Verstappen F T, Twellaar M, Hartgens F, van Mechelen W
Department of Movement Sciences, Maastricht University, The Netherlands.
Int J Sports Med. 1998 Nov;19(8):586-91. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-971964.
In order to study the relationship between physical fitness/sport-specific skills and sports injuries 136 physical education students were studied during their 4-years of training in a prospective investigation. Physical fitness was measured every year using a battery of fitness tests, and the performance marks of a number of sports scored at the exams of the academy were used as parameters for the sport-specific skills. Sports injuries were recorded every 3 weeks on standard forms. Relative risk ratios were calculated between the tertile groups good, average and poor for all variables of physical fitness and sport-specific skills. Injury-proneness was defined for all and for acute and chronic injuries separately near the median number of injuries sustained. In only 6 out of 126 computed relative risks was a significant difference found. Discriminant analysis revealed an explanation of 16%, 14% and 11% of the variance for respectively all, acute and chronic injuries, at which 5 or 6 variables in varying combination were included. From our findings it may be concluded that physical fitness and sport-specific skills have little impact on sports injuries for the following two main reasons. Firstly, subjects at risk for sports injuries participate per definition in sports activities and have consequently developed their fitness and skills compared to the sedentary population. Thus, the range in physical fitness or sports skills in the population at risk is relatively small (physical education students belong to the 7th-10th decile in fitness test scores within a general college student population) and therefore an effect is hard to show. Secondly, the total number of sports injuries is very small and moreover, it should be distributed over several categories for analysis. The favourable advantages of using physical education students to study intrinsic risk factors (comparable and varied sports program, excellent compliance) appeared to be insufficient to compensate for drawbacks of selection.
为了研究身体素质/专项运动技能与运动损伤之间的关系,在一项前瞻性调查中,对136名体育专业学生进行了为期4年的训练研究。每年使用一系列体能测试来测量身体素质,并将学院考试中多项运动的成绩作为专项运动技能的参数。每3周在标准表格上记录运动损伤情况。计算了身体素质和专项运动技能所有变量的三分位数组(良好、中等和较差)之间的相对风险比。根据受伤中位数附近的所有损伤以及急性和慢性损伤分别定义了易受伤性。在计算出的126个相对风险中,仅发现6个存在显著差异。判别分析显示,所有损伤、急性损伤和慢性损伤分别解释了16%、14%和11%的方差,其中包含5个或6个不同组合的变量。从我们的研究结果可以得出结论,身体素质和专项运动技能对运动损伤影响很小,主要有以下两个原因。首先,根据定义,有运动损伤风险的受试者参与体育活动,因此与久坐人群相比,他们的身体素质和技能得到了发展。因此,有风险人群的身体素质或运动技能范围相对较小(体育专业学生在普通大学生群体的体能测试成绩中属于第7 - 10十分位数),因此难以显示出影响。其次,运动损伤的总数非常少,而且在分析时应分布在几个类别中。利用体育专业学生来研究内在风险因素(可比且多样的体育项目、极佳的依从性)的有利优势似乎不足以弥补选择的缺点。