What’s in a warm-up? A preliminary investigation of how European dressage riders and show jumpers warm-up their horses for training and at competition

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
M.M. Chatel ◽  
J.M. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Perceived Stress ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Physiological Stress ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Technical Skills ◽  
Intense Exercise ◽  
Warm Up ◽  
Equestrian Sports ◽  
Show Jumping

Equestrian sports such as dressage and show jumping cause physical and physiological stress on the horses’ musculoskeletal structures, which can lead to decreased performance and injury. Warming-up prior to intense exercise can increase utilisation of the aerobic pathway, increase performance and decrease injury risk. Whilst duration of equestrian warm-up regimes has been reported, details of which gaits and skills related tasks, such as jumping and lateral movements, riders elect to use have not been evaluated to date. The purpose of this study was to understand dressage and show jumping riders’ decision-making when warming up at home and prior to a competition. Surveys (dressage: 39 questions; show jumping: 41 questions) were distributed online via social media. Mann Whitney U tests identified significant differences in warming up practice between dressage and show jumping riders. Most riders reported that a warm-up was beneficial for getting the horse ready for work, increasing responsiveness to aids, enhancing suppleness and relaxation, and decreasing injury risk. Both dressage and show jumping riders typically warm-up between 10-20 min. While dressage riders use the walk as their main warm-up gait, show jumpers preferred the trot. Both dressage riders and show jumpers incorporate technical skills in their warm-up such as lateral work, and quick transitions (when riders change gait for only few strides before changing again). Show jumpers include 4-10 jumping efforts, using different fence types. During a competition most dressage and show jumping riders agreed that factors such as perceived stress level of both the horse and rider, crowdedness of the arena, arena footing and size, as well as time allocated by the venue, were important factors that could impact the duration and content of their warm-up routines. Both groups of riders considered horses were sufficiently ‘warmed up’ when they were responsive to the aids and felt supple and relaxed.

An evaluation of factors affecting show jumping warm-up on subsequent show jumping performance in 1.30 m class

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
M.M. Chatel ◽  
G. Tabor ◽  
J.R. Williams ◽  
J.M. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Injury Risk ◽  
Physiological Stress ◽  
Warm Up ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Jumping Performance ◽  
Oxygen Kinetics ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Number Of Classes ◽  
Show Jumping ◽  
Age And Sex

Show jumping causes physical and physiological stress on horses’ musculoskeletal structures, which can lead to decreased performance and injury. Appropriate warm-ups can enhance performance, decrease injury risk, as well as increase oxygen kinetics for better efficiency. Despite this, little is known for how warm-up routines affect show jumping performance. Forty-five warm-up routines of show jumpers preparing to enter the show ring were recorded and analysed. Kruskal Wallis analyses with post-hoc Mann Whitney U tests identified if the number of classes combinations completed, types of jumps attempted, warm-up duration, and time spent in each gait during the warm-up varied with rider and horse sex and age, and faults. Spearman correlations assessed if relationships occurred between warm-up duration and content, and the number of faults in the show ring, and horse age. Warm-up ranged from 3:51 to 62:46 min (median 15:09 min) and included at least two jumps (range 2-15). Walk was the most common gait, while upright fences were jumped the most. Knocking down or refusing a fence when warming up did not affect performance. Male riders jumped uprights twice as much as female riders (P<0.03) but this did not impact their performances. Jumping a class prior to the 1.30 affected warm-up, competitors spent longer on the flat before jumping in they had competed earlier in the day (P<0.05) and had fewer jump attempts if they had competed in the class just prior to the 1.30 m (P<0.007). Even though no significant differences were detected, combinations which accumulated >8 faults spent less time warming up. These results suggest warm-up tactics, riders and horses’ age and sex did not influence significantly fault accumulation in the show ring, however warm up routines were influenced by rider decision making and horse age.

scholarly journals A Preliminary Investigation: Evaluating the Effectiveness of an Occupational Specific Training Program to Improve Lower Body Strength and Speed for Law Enforcement Officers

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (14) ◽  
pp. 7685
Author(s):  
Ian Bonder ◽  
Andrew Shim ◽  
Robert G. Lockie ◽  
Tara Ruppert
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Training Program ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Lower Body ◽  
Specific Training ◽  
Body Strength ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Lower Body Strength ◽  
Post Shift

Based on current law enforcement officer (LEO) duties, musculoskeletal injury risk is elevated due to the unpredictable nature of physically demanding tasks. The purpose of this 4-week study was to determine the effectiveness of a 15-min post-shift standardized occupational specific training program. The standardized program was designed to improve lower-body strength and speed to aid physically demanding task performance. Seven male LEOs completed the program after their 12-h shift. Subjects were required to use the department fitness center to perform the 15-min standardized program consisting of a dynamic warm-up, 4 sets of 3 repetitions on hex-bar deadlift and four 20-m sprints. Two minutes of rest was required between each set of 3 repetitions on hex-bar deadlift and 1 min of rest between each 20-m sprint. A dependent T-test was used between pre-test and post-test scores for hex-bar deadlift (HBD) and sprint. Data revealed significant improvements in relative lower-body strength with HBD (p ≤ 0.001). However, insignificant results were demonstrated with the 20-m sprint (p ≤ 0.262). In conclusion, a 15-min post-shift workout can improve lower-body strength as measured by the hex-bar deadlift. However, data indicated running speed may require a different training approach to improve the 20-m sprint.

Is it time to move from mandatory stretching? We need to differentiate “Can I” from “Do I Have To?”

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Afonso ◽  
Jesús Olivares-Jabalera ◽  
Renato Andrade
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Warm Up ◽  
Alternative Interventions ◽  
Passive Stretching ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
Potential Applications ◽  
The Times ◽  
The Many

The effects and usefulness of active and passive static stretching have raised heated debates. Over the years, the pendulum has swung from a glorified vision to their vilification. As most of the times, the truth often lies somewhere in-between. But even if there was no controversy surrounding the effects of static and passive stretching (which there is), and even if their effects were homogeneously positive (which they are not), that would not be sufficient to make stretching mandatory for practicing physical exercise, for most populations. Amidst the many discussions, an important issue has remained underexplored: the prerequisites to answer the question “Can I?” are not sufficient to answer the question “Do I have to?”, especially when alternative interventions are available. In this current opinion paper, we address four potential applications of stretching: (i) warm-up; (ii) cool-down; (iii) range of motion; and (iv) injury risk. We argue that while stretching can be used in the warm-up and cool-down phases of the training, its inclusion is not mandatory, and its effectiveness is still questionable. Stretching can be used to improve range of motion, but alternative and effective interventions are available. The role of stretching in injury risk is also controversial, and the literature often misinterprets association with causation and assumes that stretching is the only intervention to improve flexibility and range of motion. Overall, the answer to the question “Can I stretch?” is “yes”. But the answer to the question “Do I have to?” is “no, not really”.

Stress, Operator Error, and Transportation Accidents

2021 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 1453-1458
Author(s):  
Caroline Crump ◽  
Stephen Walenchok ◽  
Chris Johnson ◽  
Joseph Pauszek ◽  
Douglas Young
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Information Processing ◽  
Motor Vehicle ◽  
Physiological Stress ◽  
Optimal Performance ◽  
Motor Execution ◽  
Human Errors ◽  
Operator Error ◽  
Vehicle Operation

Psychological and physiological stress impacts information processing at many levels, from attention and perceptual processes to reasoning and decision-making to motor execution. These effects can be highly adaptive, resulting in optimal performance. However, these effects can also result in serious degradation of performance, leading to human errors that often contribute to accidents. In this paper we review the variety of detrimental effects stress can have on different stages of information processing and provide examples of how these deficits can lead to accidents in motor vehicle operation and aviation.

An Analysis of Congestion During Running Events from the Perspective of Runners: Prevalence, Impact on Safety and Satisfaction, and Preferred Controls

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Peckover ◽  
Aldo Raineri ◽  
Aaron T Scanlan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Survey Data ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Likert Scale ◽  
Electronic Survey ◽  
Safety Concerns ◽  
The Future ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Cross Country ◽  
The Impact

This study aimed to examine the views of runners regarding their experiences with congestion during running events, including its prevalence, its impact on their safety and satisfaction, and their preferred controls to mitigate congestion. Runners (n = 222) with varied experience participating in running events (1-5+ years, 5-km races to Ultramarathons, and a mixture of road, trail, and cross-country events) completed an electronic survey. The survey was developed to assess the characteristics of respondents, whether they have experienced congestion during running events, the impact of congestion they have experienced during running events on their safety and satisfaction, and their preferred controls for congestion during running events. Survey data indicated runners had experienced some form of congestion prior to the race in the start corrals (93% of respondents), as the race started (97% of respondents), and during the race while running (88% of respondents). In turn, 73% of respondents indicated their experiences with congestion somewhat to extremely (i.e., rating of at least 3 on a 5-point Likert scale) negatively impacted their satisfaction with an event, while 43% of respondents indicated congestion somewhat to extremely negatively impacted their safety during an event. Regarding the impact of congestion on runner safety, 38% of respondents indicated they had slipped, while 27% of respondents indicated they had fallen during running events due to congestion. Further, congestion was attributed to injuries sustained (9%) and not finishing a race due to sustaining an injury (5%) during running events in some respondents. Respondents identified seeding runners based on previous run times (91%), use of wave starts (91%), and designing courses with limited pinch points, U-turns, and narrow paths (89%) as their most preferred controls to mitigate congestion during running events. Respondents resoundingly indicated self-seeding is not an effective method of managing congestion during running events. This study provides novel evidence that congestion is an issue for runners during running events, subsequently diminishing their satisfaction with events and posing safety concerns. In this way, race directors should involve runners in their decision-making processes when implementing appropriate controls to combat congestion for minimising injury risk to runners and ensuring a viable participant base remains attracted to their events in the future.

A retrospective investigation of the impact of ‘eventing phase (dressage, show-jumping and cross-country)’ on pre-competition anxiety and self-confidence

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 269-281
Author(s):  
S. McGinn ◽  
D. Alcock ◽  
L.J. Cameron
Keyword(s):  
Muscle Tension ◽  
Psychological Skills ◽  
Competitive Anxiety ◽  
Self Confidence ◽  
Equestrian Sports ◽  
Within Subjects ◽  
Equestrian Sport ◽  
Cross Country ◽  
Show Jumping ◽  
The Impact

Working in the discipline of eventing (the triathlon of equestrian sport), the present study aims to extend current literature on the use of psychological skills within equestrian sports, by understanding and identifying differences in levels of self-confidence and competitive anxiety. Each eventing phase (dressage, show-jumping and cross-country) was considered and its impact on anxiety and self-confidence analysed. Level of competition was considered a covariate and its effect on specific eventing phases and any associated influence on anxiety and self-confidence within eventing phase was analysed. An experimental, 3×3 factorial, within-subjects design was used. 57 participants (52 female and 5 male; 18 professional, 36 amateur and 3 undefined) completed the Revised Competitive Sport Anxiety Inventory 2 (CSAI-2R), a 17-item questionnaire measuring anxiety and self-confidence. Descriptive statistics identified the show-jumping phase had the largest impact on rider somatic anxiety (SA) and cognitive anxiety (CA). The cross-country phase had the highest self-confidence mean score. Spearman’s rank correlations showed both SA and CA were debilitative for all competition levels. Both SA and CA were found to be more debilitating in the show-jumping phase when self-confidence was low. MANCOVA analysis showed that eventing phase had significant effect on anxiety and self-confidence when controlling for level of competition. Dependent on the eventing phase riders are competing in, they experience different levels of arousal and self-confidence. When SA and CA are a debilitative source of anxiety, this could result in rider muscle tension which is not conducive to effective horse-rider communication. Coaches or sports psychologists should consider how to help riders manage their anxiety levels in relation to the competition phase, with the intention of enhancing self-confidence and enabling facilitative SA and CA in preparation for eventing performance.

scholarly journals Effects of body protection vests and experience levels in prevention of equestrian injuries

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. e000426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah A Andres ◽  
Adrienne M Bushau-Sprinkle ◽  
Michael E Brier ◽  
Yvette R Seger
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Safety Equipment ◽  
Contributing Factors ◽  
Experience Levels ◽  
Equestrian Sports ◽  
Risk Of Injury ◽  
Report Data ◽  
Cross Country ◽  
Serious Injuries ◽  
Show Jumping

ObjectivesTo investigate the risk reduction and benefit of wearing body protection/safety vests in equestrian sports.MethodsA comparison of equestrians wearing body protective vests and those not wearing vests was performed using incident report data of 718 participants in the United States Pony Clubs during 2011–2017. Data obtained included age, gender, certification level of member, type of activity, description of incident, description of injuries, what protective equipment was worn and other possible contributing factors.ResultsWhile wearing body protective vests when riding on the flat or for show jumping was not correlated with a decrease in injuries, wearing vests for cross country was correlated with decrease in reported injuries (p=0.036) and showed a trend towards a lower incident severity level (p=0.062). Wearing body protection during cross country reduced the relative risk of injury by 56%. While the volume of incidents varied with a rider’s experience level, the number of serious injuries did not appear to correlate with lesser equestrian experience.ConclusionsWhile equestrian sports are considered to have a certain degree of risk associated with them, there are ways to make them safer. Wearing safety equipment, such as helmets and body protection, and obtaining education and experience can lessen the chance of incurring serious injuries.

scholarly journals Two Training-Load Paradoxes: Can We Work Harder and Smarter, Can Physical Preparation and Medical Be Teammates?

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (s2) ◽  
pp. S2-50-S2-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim J. Gabbett ◽  
Rod Whiteley
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Support Staff ◽  
Training Load ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
And Training ◽  
Physical Preparation

The authors have observed that in professional sporting organizations the staff responsible for physical preparation and medical care typically practice in relative isolation and display tension as regards their attitudes toward training-load prescription (much more and much less training, respectively). Recent evidence shows that relatively high chronic training loads, when they are appropriately reached, are associated with reduced injury risk and better performance. Understanding this link between performance and training loads removes this tension but requires a better understanding of the relationship between the acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) and its association with performance and injury. However, there remain many questions in the area of ACWR, and we are likely at an early stage of our understanding of these parameters and their interrelationships. This opinion paper explores these themes and makes recommendations for improving performance through better synergies in support-staff approaches. Furthermore, aspects of the ACWR that remain to be clarified—the role of shared decision making, risk:benefit estimation, and clearer accountability—are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document