scholarly journals Direction-Specific Signatures of Sport Participation in Center of Pressure Profiles of Division I Athletes

Author(s):  
Stephen M. Glass ◽  
Scott E. Ross
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 232596712090682 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seth Ahlquist ◽  
Brian M. Cash ◽  
Sharon L. Hame

Background: There are 60 million US youth who participate in organized athletics, with large increases in both sport participation and specialization during the past 2 decades. There is some evidence that increased sport specialization and training volumes may be associated with increased injuries in adolescent populations. This study examines these variables in a population of elite college athletes. Hypothesis: Early sport specialization (ESS) and a high training volume are risk factors for injury and/or surgery in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I athletes. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: All Division I athletes at a single institution were surveyed regarding demographics, scholarship status, reason for specialization, age at specialization, training volume, and injury history. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to identify significant differences. Results: Athletes who specialized in their eventual varsity sport before age 14 years were more likely to report a history of injuries (86.9% vs 71.4%), multiple injuries (64.6% vs 48.8%), multiple college injuries (17.2% vs 6.0%), a greater number of total injuries (2.0 vs 1.0), and require more time out for an injury (15.2 vs 6.5 weeks) than those who did not. They were also more likely to be recruited (92.9% vs 82.1%) and receive a scholarship (82.8% vs 67.9%). Athletes who trained for greater than 28 hours per week in their eventual varsity sport before high school were more likely to report multiple injuries (90.0% vs 56.3%), multiple college injuries (40.0% vs 12.5%), a surgical injury (60.0% vs 22.9%), multiple surgical injuries (30.0% vs 4.7%), a greater number of total injuries (2.5 vs 2.0), and more time out for an injury (36.5 vs 11.0 weeks) than those who did not (all P < .05). However, these athletes were not more likely to be recruited (90.0% vs 89.8%) or receive a scholarship (80.0% vs 74.5%). Conclusion: NCAA Division I athletes with ESS and/or a high training volume sustained more injuries and missed more time because of an injury, but those with ESS were more likely to be recruited and receive a college scholarship. This knowledge can help inform discussions and decision making among athletes, parents, coaches, trainers, and physicians.


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3_suppl2) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0019
Author(s):  
Seth Ahlquist ◽  
Brian Michael Cash ◽  
Sharon L. Hame

Objectives: Sixty million United States youth ages 6-18 participate in organized athletics, with large increases in both sport participation and specialization in the past two decades. This study seeks to determine whether early specialization in a single sport and high training volume is associated with an increased risk of injury and surgery in NCAA Division I athletes. A secondary aim is to assess whether sport specialization and high training volume is associated with elite athletic status (i.e. being recruited and/or receiving athletic scholarships). Methods: All NCAA Division I athletes at a single institution were sent a voluntary survey by email. Athletes were surveyed regarding demographics, scholarship status, reasons for sport specialization, age of specialization, training volume, and injury/surgical history. A total of 232 out of 652 athletes completed some portion of the survey. 30 surveys were excluded due to incomplete or incorrect survey completion, leaving 202 surveys available for analysis. Injuries were defined as those which precluded sport participation for > 1 week. Early sport specialization was defined as narrowing participation to one primary sport prior to age 14. High training volume was defined as greater than 28 hours per week during pre-high school years. Exclusion criteria included incomplete surveys and individuals less than age 18. Chi-square, Fisher’s Exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to establish significant differences. Results: Individuals who specialized in their varsity sport prior to age 14 were more likely to report a history of injury (86.9 vs. 74.0%, X = 4.7, p = .03), multiple injuries (64.6 vs. 49.4%, X = 4.2, p = .04), multiple college injuries (17.2 vs. 6.5%, X = 4.5, p = .03), total injuries (2 vs. 1, U = 3035, p = .02), and total time out for injury (15.2 vs. 7.0 weeks, U = 3150, p = .05). Early specializers were more likely to be recruited (92.9 vs. 83.1%, X = 4.1, p = .04) and receive a scholarship in their varsity sport (82.8 vs. 67.5%, X = 5.6, p =.02). Full scholarship athletes were more likely to report multiple surgical injuries (11.7 vs. 3.5%, X = 5.0, p =.03). Those with a scholarships greater than 50% were more likely to report a surgical injury (34.1 vs. 18.3%, X = 6.5, p = .01). Individuals who trained for greater than 28 hours per week in their varsity sport prior to high school were more likely to report multiple injuries (90.0 vs. 56.7%, X = 4.3, p = .04) multiple college injuries (40.0% vs. 14.0%, p = .05), a surgical injury (60.0 vs. 21.7%, p = .01), multiple surgical injuries (30.0 vs. 4.5%, p = .02), and greater total time out for injury (36.5 vs. 11.0 weeks, U = 424, p = .02). Individuals with a pre-high school training volume greater than 28 hours/week in their varsity sport were not more likely to be recruited (90.0 vs. 89.8%, p = 1.0) or receive a scholarship (80.0 vs. 74.5%, p = 1.0). Those in non-contact varsity sports were more likely to report multiple college injuries than those in limited and full contact sports, respectively (20.4 vs. 6.4 vs. 8.8%, X = 7.0, p = .03). Those in individual sports were more likely to report a college injury (55.3 vs. 38.9%, X = 5.1, p = .02) and multiple college injuries (25.0 vs. 7.1%, X = 12.7, p &lt .001). Conclusion: NCAA Division I athletes who specialized in their varsity sport prior to age 14 were more likely to be recruited and receive an athletic scholarship. However, these individuals, as well as those with high training volume prior to high school, had increased rates of injury and injuries requiring surgery.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric G. Post ◽  
Jill M. Thein-Nissenbaum ◽  
Mikel R. Stiffler ◽  
M. Alison Brooks ◽  
David R. Bell ◽  
...  

Background: Sport specialization is a strategy to acquire superior sport performance in 1 sport but is associated with increased injury risk. Currently, the degree of high school specialization among Division I athletes is unknown. Hypothesis: College athletes will display increased rates of specialization as they progress through their high school careers. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiological study. Level of Evidence: Level 4. Methods: Three hundred forty-three athletes (115 female) representing 9 sports from a Midwest Division I University completed a previously utilized sport specialization questionnaire regarding sport participation patterns for each grade of high school. McNemar and chi-square tests were used to investigate associations of grade, sport, and sex with prevalence of sport specialization category (low, moderate, high) (a priori P ≤ 0.05). Results: Specialization increased throughout high school, with 16.9% (n = 58) and 41.1% (n = 141) of athletes highly specialized in 9th and 12th grades, respectively. Football athletes were less likely to be highly specialized than nonfootball athletes for each year of high school ( P < 0.001). There was no difference in degree of specialization between sexes at any grade level ( P > 0.23). Conclusion: The majority of Division I athletes were not classified as highly specialized throughout high school, but the prevalence of high specialization increased as athletes progressed through high school. Nonfootball athletes were more likely to be highly specialized than football athletes at each grade level. Clinical Relevance: Most athletes who are recruited to participate in collegiate athletics will eventually specialize in their sport, but it does not appear that early specialization is necessary to become a Division I athlete. Athletes should be counseled regarding safe participation in sport during high school to minimize injury and maximize performance.


Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 2322
Author(s):  
Kaitlyn M. Eck ◽  
Carol Byrd-Bredbenner

Limited research has examined athletes’ food and health beliefs and decisions and the congruence of these decisions with recommendations from nutrition professionals. This study aimed to improve understanding of athletes’ food-related beliefs and practices to enable nutrition professionals to more effectively enhance performance while protecting athletes’ health. Division I college athletes (n = 14, 64% female) from a variety of sports were recruited to participate in 20-min semi-structured phone interviews about food and nutrition-related behaviors and cognitions. Data were content analyzed to identify themes and trends. Prominent factors influencing athletes’ food choices were potential benefits to health and performance, availability of foods, and recommendations from sports dietitians. Foods commonly consumed by athletes, including fruits, vegetables, and lean protein, were generally healthy and aligned with sports nutrition recommendations. Athletes avoided energy-dense nutrient-poor foods, such as fast food and fried foods, with the goal of improving performance. Some athletes took supplements (i.e., multivitamin, iron, protein) on the premise that they would improve health and enhance performance or recovery. While athletes’ nutrition behaviors are generally congruent with current recommendations, findings highlighted misconceptions held by athletes related to the benefits of some supplements and the belief that packaged/processed foods were inherently less healthy than other options. Nutrition misconceptions held by athletes and incongruities between athletes’ nutrition knowledge and behaviors suggest that dietitians should aim to dispel misconceptions held by athletes and provide additional guidance and information to support athletes’ current healthful behaviors to ensure these behaviors extend beyond their college athletic career.


Author(s):  
Janet E. Simon ◽  
Mallory Lorence ◽  
Carrie L. Docherty

Context The effect of athletic participation on lifelong health among elite athletes has received increasing attention, as sport-related injuries can have a substantial influence on long-term health. Objective To determine the current health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of former National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I athletes compared with noncollegiate athletes 5 years after an initial assessment. Design Cohort study. Setting Online survey. Patients or Other Participants From the former Division I athletes, 193 responses were received (response rate = 83.2%; 128 men, 65 women; age = 58.47 ± 6.17 years), and from the noncollegiate athletes, 169 surveys were returned (response rate = 75.1%; 80 men, 89 women; age = 58.44 ± 7.28 years). Main Outcome Measure(s) The independent variables were time (baseline, 5 years later) and group (former Division I athlete, noncollegiate athlete). Participants completed 7 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales: sleep disturbance, anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain interference, physical function, and satisfaction with participation in social roles. Results Sleep disturbance, depression, fatigue, pain, and physical function were significant for a time × group interaction (P &lt; .05), with the largest differences seen in pain and physical function between groups at time point 2 (22.19 and 13.99 points, respectively). Former Division I athletes had worse scores for depression, fatigue, pain, and physical function at follow-up (P &lt; .05), with the largest differences seen on the depression, fatigue, and physical function scales (8.33, 6.23, and 6.61 points, respectively). Conclusions Because of the competitive nature of sport, the long-term risks of diminished HRQoL need to become a priority for health care providers and athletes during their athletic careers. Additionally, physical activity transition programs need to be explored to help senior student-athletes transition from highly structured and competitive collegiate athletics to lifestyle physical activity, as it appears that individuals in the noncollegiate athlete cohort engaged in more physical activity, weighed less, and had increased HRQoL.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (12) ◽  
pp. 2749-2754 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan R. Gladish ◽  
Douglas W. Powell ◽  
Lindsey E. Allison ◽  
Robin M. Queen

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Horner ◽  
Neal Ternes ◽  
Christopher McLeod

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) clearly states there are many favorable qualities derived from participation that benefit those “who go pro in something other than sports.” However, the ability of collegiate athletics to deliver on the promise of attributable long-term vocational value is rarely questioned. Instead, student-athletes are encouraged to think of their participation as a personal investment with enduring rewards for the investor. In this study involving former NCAA Division I student-athletes, the authors examined whether participation can be regarded as an investment and how student-athletes perceive the returns thus derived. Extending Becker’s (1962) theory of human capital investment to sport participation, the authors probed participants’ experiences for evidence of investment thinking and lasting benefits in corporeal, economic, social, and cultural varieties. The findings support the notion that participation in collegiate athletics can be broadly defined as an investment, but not in accordance with the long-term utility maximizing rationale described by neoclassical economists. Furthermore, the high cost of participation, inherent uncertainty, and unreliable information confound the athlete’s decision-making and blur the distinction between consumption in the present and investing for the future.


2020 ◽  
Vol 120 (9) ◽  
pp. A74
Author(s):  
M. Sweeney ◽  
N. Jontony ◽  
E. Hill ◽  
C. Spees ◽  
C. Taylor

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document