4.5 Article

Sex differences in relationship between passive ankle stiffness and leg stiffness during hopping

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
Volume 45, Issue 16, Pages 2750-2754

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.09.008

Keywords

Lower extremity; Leg spring; Injury; Anterior cruciate ligament

Funding

  1. MIZUNO Sports Promotion Foundation
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24700770, 11J10718] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The goal of this study was to examine the hypothesis that the relationships between passive ankle stiffness and leg stiffness would be different between males and females. 10 males and 10 females performed hopping in place on two legs at three frequencies of 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 Hz. Based on a spring-mass model, leg stiffness, which is defined as the ratio of maximum ground reaction force to maximum center of mass displacement at the middle of the stance phase, was calculated using the vertical ground reaction force. Further, passive ankle stiffness was calculated as the slope of the passive ankle torque-angle relationship, which results from controlled passive ankle dorsiflexion. There was no significant difference in the leg stiffness between males and females at three hopping frequencies; however, females displayed less passive ankle stiffness than males. Further, significant positive linear relationships were found between the passive ankle stiffness and the leg stiffness for females at all hopping frequencies; however, there were no significant correlations between the passive ankle stiffness and the leg stiffness in males for all hopping frequencies. These results suggest that the relationship between the passive ankle stiffness and the leg stiffness are not the same between males and females, which may lead to a greater risk of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in females. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available