Search

Safety standards for domestic trampolines are based on static-load testing using a factor of five times the maximum intended user mass. This paper presents a dynamic test method for trampolines, and provides measures of the users’ performance (e.g., peak acceleration, Accmax) and injury risk (e.g., mean rate of change of acceleration, Jerkmean). Uniform masses (41–116 kg) were dropped from 0.66 m onto the bed centre of nineteen different trampolines. Trampoline bed and spring stretches, mass flight time (FlightT) and accelerations were recorded using motion capture and accelerometers. Thirty-seven percent of trampolines exceeded the static safety standard bed deformation limits (80% of frame height) by 11 ± 6% with dynamic testing (mean ± standard deviation). Across all trampolines and masses dropped, the Accmax ranged from 5.1 to 7.6 g, suggesting the factor of five used in static-loading safety standards needs reviewing. Statistically significant negative correlations (p < 0.05) were found between trampoline bed diameter and Accmax (r = – 0.88), Jerkmean (r = – 0.77) and FlightT (r = – 0.82). Furthermore, significant correlations (p < 0.05) were also found between the mass dropped and Accmax (r = – 0.27), Jerkmean (r = – 0.59) and FlightT (r = 0.25). The combined effects of the spring constants, number of springs, bed diameters and masses dropped were described in predictive multivariate equations for Accmax (explained variance, R2 = 95%) and maximum vertical bed deformation (R2 = 85%). These findings from dynamic testing may assist manufacturers in designing trampolines that meet safety standards while maximising user performance and reducing injury risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental digital content is available in the text. Purpose: Foot strike patterns (FSP) influence landing mechanics, with rearfoot strike (RFS) runners exhibiting higher impact loading than forefoot strike (FFS) runners. The few studies that included midfoot strike (MFS) runners have typically grouped them together with FFS. In addition, most running studies have been conducted in laboratories. Advances in wearable technology now allow the measurement of runners' mechanics in their natural environment. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between FSP and impacts across a marathon race. Methods: A total of 222 healthy runners (119 males, 103 females; age, 44.1 ± 10.8 yr) running a marathon race were included. A treadmill assessment was undertaken to determine FSP. An ankle-mounted accelerometer recorded tibial shock (TS) over the course of the marathon. TS was compared between RFS, MFS, and FFS. Correlations between speed and impacts were examined between FSP. TS was also compared at the 10- and 40-km race points. Results: RFS and MFS runners exhibited similar TS (12.24 g ± 3.59 g vs 11.82 g ± 2.68 g , P = 0.46) that was significantly higher (P < 0.001 and P < 0.01, respectively) than FFS runners (9.88 g ± 2.51 g). In addition, TS increased with speed for both RFS (r = 0.54, P = 0.01) and MFS (r = 0.42, P = 0.02) runners, but not FFS (r = 0.05, P = 0.83). Finally, both speed (P < 0.001) and TS (P < 0.001) were reduced between the 10- and the 40-km race points. However, when normalized for speed, TS was not different (P = 0.84). Conclusions: RFS and MFS exhibit higher TS than FFS. In addition, RFS and MFS increase TS with speed, whereas FFS do not. These results suggest that the impact loading of MFS is more like RFS than FFS. Finally, TS, when normalized for speed, is similar between the beginning and the end of the race. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]