Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Joe TodoraFaculty Sponsor: Dr. Ben Meyer (Department of Exercise Science)
Normative data for overhead back and between-the-legs front throws
AbstractPurpose: Overhead back (OHB) and between-the-legs front (BLF) throws are components of total body power training programs. The distance of a throw, as a raw score, is difficult to evaluate. Percentiles permit the evaluation of raw scores and facilitate the comparison of two sets of data that are based on different units of measurement. By obtaining normative data for OHB and BLF throws, it will be possible to make comparisons with other power assessments. The purpose of this study was to obtain normative data for OHB and BLF throwing techniques in an undergraduate student population.Methods: Thirty-six male and thirty-three female undergraduate students participated in the study. For both throwing techniques, males used a 14 lb (6.35 kg) medicine ball and females used an 8 lb (3.63 kg) medicine ball. Subjects performed three trials for each technique, and distances were measured using a fiberglass tape. For each technique, the best of the three throws was used in the analysis. Percentiles were computed using the SPSS 18.0 default method. Paired t-tests were used to check for statistically significant differences between the two throws. The cut-off chosen for statistical significance was p = 0.05.Results: Males threw farther (p < 0.05) in the BLF (8.9 ± 1.5 m) than in the OHB (8.6 ± 1.6 m). Females also threw farther (p < 0.05) in the BLF (6.5 ± 1.3 m) than in the OHB (5.8 ± 1.3 m). Individuals who threw far using one technique tended to throw far using the other technique (r = 0.847, males; r = 0.845, females).Conclusion: The results of this project indicate that male and female undergraduate students are able to throw a medicine ball farther using the between-the-legs front technique than using the overhead back technique. The normative data obtained in this study provide a basis for classification of throwing proficiency and comparisons to other power assessments.
IntroductionThe overhead back throw (OHB) and between-the-legs front throw (BLF) are used in physical fitness assessments and as a training tool for various sports. Athletes throw an object, such as a shot or medicine ball, using maximal effort in order to achieve the largest horizontal distance possible. Figures 1 and 2 show typical OHB and BLF sequences.
The distance of a throw, as a raw score, is difficult to evaluate. Percentiles permit the evaluation of raw scores and facilitate the comparison of two sets of data that are based on different units of measurement (Stockburger, 1996). By obtaining normative data for OHB and BLF throws, it will be possible to make comparisons with other power assessments (Harman, Garhammer, & Pandorf, 2000).
The purpose of this study was to obtain normative data for OHB and BLF throwing techniques in an undergraduate student population.
AcknowledgmentsThe authors’ participation in the 2013 MARC-ACSM conference was supported by Shippensburg University Student Services, Inc.
ResultsTables 1 and 2 show the percentiles for males and females, respectively. Males threw farther (p < 0.05) in the BLF (8.9 1.5 m) than in the OHB (8.6 1.6 m). Females also threw farther (p < 0.05) in the BLF (6.5 1.3 m) than in the OHB (5.8 1.3 m). Individuals who threw far using one technique tended to throw far using the other technique (r = 0.847, males; r = 0.845, females).
Figures 3 and 4 show the frequency distributions for OHB distance for males and females, respectively. The males’ distribution for OHB distance approximated a symmetrical distribution, while the females’ distribution was positively skewed.
Figures 5 and 6 show the frequency distributions for BLF distance for males and females, respectively. The males’ distribution for BLF distance approximated a symmetrical distribution, while the females’ distribution was slightly positively skewed.
DiscussionThe results of this project indicate that male and female undergraduate students are able to throw a medicine ball farther using the BLF technique than using the OHB technique. The normative data obtained in this study provide a basis for classification of throwing proficiency and comparisons to other power assessments.
The authors recommend that a larger population of subjects be assessed in their performance of the OHB and BLF throws. This is especially important for the females, whose positively-skewed distribution indicates that mostly lower-skilled subjects took part in the present study.
ReferencesHarman, E., Garhammer, J., & Pandorf, C. (2000). Administration, scoring, and interpretation of selected tests. In T.R. Baechle & R.W. Earle (Eds.). Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (pp. 287-317). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Stockburger, D. (1996). Score transformations. In Introductory statistics: Concepts, models, and applications. Retrieved from http://www.psychstat.missouristate.edu/introbook/sbk14m.htm
Figure 1. Overhead back throw (typical participant).
Figure 3. Frequency distributions for OHB throw distances (males).
Figure 4. Frequency distributions for OHB throw distances (females).
MethodsThirty-six male (age = 22 ± 1 yr; standing height = 1.79 ± 0.09 m; mass = 87 ± 20 kg) and thirty-three female (age = 22 ± 4 yr; standing height = 1.65 ± 0.07 m; mass = 61 ± 9 kg) undergraduate students volunteered for the study. For both throwing techniques, males used a 14 lb (6.35 kg) medicine ball and females used an 8 lb (3.63 kg) medicine ball. Subjects performed three trials for each technique, and distances were measured using a fiberglass tape. For each technique, the best of the three throws was used in the analysis.
Percentiles were computed using the SPSS 18.0 default method. Paired t-tests were used to check for statistically significant differences between the two throws. The cut-off chosen for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Pearson product moment correlation coefficient values were computed in order to determine the extent of the relationship between measures.
Figure 2. Between-the-legs front throw (typical participant).
Table 1. Percentiles for OHB and BLF throws (Males, 14 lb medicine ball).
Table 2. Percentiles for OHB and BLF throws (Females, 8 lb medicine ball).
Percentile OHB (m) BLF (m)90 10.7 10.880 10.0 10.370 9.1 9.660 8.9 9.250 8.5 8.940 8.1 8.730 7.6 8.020 6.7 7.610 6.5 6.8
Percentile OHB (m) BLF (m)90 7.2 8.180 6.6 7.570 6.5 7.260 6.0 6.550 5.8 6.440 5.2 5.930 4.8 5.720 4.7 5.210 4.5 5.1
Figure 5. Frequency distributions for BLF throw distances (males).
Figure 6. Frequency distributions for OHB throw distances (females).
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1105
1015
OHB (Male)
Distance (m)
Freq
uenc
y
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1105
1015
BLF (Male)
Distance (m)
Freq
uenc
y
4 5 6 7 8 9 1005
1015
OHB (Female)
Distance (m)
Freq
uenc
y
4 5 6 7 8 9 1005
1015
BLF (Female)
Distance (m)
Freq
uenc
y
