Biomechanical Analysis of the 10km-Run in a Triathlon World Cup Event: Differences Presented by Women Gold Medal

Abstract

In most of the triathlon races, the 10km-run is critical to win and, just a few seconds, may separate the gold and the silver medal. To our best knowledge, no study has analyzed the biomechanical differences among the first qualified triathletes during a top-level competition. The aims of the present study were: (1) to examine the different responses to the previous cycling between the gold medal and the other participants, and (2) to compare the biomechanical profiles during the 10km-run presented by the top-ranked triathletes. 16 women, participants at Madrid 2008 Triathlon World Cup, were analyzed. The first qualified triathlete (gold medal) showed significant differences (p<0.05) with the other participants in many of the analyzed variables. A higher stride length, a smaller stride frequency, a higher and more consistent horizontal distance hip-toe cap and a more extended knee angle of the support-leg at toe-off could explain the differences in 10km-run time between gold medal and the other participants.Key words: triathlon, cycle-run transition, competition, kinematics.Reference Data: Cala A, Cejuela R, Navarro E. Biomechanical analysis of the 10km-run in a triathlon world cup event: differences presented by women gold medal.

Elite Triathlete Profiles in Draft-Legal Triathlons as a Basis for Talent Identification

“…Comparing the biomechanical differences, a female World Cup winner showed a greater stride length, lower frequency, greater distance between the vertical projection of the hip and the heel at the strike, together with a larger angle in the extension of the knee of the supporting leg with respect to the toes than the rest of participants [ 55 ]. These characteristics can help to define an optimal running pattern, although it would be important to carry out similar studies with a large sample to help to verify whether it is a common pattern.…”

Untitled

“…There is little similarity between aims, protocol and statistical analysis between the studies. After assessing the full text of 17 studies, 8 were excluded from the systematic review for the following reasons: 2 studies had a modified Down and Black's quality index of less than 50% [16,17] and 6 studies did not comply with the systematic reviews inclusion and exclusion criteria when the full text was analysed [18][19][20][21][22][23].…”