Cargando…

Estimating Alpine Skiers’ Energetics and Turn Radius Using Different Morphological Points

Alpine ski analysis has always been very challenging, mainly due to the environmental conditions, large field and rapid and dynamic skiers’ movements. Global navigation satellite system (GNSS) offers a solution adapted to outdoor testing, but the relationship between the point where the antenna is a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Meyer, Frédéric, Borrani, Fabio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6282051/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30555335
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01541
Descripción
Sumario:Alpine ski analysis has always been very challenging, mainly due to the environmental conditions, large field and rapid and dynamic skiers’ movements. Global navigation satellite system (GNSS) offers a solution adapted to outdoor testing, but the relationship between the point where the antenna is attached and the real centre of mass (CoM) position is still unknown. This article proposes to compare different points of the body used to quantify the performance of alpine skiers. 3D models of seven elite skiers performing giant slalom (GS) were built using multiple camera system and dedicated motion tracking software. CoM as well as pelvis, head and feet trajectories were deduced from the data. The potential and kinetic energies corresponding to these points were calculated, as well as the evolution of the turn radius during the turn cycle. Differences between values given by the CoM and the other morphological points were analyzed. The pelvis offered the best estimation of the CoM: No differences were found for the biomechanical parameters, except for the kinetic energy, where 2% of the turn cycle had significant different values. The head was less accurate compared to the pelvis, showing significant differences with CoM between 7 and 20% of the turn cycle depending on the parameter. Finally, the feet offered the worst results, with significant differences between 16 and 41% of the turn cycle. Energies and turn radius calculated by using pelvis in place of CoM offered similar patterns, allowing the analysis of mechanical and dissipation energy in GS. This may potentially enable easier testing methods to be proposed and tested.