“Toe Drag is essential for good acceleration”.
“There is no such thing as a perfect movement”.
“Over-pronation”
“Let the athlete Self Organise based on the constraints”.
“Knee Valgus is Bad”.
“Movement Variability is Key”.
“We want to see the athlete demonstrate a good Technical Model”
…These are just some of the beliefs and perceptions that we tend to see amongst strength & conditioning practitioners or movement gurus when analysing what is considered “Optimal Movement” in athletic performance or injury. To the right, we have those that would exclusively identify themselves with the Ecological Dynamics framework, whereas those to the left would reflect a heavy influence from Biomechanical (more specifically kinematics) analysis, research findings, and associations.
The Ecological Dynamics framework presents a very holistic yet scientific approach to movement analysis/observation, considering the perpetual interactions the athlete has with task and environment during movement (sport in this case). A key component of Ecological Dynamics is focused on how the constraints of the athlete, the task at hand, and the environment that this takes place in is perceived and actioned upon. With perception comes individuality, which is at the centre of this framework, particularly when movement observation/analysis comes into focus. On the other hand, we have biomechanics that can be simplified into the study of force and motion, or more formally known as kinetics and kinematics. The kinetics of movement refers specifically to the forces both created by and acting upon an athlete, which are ingrained in the core laws of physics that allow us to quantify and navigate the how/cause behind the movement. Yet, portraying how kinetics are emergent in movement is where kinematics steps in, determining the velocity and acceleration or position of the whole or segmental athlete (joints, limbs etc). With this in mind, how does each approach understand “Optimal Movement Patterns”?
Misrepresentation or Misinterpretation?
Biomechanics: Together with the development of sports technology, the quantifiable variables of kinetic and kinematic measures have only gone from strength to strength, in turn giving us more insight and information. Research in these areas has had a profound impact on sports performance and injury, unearthing both
- Risk factors of Injury
- Sports specific determinants of performance
The extensive evidence base in these two areas has positively affected screening, physical preparation and rehabilitation interventions incredibly- our knowledge surrounding topics such as hamstring injury, ACL injury mechanisms, change of direction, and sprinting performance is a testament to this. Our understanding of “Optimal Movement Patterns” is determined by the kinematic consistencies exhibited in elite individuals, correlations with the physical performance, or the mechanics associated with injury, pain, or strain. Given the complexities involved when deconstructing this information, heuristics such as a technical model of sprinting or changing as well as specific of higher injury risk have been evolved to support the transition from theory to practice.
Ecological Dynamics: Undeniably, simplified information of the complex systems involved in movement is useful to our practice. However, this reductionist view to determining what “Optimal Movement Patterns” is has led practitioners down a robotic road. The need to standardise and control each variable within a laboratory and/or research setting has created somewhat of a disconnect to what takes place in the reality of sport, extracting the task and environmental constraints that are integral to movement solutions athletes face. Reliability, repeatability, accuracy, and correlations of this work have ushered our understanding of “Optimal Movement Patterns” for sports performance down to one specific way of moving, leaving motion taking place peripheral to this, tainted with the negative classifications of sub-optimal or of greater risk. Consequently, a great deal of time, resources, and energy is spent chasing the perfect technical model and avoiding the “bad” positions in a very closed, blocked, and explicit fashion to achieve what biomechanics represents as “Optimal Movement Patterns”. Within biomechanics research, we also see a regression to the mean, and what is overlooked, as a result, are the anthropometric, physiological, and neuromuscular interindividual differences that either permit or inhibit the ability to achieve the expected optimum. This can be restrictive for the athlete as there is little room for variation when we are governed by technical models and positions of greater injury risk, especially when placed back into the sporting world where task and environmental constraints are ever-present.
Optimum is defined as the most favourable strategy, conditions, or in this case action, that leads to success. Therefore “Optimal Movement Patterns” should be determined and dictated by what is witnessed in moments of successful performance in sporting contexts, using individual, task, and environmental constraints to rationalise the movement patterns that precede the outcome. This would also suggest that there is a multitude of movement patterns that would classify as optimal which is more representative of the inter-individual and situational differences, we witness in sport. This is illustrated well in the research around the concept of movement variability. Movement variability, although varying between skill levels, is constantly present despite contrary belief. This variability is integral to mitigating repetitive loading and providing gross or subtle adaptive movement solutions to achieve the intended outcome. Adopting this perspective may prove useful in demystifying the belief that there is one “Optimal Movement Pattern”.
Biomechanics: Biomechanics research merely presents the kinetics and kinematics that take place during sporting actions, thus depicting this science as a “misrepresentation” of “Optimal Movement Patterns” lacks credibility irrespective of the setting. Although the research may lack some ecological validity given the removal or sports-specific task and environmental constraints, the evidence is still very capable of discriminating the movement patterns observed between competition levels, the injured and non-injured, and the successful and unsuccessful. So, there is some compliance to the strict definitions of optimum, providing valuable information and indication to what is understood to be the “Optimal Movement Pattern”. Furthermore, to provide rigorous and valid evidence with practical applications to the wider audience, research must consider and collate a larger pool of data to avoid reporting anomalies, findings that only represent a small group of individuals, or false positives (Type 1 error). This is an advantageous characteristic over an ecological dynamics approach, particularly due to the inability to control multiple variables to better understand the discriminators of performance but also findings cannot be generalised and applied to a wider population. As a result, it is challenging and somewhat fraudulent to report on the individual differences as Ecological Dynamics would suggest.
Consequently, the impact and use of biomechanics has had on the aforementioned methods in current practice, should rather be viewed as a misinterpretation than a misrepresentation. The lack of consideration for the limitations of biomechanics research with regards to the individual, task, and environment constraints of sporting context, is likely to lead to the belief that variability in technical models is minimal and that the “Optimal Movement Pattern” is limited to one specific action.
Coexisting and finding common ground…
Despite the clear differences between these two approaches, there are also some shared concepts and interpretations that do exist on of what determines “Optimal Movement Patterns”. Although the Ecological Dynamics framework promotes both variation and variability in movement strategies, there is an acknowledgement of the need for stability with a given movement pattern in the form of ‘attractor states. The attractor states explain the organisation of movements both between joints and limbs that are a staple to the execution of the task-specific movement, variability then occurs between and around these stable points. Amongst skilled individuals, these attractor states establish great depth stability as a result of experience and training. Yet, it is important to note that these stable formations of movement are heavily influenced by the individual’s constraints – range of motion and force production capabilities. This can be likened to the biomechanical determinates (attractor states) of change of direction, jump, or sprint performance (see table below). The kinematic commonalties reported amongst high-performing athletes are also the stable components of the movement that allows us to differentiate what is vital to ensuring success and what movements are variable.
Table 1. Outlining the biomechanical determinates, and the individual, task, and environmental constraints that may influence the execution and variability of a given movement pattern.
Despite conflicting perceptions or beliefs by those that identify either an ecological dynamics or biomechanics approach within their practice it would seem that the two CAN co-exist in how we understand and determine “Optimal Movement Patterns”. Though this can only be done by finding common ground between the two…
What is understood and determined as the “Optimal Movement Pattern” in sport must be governed by the arrangement of movements that leads to success in that specific sporting context. This outcome-focused view ensures that there are appreciation and consideration for how individual, task, and environmental can be instrumental in dictating the emerging movement pattern and what is seen as optimal. Whilst the biomechanical determinates provide invaluable insight as to the critical kinetic and kinematic components that must present in success performance, it would be more favourable to view these as a bandwidth of ‘must haves’ as opposed to fixed, precise actions. This allows us to avoid the misinterpretation of biomechanics research but also value the inter individual differences when analysis “Optimal Movement Patterns”, in turn hopefully influencing our methods to better ‘bridge the gap’ between physical preparation/rehabilitation and the sport.
(Display Cover Image Credit - Photo by Francois Olwage on Unsplash)
Comments