect on athletes' experience using instability is unknown. (II) The aim of this study was to analyze the power and speed parameters in bench press with different loads and unstable executions: (1) stable (SB), (2) with asymmetric load (AB), (3) with unstable load (UB), (4) on fitball (FB) and (5) on a Bosu® (BB). A total of 30 male participants (15 trained and 15 untrained) were evaluated for mean propulsive speed (MPS), maximum speed (MS), and power (PW) with different types of external load: a low load (40% of 1RM), medium load (60% of 1RM), and high load (80% of 1RM) in each condition. Variables were measured with an inertial dynamometer. (III) The best data were evidenced with SB, followed by AB (3-12%), UB (4-11%), FB (7-19%), and BB (14-23%). There were no differences between groups and loads (p > 0.05) except in the case of MS with 60% 1RM, where trained participants obtained 4% better data (p < 0.05). (IV) Executions with implements and equipment such as fitball and Bosu® do not seem to be the most recommended when the objective is to improve power or execution speed. However, situations where the load is unstable (AB and UB) seem to be a good alternative to improve stabilization work without high performance. Furthermore, experience does not seem to be a determining factor.

Sustainable Food Support during an Ultra-Endurance and Mindfulness Event: A Case Study in Spain.

The present industrial food-production system is not suitably ecological for the environment. Mindful nutrition in sport is a relevant emergent sub-discipline that could help reduce environmental degradation. This case study describes a sustainable support diet during an ultra-endurance running (UR) event called the "Indoor Everest Challenge". This UR challenge involved attaining the altitude of Mount Everest (8849 m) in a simulated way, in less than 24 h, without using ultra-processed food and without wasting plastics. During this challenge, a male athlete (34 years, weight: 78 kg, and height: 173 cm) wore a SenseWear Armband® (BodyMedia Inc., Pittsburg, PA, USA) accelerometer on his right arm to estimate energy expenditure. To supply his nutritional requirements, the athlete consumed only specially prepared homemade and organic food. All consumption was weighed and recorded in real-time; we determined nutrients using two databases: a food composition software, Dial Alce Ingenieria® (Madrid, Spain), to measure energy and macro- and micro-nutrients, and Phenol Explorer Database® (INRA Institut National de Recherche pour l'Alimentation, Paris, France) precisely to determine polyphenolic content. Most energy intake (up to 96%) came from plant foods. We found that subject consumed 15.8 g/kg-1/d-1 or 1242 g of carbohydrates (CHO), (2.4 g/kg-1/d-1) or 190 g of proteins (P), and 10,692 mL of fluid. The total energy intake (7580 kcal) showed a distribution of 65% CHO, 10% P, and 25% lipids (L). Furthermore, this sustainable diet lead to a high antioxidant intake, specifically vitamin C (1079 mg), vitamin E (57 mg), and total polyphenols (1910 mg). This sustainable approach was suitable for meeting energy, CHO, and P recommendations for UR. Physical and mental training (mindfulness) were integrated from the specific preliminary phase to the day of the challenge. The athlete completed this challenge in 18 h with a low environmental impact. This sports event had an educational component, as it awakened curiosity towards food sustainability.