Changes of direction (CODs) are key manoeuvres linked to decisive moments in sport and are also key actions associated with lower limb injuries. During sport athletes perform a diverse range of CODs, from various approach velocities and angles, thus the ability to change direction safely and quickly is of great interest. To our knowledge, a comprehensive review examining the influence of angle and velocity on change of direction (COD) biomechanics does not exist. Findings of previous research indicate the biomechanical demands of CODs are ‘angle’ and ‘velocity’ dependent and are both critical factors that affect the technical execution of directional changes, deceleration and reacceleration requirements, knee joint loading, and lower limb muscle activity. Thus, these two factors regulate the progression and regression in COD intensity. Specifically, faster and sharper CODs elevate the relative risk of injury due to the greater associative knee joint loading; however, faster and sharper directional changes are key manoeuvres for successful performance in multidirectional sport, which subsequently creates a ‘performance-injury conflict’ for practitioners and athletes. This conflict, however, may be mediated by an athlete’s physical capacity (i.e. ability to rapidly produce force and neuromuscular control). Furthermore, an ‘angle-velocity trade-off’ exists during CODs, whereby faster approaches compromise the execution of the intended COD; this is influenced by an athlete’s physical capacity. Therefore, practitioners and researchers should acknowledge and understand the implications of angle and velocity on COD biomechanics when: (1) interpreting biomechanical research; (2) coaching COD technique; (3) designing and prescribing COD training and injury reduction programs; (4) conditioning athletes to tolerate the physical demands of directional changes; (5) screening COD technique; and (6) progressing and regressing COD intensity, specifically when working with novice or previously injured athletes rehabilitating from an injury.

Dos'Santos, T, Thomas, C, Jones, PA, and Comfort, P. Mechanical determinants of faster change of direction speed performance in male athletes. J Strength Cond Res 31(3): 696-705, 2017-Mechanical variables during change of directions, for example, braking and propulsive forces, impulses, and ground contact times (GCT) have been identified as determinants of faster change of direction speed (CODS) performance. The purpose of this study was to investigate the mechanical determinants of 180° CODS performance with mechanical characteristic comparisons between faster and slower performers; while exploring the role of the penultimate foot contact (PEN) during the change of direction. Forty multidirectional male athletes performed 6 modified 505 (mod505) trials (3 left and right), and ground reaction forces were collected across the PEN and final foot contact (FINAL) during the change of direction. Pearson's correlation coefficients and coefficients of determination were used to explore the relationship between mechanical variables and mod505 completion time. Independent T-tests and Cohen's d effect sizes (ES) were conducted between faster (n = 10) and slower (n = 10) mod505 performers to explore differences in mechanical variables. Faster CODS performance was associated (p ≤ 0.05) with shorter GCTs (r = 0.701-0.757), greater horizontal propulsive forces (HPF) (r = -0.572 to -0.611), greater horizontal braking forces (HBF) in the PEN (r = -0.337), lower HBF ratios (r = -0.429), and lower FINAL vertical impact forces (VIF) (r = 0.449-0.559). Faster athletes demonstrated significantly (p ≤ 0.05, ES = 1.08-2.54) shorter FINAL GCTs, produced lower VIF, lower HBF ratios, and greater HPF in comparison to slower athletes. These findings suggest that different mechanical properties are required to produce faster CODS performance, with differences in mechanical properties observed between fast and slower performers. Furthermore, applying a greater proportion of braking force during the PEN relative to the FINAL may be advantageous for turning performance.

Previous studies have reported an association between eccentric strength (ECC-STR) and change of direction (COD) ability. Little is known about how ECC-STR facilitates COD maneuvers. The aim of this study was to examine the role of ECC-STR during a 180° COD task in 18 female soccer players. Each player performed six trials of a 180° COD task whereby three-dimensional motion data from 10 Qualisys Pro-Reflex infrared cameras (240 Hz) and ground reaction forces (GRFs) from two AMTI force platforms (1200 Hz) were collected. Relative eccentric knee extensor (ECC-EXT) and flexor (ECC-FLEX) peak torque was collected from both limbs at 60°·s−1 using a Kin Com isokinetic dynamometer. Large correlations were revealed between COD performance (time to complete 5 m approach, 180° turn, 5 m return) and ECC-EXT (R = −0.674) and ECC-FLEX (R = −0.603). Moderate to large correlations were observed between approach velocity (AV) and COD performance (R = −0.484) and ECC-EXT (R = 0.724). Stronger participants (n = 9) recorded significantly (p < 0.05) faster AV (4.01 ± 0.18 vs. 3.74 ± 0.24 m·s−1, d = 1.27) and a greater reduction in velocity (−1.55 ± 0.17 vs. −1.37 ± 0.21 m·s−1, d = −0.94) during penultimate contact than weaker (n = 9) subjects. Greater ECC-STR is associated with faster COD performance in female soccer players, as stronger players are better able to decelerate during penultimate contact from faster approach velocities.

No abstract

The aims of this study were to quantify asymmetries in change of direction (COD) performance via completion time and COD deficit, and determine its influence on asymmetry profiling of COD ability. A secondary aim was to evaluate the relationship between linear speed, 505 time and COD deficit. Forty-three youth netball athletes (age: 15.4 ± 1.1 years, height: 1.71 ± 0.06 m, mass: 63.3 ± 6.6 kg) performed the 505 for both left and right limbs and a 10 m sprint test. Asymmetries in 505 completion time and COD deficit were quantified for dominant (D) (faster) and non-dominant (ND) (slower) directions. Paired sample t-tests revealed significant differences between D and ND directions for 505 time and COD deficit (p < 0.0001, g = -0.53 to -0.60). Substantially greater asymmetries for COD deficit were observed compared to 505 time (p < 0.0001, g = 1.03). Only two subjects displayed an asymmetry ≥10% based on 505 times. Conversely, based on COD deficit, 21 subjects demonstrated asymmetries ≥10%. Large significant associations were observed between 505 time and COD deficit (r = 0.500-0.593, p ≤ 0.002). Large significant inverse associations were demonstrated between 10 m sprint time and COD deficit (r = -0.539 to -0.633, p ≤ 0.001) indicating faster athletes had longer COD deficits. Nine subjects were classified differently for COD ability when comparing standardized scores for 505 time versus COD deficit. Quantification of asymmetries in COD ability should be based on COD deficits; inspection of 505 times only could lead to misinterpretations of an athlete's COD symmetry and COD ability. Faster youth netball athletes demonstrate longer COD deficits, thus, researchers and practitioners are encouraged to improve their youth netball athletes' ability to rapidly decelerate, change direction and reaccelerate from 180° turns.

The aim of this study was to investigate the whole-body biomechanical determinants of 180° change of direction (COD) performance. 61 male athletes (age: 20.7 ± 3.8 years, height: 1.77 ± 0.06 m, mass: 74.7 ± 10.0 kg) from multiple sports (soccer, rugby, and cricket) completed 6 trials of the modified and traditional 505 on their right leg, whereby 3D motion and ground reaction force data were collected during the COD. Pearson's and Spearman's correlations were used to explore the relationships between biomechanical variables and COD completion time. Independent T-tests and Hedges' g effect sizes were conducted between faster (top 20) and slower (bottom 20) performers to explore differences in biomechanical variables. Key kinetic and kinematic differences were demonstrated between faster and slower performers with statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) and meaningful differences (g = 0.56-2.70) observed.Faster COD performers displayed greater peak and mean horizontal propulsive forces (PF) in shorter ground contact times, more horizontally orientated peak resultant braking and PFs, greater horizontal to vertical mean and peak braking and PF ratios, greater approach velocities, and displayed greater reductions in velocity over key instances of the COD. Additionally, faster performers displayed greater penultimate foot contact (PFC) hip, knee, and ankle dorsi-flexion angles, greater medial trunk lean, and greater internal pelvic and foot rotation. These aforementioned variables were also moderately to very largely (r or ρ = 0.317-0.795, p ≤ 0.013) associated with faster COD performance. Consequently, practitioners should focus not only on developing their athletes' ability to express force rapidly, but also develop their technical ability to apply force horizontally. Additionally, practitioners should consider coaching a 180° turning strategy which emphasizes high PFC triple flexion for center of mass lowering while P a g e | 2 also encouraging whole-body rotation to effectively align the body towards the exit for faster performance.

Objectives:The aim of this investigation was to assess the use of isometric strength testing as a determinant of sprint and change of direction performance in collegiate athletes. Design and Methods: Fourteen male collegiate athletes (mean ± SD; age = 21 ± 2.4 years; height =176 ± 9.0 cm; body mass = 72.8 ± 9.4 kg) participated in the study. Maximal strength was assessed via an isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). Isometric mid-thigh pull testing involved trials with peak force (IPF), maximum rate of force development (mRFD), impulse at 100 ms (IP 100) and 300 ms (IP 300) determined. Sprint and COD performance was measured using 5-and 20-m sprint performance, and a modified 505 test. Relationships between variables (IMTP, sprint and COD) were analysed using Pearson's product -moment correlation. Results: Results suggest that IP 300 displayed the strongest relationships with 5-and 20-m sprint performance (r = −0.51 and −0.54, respectively). The results demonstrate maximum force production measures during IMTP correlate to sprint and COD ability in collegiate athletes. Conclusion: Isometric mid-thigh pull force-time measures are related to athletic performance (acceleration and sprinting), and thus are recommended for use in athlete monitoring and assessment.(Journal of Trainology 2015;4:6-10)

Objectives:To determine the impact of between limb asymmetries in hop performance on change of direction speed (CODS). Design and Methods: Twenty-two multisport collegiate athletes (mean ± SD; age: 21.8 ± 3.4 years, height: 178.1 ± 6.7 cm, mass:73.5 ± 7.1kg) performed three single and triple horizontal hops for distance per limb, followed by three modified 505 and 90˚cut CODS trials each side to establish imbalances between right and left, and dominant (D) and non-dominant (ND) limbs. Limb dominance was defined as the limb that produced the furthest hop or faster CODS performance.Results: Paired sample t-tests revealed no significant differences in hop performance and CODS performance between right and left limbs (p > 0.05, g ≤ 0.11), however, significant differences were observed when comparing D and ND limbs (p < 0.001, g = 0.46-0.61). No significant correlations were observed between hop imbalance and CODS performance (p > 0.05, r ≤ 0.35). Low agreements (32-55%) were demonstrated between like for like identifications of asymmetry for CODS and hop performance. Conclusions:Imbalances in hop and CODS were present; however, greater hop imbalances were not detrimental to CODS.Furthermore, the D limb for hopping did not necessarily correspond to faster performance from that limb during 180˚ turns and 90˚ cuts (plant foot). Collegiate male multi-sport athletes with imbalances within the range reported within this study (≤ 15%) should not experience associated CODS detriments.(Journal of Trainology 2017;6:35-41)