See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/325583703

Kinematic analysis of the shot-put: A method of assessing the mechanical work

of the hand action force

Article in European Journal of Sport Science · June 2018

DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2018.1478449

CITATIONS READS

16 4,687

7 authors, including:

Mounir Landolsi LABIADH LAZHAR

Faculty of Medecine of Sousse, Sousse, Tunisia Paris Descartes, CPSC
12 PUBLICATIONS 44 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 68 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Faysal Zarrouk K. Maaref

Institut Supérieur du Sport et de l’Education Physique de Ksar-Said "Ibn El Jazzar" Faculty of Medicine, Sousse, Tunisia.
4 PUBLICATIONS 29 CITATIONS 36 PUBLICATIONS 82 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mounir Landolsi on 03 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 European Journal of Sport Science

Kinematic analysis of the shot put: A method of assessing

Fo
the mechanical work of the hand action force
rP
Journal: European Journal of Sports Science

Manuscript ID Draft

Manuscript Type: Original Paper

ee

Keywords: 3D analysis, Biomechanics, Performance

rR
ev
ie
w
On
ly

URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
Page 1 of 22 European Journal of Sport Science

1
2
3 Kinematic analysis of the shot put: A method of assessing the
4
5
6 mechanical work of the hand action force
7
8
9
10 Abstract
11
12 The aims of this study were: (1) to propose a method for evaluating shot-putters
13
14 mechanical power, (2) to investigate the relationship between mechanical work of
Fo
15
16 hand action force (WHAF), peak power output (PPO) of different limbs and shot
17
18 put performance, and (3) to show which of these two parameters (WHAF, PPO)
rP
19
20 was the most appropriate to characterise the explosive abilities of the shot-putter.
21
22 Twelve junior right-handed shot-putters participated in this study. Arm and leg
ee
23
24 force-velocity tests were performed to measure PPO. During a simulated
25
26 competition, a shot put kinematic analysis was conducted to quantify the WHAF at
rR

27
28
the release moment and shot-put performances. Significant correlations were
29
30
found between absolute arm, leg PPO with upper and lower muscle volumes (r =
ev

31
32
.67; p = .03; r = .76; p = .01; r = .74, p = .01; r = .65, p = .04, respectively). Shot-
33
34
ie

35
put performance was closely related to the WHAF (r = .93, p = .0001), release
36
37 velocity parameter (r = .86, p = .001), absolute arm peak power output (r = .67, p
w

38
39 = .02), and leg peak power output (r = .81, p = .004). The present results confirm
40
On

41 that force-velocity test, and WHAF constitute useful tools for assessing mechanical
42
43 power in throwing. The WHAF could be considered as more suitable than force-
44
45 velocity test.
ly

46
47
48
49 Keywords: Track and field; coaching; sports biomechanics; release parameters;
50
51 mechanical power
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 1
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
 European Journal of Sport Science Page 2 of 22

1
2
3 Introduction
4
5
6 During a throwing event, the shot putter tries to perform the largest external mechanical
7
8 power generated by his muscles’ forces in order to project the shot as far as possible
9
10
11
(Lanka, 2000). The parameters discussed are mainly limited to the shot release
12
13 parameters [release height (hR), release velocity (VR), release angle (θR)] and are
14
Fo
15 sometimes supplemented by the gesture analysis (Keigo et al., 2008).
16
17 Theoretical data (Hubbard, 1989; Hubbard, de Master, & Scott, 2001; Linthorne,
18
rP
19
2001) showed that these investigations were primarily concerned with release variables,
20
21
22 by their contribution and their interdependence to improve athletic performance. For
ee
23
24 example, in the study of Hubbard (1998), it was showed that, in all throwing events,
25
26 “optimal release conditions (for variables) other than velocity crucially depended on
rR

27
28 how the maximum achievable release velocity was functionally related to the other
29
30
release conditions.” This author advocated in a quite recent study (Hubbard et al., 2001)
ev

31
32
33 that the shot could be thrown faster when the θR is smaller and the hR is lower. In the
34
ie

35 study of Hubbart (1989) both VR and θR were considered as the important contributors in
36
37 shot-put performance. Red & Zogaib (1977) showed relationships between these
w

38
39
parameters in a javelin thrower, considering that VR varies linearly with the θR.
40
On

41
42 Linthorne (2001) considered that release parameters were related to the shot put’s
43
44 anthropometric measures and motor skills. However, Lichtenberg & Wills (1978)
45
ly

46 ignored any relationships between θR and VR. They showed that the optimal release
47
48 angle did not reach the theoretical angle of 45°. This deviation was due because the
49
50
51 release height was approximately two meters higher than the level of the shot impact
52
53 point with the ground.
54
55 To reach the great performance, the shot-putter needs particular technical
56
57 qualities and physiological requirements. In this case, the solicited muscles groups were
58
59
60 2
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
Page 3 of 22 European Journal of Sport Science

1
2
3 assimilated to engines that convert chemical energy into mechanical energy (Thys,
4
5 2001). The muscular effort resulted in an increase in energy metabolism that depends on
6
7 its intensity. The greatest solicitation of the number of muscle fibres mainly depended
8
9
10 on the degree of stress applied and the increase need for energy during throwing task. In
11
12 general, the energy expenditure mainly depended on the nature of the muscle fibres that
13
14 the shot-putter can solicit and to the muscle mass (Aagaard & Andersen, 1998).
Fo
15
16 Previous studies revealed that having a high percentage of type II fibres is strongly
17
18
related to isokinetic torque production at high movement velocities (Gregor, Edgerton,
rP
19
20
21 Perrine, Campion, & DeBus, 1979). For this reason, during the evaluation sessions,
22
coaches try to perform the appropriate tests that can evaluate arm and/or leg peak power
ee
23
24
25 output (PPO) provided by the solicited muscles groups. Indeed, in shot-put event, the
26
rR

27 produced mechanical power by the shot-putter would actually be the most important
28
29
30 physical characteristic (Maheras, 1995; Young, 2004). It expressed the rate of
ev

31
32 performing work during the gestural movement progress (Enoka, 2014). This power
33
34 largely depended on the athlete’s ability to apply maximum forces already produced by
ie

35
36 the body muscle groups to the shot mass. Presently, few works investigated the
37
w

38
evaluation of arm and leg PPO in shot put (Landolsi, Bouhlel, Zarrouk, Lacouture, &
39
40
On

41 Tabka, 2014; Terzis, Georgiadis, Vassiliadou, & Manta, 2003; Terzis, Kyriazis,
42
43 Karampatsos, & Georgiadis, 2012). No relationship was described in these studies
44
45
ly

between mechanical work of hand action force (WHAF), force velocity PPO and shot-put
46
47 performance. For example, Landolsi et al. (2014) showed significant correlation
48
49
50 between leg force-velocity PPO and shot-put performance in junior national male-
51
52 trained athletes (r = .81, p < .01). While, other researches were only interested to the
53
54 arm and leg power development in handball (Chelly, Hermassi, & Shephard, 2010) and
55
56 javelin throwing (Bouhlel, Chelly, Tabka, & Shephard, 2007). These authors indicated
57
58
59
60 3
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
 European Journal of Sport Science Page 4 of 22

1
2
3 that arm and leg force velocity PPO were related to the handball throwing velocity and
4
5 to the javelin performance. They suggested that force-velocity protocols could be used
6
7 to predict anaerobic power in the chosen sports activities. On the other hand, other
8
9
10 investigations (Kyriazis, Terzis, Boudolos, & Georgiadis, 2009; Terzis et al., 2003,
11
12 2012) suggested that muscle strength and power were significantly correlated to shot-
13
14 put performance. Indeed, Kyriazis et al. (2009) showed that the power generated by legs
Fo
15
16 was a good indicator for shot-putters who used spin technique. In their study,
17
18
participants were asked to perform One-Rep Max (1RM) squat and a Counter
rP
19
20
21 Movement Jump (CMJ) both before and after competition. They found that shot-put
22
performance was significantly correlated to the muscular power and take-off velocity
ee
23
24
25 during CMJ in competition period (r = .66, p < .05; r = .70, p < .05). Recently, Terzis et
26
rR

27 al. (2012) found that shot-put performance was strongly related to 1RM squat strength
28
29
30 (r = .93, p < .01), bench press (r = .87, p < .01), and snatch (r = .92, p < .01). In
ev

31
32 addition, Terzis et al. (2003) found that shot-put performance was positively related
33
34 with triceps brachii fibre type II (r = .70, p < .01).
ie

35
36 In shot put, assessing mechanical power requires a special force platform for
37
w

38
providing under foot forces reaction. From the beginning of the flight phase, the shot-
39
40
On

41 putter developed a main power generated by his lower limbs' muscles (Coh, Stuhec, &
42
43 Supej, 2008). This power will be rapidly added to the muscle power of the other body
44
45
ly

segments, which will ultimately be transferred to the throwing arm, and consequently to
46
47 the shot mass at the release moment. Without dynamic data, our biomechanical research
48
49
50 was only related to the kinematic analysis by calculating the WHAF on the shot. This
51
52 work was the result of mechanical power generated by the gesticulation of throwers'
53
54 body segments during shot put.
55
56
57
58
59
60 4
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
Page 5 of 22 European Journal of Sport Science

1
2
3 To assess shot-putters’ external mechanical power; a kinematic analysis was
4
5 used to estimate the transferred power of the thrower to the shot by calculating the
6
7 WHAF at the release moment. The second test consists of evaluating arm and/or leg
8
9
10 force-velocity PPO.
11
12 Therefore, the aims of this study were to (1) propose a method for evaluating
13
14 shot-putters’ mechanical power, (2) investigate the relationship between WHAF, arm and
Fo
15
16 leg force-velocity PPO, and shot-put performance, and (3) to show which of these two
17
18
tests was the most appropriate.
rP
19
20
21 Given to the lack of dynamic data, our hypothesis was to suggest that the WHAF
22
calculated from kinematic analysis would be constituted as a method for assessing shot-
ee
23
24
25 putters’ mechanical power, and the multiple regression analysis showed that this
26
rR

27 method was considered as an adequate protocol for calculating mechanical power than
28
29
30 force-velocity test in throwing events.
ev

31
32
33 Methods
34
ie

35
36 Participants
37
w

38 Twelve junior male-trained athletes (n = 12; age: 17.2 ± 1.1 years; body mass: 98.8 ±
39
40
8.3 kg; height: 179 ± 4 cm; BMI: 30.4 ± 2.5 Kg·m-2; % body fat = 24.7 ± 3.0)
On

41
42
43 volunteered to participate in the study. Their technical throwing skills varied from 5–7
44
45 years and their weekly volume of regular training ranged between 10 and 12 hours.
ly

46
47 Before testing, all majors and parents of minor participants gave a written informed
48
49
consent. The study was conducted with the approval of the local ethics committee and
50
51
52 carried out in accordance with ethical standards of the latest Declaration of Helsinki
53
54 (64th WMA General Assembly, Fortaleza, Brazil, October 2013).
55
56
57
58
59
60 5
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
 European Journal of Sport Science Page 6 of 22

1
2
3 Procedures
4
5
6
Anthropometry. Based on previous protocols (Durnin & Womersley, 1974; Jones &
7
8 Pearson, 1969; Shephard, Bouhlel, Vandewalle, & Monod, 1988), the anthropometric
9
10 measurements were performed by a qualified person using a standard anthropometric kit
11
12 (Harpenden®, West Sussex, Chichester, UK) in order to calculate arm and leg muscle
13
14
volumes according to the following formulae:
Fo
15
16
17
18 Total limb volume = (∑C2) L/62.8 (1)
rP
19
20 Fat volume = (∑C/5) (∑S/2n) L (2)
21
22
Bone volume = 3.14 (F x D) 2 L
ee
23 (3)
24
25
26 Where ∑C2 the sum of the squares of the five circumferences of the corresponding limb,
rR

27
28 L is the corresponding limb length, n is the number of skin folds measured on each
29
30 limb, D is the humeral or femoral intercondylar diameter, and F is a geometric factor
ev

31
32 (.21 for arm or .235 for leg). Arm or leg muscle volume was finally calculated by using
33
34
the following formula:
ie

35
36
37
w

38 Muscle volume = total limb volume – (fat volume + bone volume) (4)
39
40
On

41 Laboratory tests. The arm and leg force-velocity tests were performed in the laboratory
42
43 on a cycle ergometer Monark® (Monark 894E, Varberg, Sweden) according to the
44
45
ly

protocols conducted by Chelly et al. (2010). All upper and lower limbs data were
46
47
48 collected in randomized order on separate days. In each protocol, the first repetition was
49
50 made without load in order to have the maximal velocity of legs (Vmax–L) or arms
51
52 (Vmax–A). All subjects finished familiarization trials one week before the final
53
54 measurements, to avoid learning effects. We started with the leg force-velocity test at a
55
56
braking force equal to 2.5% of the subject’s body mass. After about 15 min of warm-up,
57
58
59
60 6
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
Page 7 of 22 European Journal of Sport Science

1
2
3 the shot-putter pedal as quick as possible during six seconds against different braking
4
5 forces of 2.5%, 5%, 7.5%, 10%, 11%, 12% and 13% of body mass (Arsac, Belli, &
6
7 Lacour, 1996; Chelly et al., 2010). In a session, 7 to 9 repetitions were generally
8
9
10 performed. Leg peak power output (Leg–PPO) was defined as the power at which
11
12 additional loading induced a decrease in power output in two successive repetitions.
13
14 After three recovery days from the first visit, the protocol for the arms was
Fo
15
16 performed, using an appropriately modified version of the same cycle ergo meter. Hand
17
18
cranks replacing the pedals, and saddle pillar was removed to avoid injuries (Hermassi,
rP
19
20
21 Chelly, Fathloun, & Shephard, 2010). A cradle with adjustable height has served to
22
place the proper height ergometer (pedal at breast height). Cranking was done while
ee
23
24
25 standing, legs slightly apart. For each shot-putter, the arm force-velocity test started
26
rR

27 with a braking force equal to 1.5% of the subject’s body mass (Bouhlel et al., 2007;
28
29
30 Chelly et al., 2010). The braking force was augmented by .5% in every repetition, until
ev

31
32 the shot-putter was unable to reach his previous arm peak power output (Arm–PPO) in
33
34 two successive repetitions (Bouhlel et al., 2007; Chelly et al., 2010).
ie

35
36 For each arm or leg braking force, instantaneous peak velocity was used to
37
w

38
calculate the corresponding PPO using the following formula:
39
40
On

41
42 PPO (W) = F x V (5)
43
44
45 Where F = frictional force (N) and V = wheel velocity (rpm).
ly

46
47 The measured and calculated parameters for both protocols included arm and
48
49
Leg–PPO, and the corresponding maximum forces (FMax–L, and FMax–A) and velocities
50
51
52 (VMax–L, and VMax–A).
53
54 In order to avoid the fatigue of the participants, we started the shot-put
55
56 kinematic analysis a week later from the first visit. The field test was performed in a
57
58
59
60 7
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
 European Journal of Sport Science Page 8 of 22

1
2
3 regional athletic club during a training session. Each shot putter achieved three throws
4
5 in regular conditions (shot mass, 6 kg); the best trial was retained according to the
6
7 following criteria:
8
9
10 • The shot put was achieved successfully,
11
12 • No marker was lost during the throwing task.
13
14
Fo
15 3D Motion analysis. Kinematic data were acquired using a Vicon® 3D motion
16
17 capture system (Vicon®, Oxford Metrics Inc., UK). It was considered only the throwing
18
rP
19
20 arm (arm, forearm, and hand) as non-deformable solid interconnected by perfect
21
22 connections. By a double face adhesive hypoallergenic specially provided for this
ee
23
24 purpose, two markers were placed on the shot, 5 technical and 5 anatomical markers
25
26 were directly attached to the skin at selected points and on the skin of the segmental
rR

27
28
upper limb joints of each shot-putter (glenohumeral rotation centre, lateral and medial
29
30
epicondyle, radial and ulnar styloid, respectively). The positions of the anatomical
ev

31
32
33 markers used in this study were performed as per the International Society of
34
ie

35 Biomechanics recommendations (Wu et al., 2005). The anatomical landmarks and the
36
37
w

static calibration trial were captured. In our case, the experimental accuracy of
38
39
40 measurement was based on a certain number of measurements with accuracies below
On

41
42 1% for each measured parameter. For smoothing 3D coordinate’s data of the markers
43
44 during throwing trials, and to extract the successive derivatives, we applied Savitzky-
45
ly

46 Golay filter for smoothing data without greatly distorting the signal. This algorithm
47
48
used is a polynomial smoothing of degree 3 on a sliding window of 21 points.
49
50
51 Via MatlabTM programming software (MatlabTM 7.04, Math Works,
52
53 Massachusetts, USA), kinematic variables were used as the basis of the participants’
54
55 analysis to calculate shot-putting release parameters in different references, (Figure 1)
56
57
58
59
60 8
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
Page 9 of 22 European Journal of Sport Science

1
2
3 required for estimating our shot-putter athletes’ mechanical power by assessing the
4
5 WHAF using the following formula:
6
7
• hR: this parameter was identified at the time t when the shot leaved the hand.
8
9
10 • VR: we took into account two components VRz’ and VRy' respectively beside
11
12 vertical and longitudinal axis of release.
13
14
Fo
15 VR (m·s-1) = [(VRz’)2 + (VRy’)2]1/2 (6)
16
17
18 • θR calculated from:
rP
19
20
21
22 θR (°) = atan(VRz’/VRy’)180/π (7)
ee
23
24
25 WHAF, calculated from Work-Energy theorem at the release moment.
26
rR

27 The work of external forces (WEF) is equal to the sum of the work of the hand action
28
29 force (WHAF) and the work of the shot weight (WWshot)
30
ev

31
Where:
32
33
34
ie

35 WEF (J) =WHAF + WWshot (8)

36
37
w

38 The Work-Energy theorem can be written as ∆EK =WHAF – ∆EP (9)

39
40
On

41 With ∆EP = mshot g (hRf – hRi), the variation of potential energy.

42
43
44 WHAF (J) = 1/2mshot VR2 + mshot g (hRf – hRi) (10)
45
ly

46
47 with mshot = shot mass, VR = shot release velocity, g = gravitational force, hRf and hRi are
48
49
50 the final and initial height of the shot, respectively.
51
52
53
54 ****Figure 1 near here****
55
56
57
58
59
60 9
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
 European Journal of Sport Science Page 10 of 22

1
2
3 Statistical Analysis
4
5
6 Descriptive statistics were performed for all measurements using statistical software
7
8 SPSS®, 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago IL, USA). All data were expressed as mean ± SD.
9
10
11
Before using parametric tests, the assumption of normality was checked by the Shapiro-
12
13 Wilk’s test. All of them were approximately normally distributed. Relationships
14
Fo
15 between Arm–PPO, Leg–PPO, release parameters, and WHAF were made using
16
17 Pearson's correlation coefficient. To determine the most relevant parameters explaining
18
rP
19
shot-put performance, we used a multiple regression analysis. The p < .05 criterion was
20
21
22 used for establishing statistical significance.
ee
23
24
25 Results
26
rR

27
28 Descriptive data from kinematic analysis, arm and leg force-velocity test were presented
29
30 as mean ± SD (Table 1).
ev

31
32
33 ****Table 1 near here****
34
ie

35
Leg and arm muscle volume showed significant correlations between body mass
36
37
w

38 and arm length (r = .71, p < .02; r = .69, p < .03, respectively). Moderate significant
39
40 correlations were found between arm and Leg–PPO in both, with arm and leg muscle
On

41
42 volume (r = .67, p = .03; r = .75, p = .01; r = .76, p = .01; r = .65, p = .04, respectively).
43
44 Significant correlations were also found between WHAF, arm and leg muscle volume
45
ly

46
47
(r = .78, p = .007; r = .79, p = .009, respectively).
48
49 Absolute Arm–PPO was moderately correlated with WHAF and shot-put
50
51 performance (Table 2). While a strongly significant correlation was found between
52
53 Leg–PPO and WHAF (Table 2). The same strong positive relationship was also registered
54
55
between Leg–PPO and shot-put performance (Table 2). Similarly, WHAF was closely
56
57
58
59
60 10
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
Page 11 of 22 European Journal of Sport Science

1
2
3 related to shot-put performance (Table 2). Only Leg–PPO, WHAF and shot-put
4
5 performance were correlated to the shot VR (Table 2).
6
7
8 ****Table 2 near here****
9
10 Discussion
11
12
13
14 The principal purpose of this study was to suggest a method for evaluating shot-
Fo
15
16 putters’ physical abilities. Significant relationships were observed between energy-
17
18 evaluated variables (Arm–PPO, Leg–PPO, and WHAF), VR, and shot-put performance.
rP
19
20 Particularly, WHAF was significantly correlated with Arm–PPO, Leg–PPO, and VR
21
22
(Table 2). Moderate significant correlations were also shown between Arm–PPO, Leg–
ee
23
24
25 PPO, and arm and leg muscle volume. PPO depends on the effect of body mass
26
rR

27 segments, which are closely related to the arm and leg muscle volume (Arsac et al.,
28
29 1996). The positive relationships mentioned above were confirmed by some previous
30
ev

31 studies in other, different sports activities (De Ste Croix et al., 2001; Mercier, Mercier,
32
33
34 Granier, Gallais, & Préfaut, 1992). Indeed, in the study of Mercier et al. (1992) a strong
ie

35
36 correlation was observed between Leg–PPO measured from force-velocity test and leg
37
w

38 muscle volume in healthy adolescents. In addition, De Ste Croix et al. (2001) argued
39
40 that the thigh muscle volume influenced positively the muscle power in young people
On

41
42
10–12 years of age during a Wingate test. In addition, Doré, Diallo, França, Bedu, &
43
44
45 Praagh (2000) showed that force-velocity PPO was explained by lean lower limb
ly

46
47 volume (88.2%, p < .001).
48
49 Additionally, in throwing events, upper limb muscle mass contributes less than
50
51 lower limb muscle mass in the acquirement of explosive strength (Terzis et al., 2003).
52
53
54 Cranking exercise is an activity with multiple degrees of freedom. The active muscle
55
56 volume is likely to be substantially greater than that estimated by the anthropometric
57
58
59
60 11
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
 European Journal of Sport Science Page 12 of 22

1
2
3 approach used in the present study; in particular, our estimates do not include the
4
5 shoulder muscles (Chelly et al., 2010). This is statistically explained by the non-
6
7 significant correlations found between arm muscle volume with maximum crank handle
8
9
10 force FMax–A (r = .45) and maximum crank handle velocity VMax–A (r = .31).
11
12 Used PPO for upper and lower limbs indicated significant correlation with shot-
13
14 put performance (r = .77, p = .009, Table 2). It was differently affected by absolute arm
Fo
15
16 and Leg–PPO. The strong significant correlation between Leg–PPO and shot-put
17
18
performance explains the important contribution of lower limbs in the improvement of
rP
19
20
21 the WHAF and shot-put performance (Table 2). In addition, the moderate significant
22
correlation recorded between Arm–PPO and shot-put performance confirms again this
ee
23
24
25 idea (Table 2). This finding strongly argued the hypothesis that both lower and upper
26
rR

27 limbs contributed simultaneously to the executed throwing performance (Chelly et al.,

28
29
30 2010). It was complementarily established by the significant correlation found between
ev

31
32 VR and Leg–PPO. Through the transferred work from legs to arms, throwing arm
33
34 contributed simultaneously with legs to communicate to the shot the optimum VR. For
ie

35
36 example, Bouhlel et al. (2007) demonstrated significant correlations between javelin
37
w

38
performance, Arm–PPO, and Leg–PPO, using the same force-velocity test protocols.
39
40
On

41 Similarly, Hawley & Williams (1991) showed a significant relationship between Arm–
42
43 PPO, as measured by Wingate test and 50 m sprint-swim speed performance.
44
45
ly

The previously observed relationships between WHAF, Arm–PPO, and Leg–PPO

46
47 presented significant correlations. These correlations showed that Leg–PPO was more
48
49
50 related to the WHAF than Arm–PPO. This result could be statistically confirmed by the
51
52 coefficients of determination (.76, and .53, respectively).
53
54 In addition, in the present study, the positive relationships recorded between
55
56 shot-put performance, WHAF, Leg–PPO, and Arm–PPO (Table 2) suggested that force-
57
58
59
60 12
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
Page 13 of 22 European Journal of Sport Science

1
2
3 velocity test and WHAF could be used as two appropriate protocols for assessing shot-
4
5 putters’ explosive capacities. Force-velocity protocols explained 66% and 45% of
6
7 variations in shot-put performance. The great coefficients of determination already
8
9
10 observed between WHAF, VR, and shot-put performance (.86, and .74, respectively)
11
12 compared to those found between Arm–PPO, Leg–PPO, and shot-put performance,
13
14 indicated that the WHAF was more suitable than force-velocity test. This finding would
Fo
15
16 be justified by the multiple regression analysis equation [shot-put performance = .012 +
17
18
(7.964 x WHAF)] showing that, shot-put performance was explained by WHAF while, the
rP
19
20
21 force-velocity PPO did not explain it. However, when the shot-put test is performed,
22
ee
23 arms and legs are solicited simultaneously and the performance mainly depends on the
24
25 technical execution and to the intersegmental coordination. At the shot release moment,
26
rR

27
28
the WHAF was considered as the result of kinetic energy restore during the shot-put
29
30 gesticulation.
ev

31
32 Even the important results and contributions of our work, there was a limitation
33
34 concerning a relative small sample size, which may have influenced the magnitude of
ie

35
36 the significant observed correlations.
37
w

38
39
40 Conclusion
On

41
42
43 The significant correlations found between Arm–PPO, Leg–PPO, WHAF, and shot-put
44
45 performance, showed that force-velocity test on cycle ergometer and WHAF, as
ly

46
47 calculated from kinematic analysis constituted useful protocols for assessing PPO in
48
49 shot-put. In the absence of dynamic data, the work computation calculated from
50
51
52 kinematic analysis can be considered as a suitable method for estimating shot-putter’s
53
54 external mechanical power than force-velocity test in shot put.
55
56
57
58
59
60 13
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
 European Journal of Sport Science Page 14 of 22

1
2
3 Disclosure statement
4
5
6
The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this
7
8 paper.
9
10
11 Competing interests
12
13
14 None of the authors declare competing financial interests.
Fo
15
16
17 References
18
rP
19
20 Aagaard, P., & Andersen, J. L. (1998). Correlation between contractile strength and
21
22 myosin heavy chain isoform composition in human skeletal muscle. Medicine and
ee
23
24
Science in Sports and Exercise, 30(8), 1217–1222.
25
26
rR

27 Arsac, L. M., Belli, A., & Lacour, J. R. (1996). Muscle function during brief maximal
28
29 exercise: accurate measurements on a friction-loaded cycle ergometer. European
30
ev

31 Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 74(1–2), 100–106.

32
33 [Link]
34
ie

35
36
Bouhlel, E., Chelly, M. S., Tabka, Z., & Shephard, R. J. (2007). Relationships between
37
w

38 maximal anaerobic power of the arms and legs and javelin performance. Journal of
39
40 Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 47(2):141–146.
On

41
42 Chelly, M. S., Hermassi, S., & Shephard, R. J. (2010). Relationships between power
43
44
and strength of the upper and lower limb muscles and throwing velocity in male
45
ly

46
47 handball players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(6), 1480–
48
49 1487. [Link]
50
51 Coh, M., Stuhec, S., & Supej, M. (2008). Comparative biomechanical analysis of the
52
53 rotational shot put technique. Collegium Antropologicum, 32(1), 249–256.
54
55
56
De Ste Croix, M. B. A., Armstrong, N., Chia, M. Y. H., Welsman, J. R., Parsons, G., &
57
58 Sharpe, P. (2001). Changes in short-term power output in 10- to 12-year-olds.
59
60 14
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
Page 15 of 22 European Journal of Sport Science

1
2
3 Journal of Sports Sciences, 19(2), 141–148.
4
5 [Link]
6
7 Doré, E., Diallo, O., França, N. M., Bedu, M., & Praagh, E. V. (2000). Dimensional
8
9
10 Changes Cannot Account For All Differences in Short-Term Cycling Power During
11
12 Growth. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 21(05), 360–365.
13
14 [Link]
Fo
15
16 Durnin, J. V. G. A., & Womersley, J. (1974). Body fat assessed from total body density
17
18
and its estimation from skinfold thickness: measurements on 481 men and women
rP
19
20
21 aged from 16 to 72 Years. British Journal of Nutrition, 32(1), 77–97.
22
[Link]
ee
23
24
25 Enoka, R. (2014). Neuromechanics of Human Movement. Neuromechanical Basis of
26
rR

27 Kinesiology, (2ed ed.) Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

28
29
30 Gregor, R. J., Edgerton, V. R., Perrine, J. J., Campion, D. S., & DeBus, C. (1979).
ev

31
32 Torque-velocity relationships and muscle fiber composition in elite female athletes.
33
34 Journal of Applied Physiology, 47(2), 388–392.
ie

35
36 Hawley, J. A., & Williams, M. M. (1991). Relationship between upper body anaerobic
37
w

38
power and freestyle swimming performance. International Journal of Sports
39
40
On

41 Medicine, 12(1), 1–5. [Link]

42
43 Hermassi, S., Chelly, M. S., Fathloun, M., & Shephard, R. J. (2010). The effect of
44
45
ly

heavy- vs. moderate-load training on the development of strength, power, and

46
47 throwing ball velocity in male handball players. Journal of Strength and
48
49
50 Conditioning Research, 24(9), 2408‑2418.
51
52 [Link]
53
54 Hubbard, M. (1989). The throwing events in track and field. In C. L. Vaughn (Ed.),
55
56
57 Biomechanics of Sport (pp. 213–238). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
58
59
60 15
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
 European Journal of Sport Science Page 16 of 22

1
2
3 Hubbard, M., de Mestre N. J., & Scott, J. (2001). Dependence of release variables in the
4
5 shot put. Journal of Biomechanics, 34, 449–456. doi:
6
7 [Link]
8
9
10 Jones, P. R., & Pearson, J. (1969). Anthropometric determination of leg fat and muscle
11
12 plus bone volumes in young male and female adults. The Journal of Physiology,
13
14 204(2), 63–66.
Fo
15
16 Keigo, O. B., Hiroaki, F., Masatoshi, M., Toshinori, E., Hisashi, T., Koki, G., & Kenji,
17
18
T. (2008). A biomechanical analysis of the men's shot put at the 2007 World
rP
19
20
21 Championships in Athletics. New Study in Athletics, 23(2), 53–62.
22
Kyriazis, T. A., Terzis, G., Boudolos, K., & Georgiadis, G. (2009). Muscular power,
ee
23
24
25 neuromuscular activation, and performance in shot put athletes at preseason and at
26
rR

27 competition period. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(6), 1773–

28
29
30 1779. [Link]
ev

31
32 Landolsi, M., Bouhlel, E., Zarrouk, F., Lacouture, P., & Tabka, Z. (2014). The
33
34 relationships between leg peak power and shot-put performance in national-level
ie

35
36 athletes. Isokinetics and Exercise Science, 22(1), 55–61.
37
w

38
[Link]
39
40
On

41 Lichtenberg, D. B., & Wills. J. G. (1978). Maximizing the range of the shot put.
42
43 American Journal of Physics, 46(5), 546–549. [Link]
44
45
ly

Linthorne, N. P. (2001). Optimum release angle in the shot put. Journal of Sports
46
47 Sciences, 19(5), 359–372. [Link]
48
49
50 Maheras, A.V. (1995). The relationship between the angle of release and the velocity of
51
52 release in the shot put, and the application of a theoretical model to estimate the
53
54 optimum angle of release. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
55
56
57
58
59
60 16
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
Page 17 of 22 European Journal of Sport Science

1
2
3 Kansas, Lawrence, KS. Retrieved from [Link]
4
5 content/uploads/2015/05/[Link].
6
7 Mercier, B., Mercier, J., Granier, P., Gallais, D. L., & Préfaut, C. (1992). Maximal
8
9
10 Anaerobic Power: Relationship to Anthropometric Characteristics during Growth.
11
12 International Journal of Sports Medicine, 13(01), 21–26. [Link]
13
14 2007-1021228
Fo
15
16 Red, W. E., & Zogaib, A. J. (1977). Javelin Dynamics Including Body Interaction.
17
18
Journal of Applied Mechanics, 44(3), 496–498. [Link]
rP
19
20
21 Shephard, R. J., Bouhlel, E., Vandewalle, H., & Monod, H. (1988). Muscle mass as a
22
factor limiting physical work. Journal of Applied Physiology, 64(4), 1472–1479.
ee
23
24
25 Terzis, G., Georgiadis, G., Vassiliadou, E., & Manta, P. (2003). Relationship between
26
rR

27 shot-put performance and triceps brachii fiber type composition and power
28
29
30 production. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 90(1–2), 10–15.
ev

31
32 [Link]
33
34 Terzis, G., Kyriazis, T., Karampatsos, G., & Georgiadis, G. (2012). Muscle strength,
ie

35
36 body composition, and performance of an elite shot-putter. International Journal of
37
w

38
Sports Physiology and Performance, 7(4), 394–396.
39
40
On

41 Thys, H. (2001). Place de l’énergie mécanique dans le déterminisme du coût

42
43 énergétique de la locomotion [The role of mechanical energy in determining the energy
44
45
ly

cost of locomotion]. Staps, 54(1), 131–143.

46
47 Wu, G., van der Helm, F. C. T., Veeger, H. E. J. D., Makhsous, M., Van Roy, P.,
48
49
50 Anglin, C., … Buchholz, B. (2005). ISB recommendation on definitions of joint
51
52 coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion––Part
53
54 II: shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. Journal of Biomechanics, 38(5), 981–992.
55
56
57
58
59
60 17
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
 European Journal of Sport Science Page 18 of 22

1
2
3 Young, M. (2004). Critical Factors in the Shot Put. Track Coach, 166, 5299–5304.
4
5 Retrieved from [Link]
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
30
ev

31
32
33
34
ie

35
36
37
w

38
39
40
On

41
42
43
44
45
ly

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 18
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
Page 19 of 22 European Journal of Sport Science

1
2
3 Figure caption
4
5
6 Figure 1. Example of a glide shot put in regular conditions with different used
7
8 references: R0 (O,x,y,z) is a Galilean reference system centered at O with, y the median
9
10
11 axis of the throwing circle (in the horizontal plane), z the upward positive axis and x the
12
13 reconstructed axis by the product vector of the 2 first axes. R’ is a Galilean reference
14
Fo
15 specific to each throw (y' A z') is the vertical plane of the shot air parable. A’ is the
16
17
projection on the ground of the shot release point A.
18
rP
19
20 A represents the release height point, VA is the release velocity vector, θA is the release
21
22 angle and the black curved line represents the shot trajectory on Y–Z plane.
ee
23
24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
30
ev

31
32
33
34
ie

35
36
37
w

38
39
40
On

41
42
43
44
45
ly

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 19
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
 European Journal of Sport Science Page 20 of 22

1
2
3 Table 1
4
5 Descriptive data of measured variables
6
7
8 Mean ± SD
9 Range
10
(n = 12)
11
12
13 Arm–PPO (W) 904.1 ± 119.1 787.0 –1092.5
14
Fo
15
16 Arm–PPO (W҅·kg-1) 9,4 ± 1.19 7.8 – 11.7
17
18
FMax–A (N) 96.3 ± 21.4 72.0 – 145.0
rP
19
20
21 VMax–A (rpm) 100.3 ± 14.1 82.0 – 118.0
22
ee
23 Leg–PPO (W) 1574.5 ± 141.5 1345.1 – 1824.0
24
25
26 Leg–PPO (W҅·kg-1) 16.2 ± 1.7 13.3 – 19.2
rR

27
28
FMax–L (N) 117.6 ± 20.1 92.5 – 155.0
29
30
VMax–L (rpm) 118.6 ± 20.1 90.0 – 141.4
ev

31
32
33 Arm and Leg–PPO (W) 2478.5 ± 241.0 2132.1–2916.6
34
ie

35
36 WHAF (J) 432.2 ± 90.4 301.5 – 542.5
37
w

38 θR (°) 36 ± 5 29 – 42
39
40
VR (m·s-1)
On

41 10.7 ± 0.9 9.5–12.7

42
43 hR (m) 2.1 ± 0.1 1.9–2.23
44
45
ly

46 Shot-put performance (m) 13.0 ± 1.1 10.9–14.4

47
48 Notes: Values were given as means ± SD.
49
50 Abbreviations: Arm–PPO = arm peak power output; FMax–A = maximum crank handle force; VMax-A =
51
52 maximum crank handle velocity; Leg–PPO = leg peak power output; FMax–L = maximum pedaling
53
54 force; VMax–L = maximum pedaling velocity; Arm and Leg–PPO = the sum of arm and leg peak power
55
56 outputs; WHAF = mechanical work of hand action force; θR = shot release angle; VR = shot release
57
58 velocity; hR = shot release height.
59
60
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
Page 21 of 22 European Journal of Sport Science

1
2
3 Table 2
4
5 Correlation coefficients between arm and leg peak power outputs, release parameters (θR, VR, and hR),
6
7 energy-evaluated variable from kinematic analysis, and shot-put performance.
8
9
10
11 WHAF θR VR hR Shot-put performance
12
13 (J) (°) (m·s-1) (m) (m)
14
Fo
15
16 Arm–PPO (W) .73* -.11 .38 -.64* .67*
17
18
rP
19 Arm–PPO (W҅·kg-1) .40 -.30 .35 -.69 .36
20
21
22
Leg–PPO (W) .87** .05 .67* -.33 .81**
ee
23
24
25
26 Leg–PPO (W҅·kg-1) .53 .00 .68* .00 .52
rR

27
28 .84** .001 .57 -.50 .77**
29 Arm and Leg–PPO (W)
30
ev

31 – .15 .71** -.07 .93***

32 WHAF (J)
33
34
ie

35 Shot-put performance .93*** .12 .86** -.06 –

36 (m)
37
w

38 Notes: For legends, see Table 1.

39
40 Statistical significant main effect at: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
On

41
42
43
44
45
ly

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs
 European Journal of Sport Science Page 22 of 22

1
2
3
4 Figure 1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR

27
28
29
30
ev

31
32
33
34
ie

35
36
37
w

38
39
40
On

41
42
43
44
45
ly

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
URL: http:/[Link]/tejs

View publication stats