Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 6 of 6 items for

  • Author: Brent C. Mangus x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Brent C. Mangus

The number of wheelchair-bound athletes training for and competing in local, state, national, and international sporting events increases every year. As participation increases, sports injuries associated with the training and competition of these athletes also increase. Medical attention for wheelchair athletes during training and competition should be provided by competent professionals. However, even with competent professionals providing medical attention to wheelchair athletes, injuries do occur. Typical injuries experienced by the wheelchair-bound athlete include carpal tunnel syndrome, various shoulder problems, numerous problems with the hands, and lacerations, abrasions, and contusions to all parts of the body. The ability of the wheelchair athlete to thermoregulate his or her own body is also an area of concern for those providing health care during practice and competition. More researchers are studying injuries and injury rates to the wheelchair athlete, and the body of literature in this area is becoming larger. Future research can begin to document the effects of strength training, nutrition, various conditioning strategies, the biomechanics of the wheelchair motion, and the psychological impact of athletic injuries. Although some physiological factors have been studied, many remain to be addressed in an effort to shed light on the injuries experienced by wheelchair athletes.

Restricted access

Brent C. Mangus, Mark A. Hoffman and Scott A. Parry

Restricted access

Brent C. Mangus and Cynthia A. Trowbridge

Restricted access

Brent C. Mangus, Laura A. Hoffman, Mark A. Hoffman and Peter Altenburger

Context:

Knowledge and understanding of the principles and applications of joint-mobilization techniques are becoming commonplace for entry-level certified athletic trainers.

Data Sources:

Various textbooks written on this topic.

Data Synthesis:

The authors collected information from commonly used textbooks on joint mobilization in both athletic training and physical therapy curriculums.

Conclusion:

Undoubtedly, before using joint mobilization, the clinician should demonstrate mastery-level understanding of joint biomechanics, application principles, and indications and contra-indications. This article provides basic information on the principles of joint mobilization.

Restricted access

Janet S. Dufek, John A. Mercer, Kaori Teramoto, Brent C. Mangus and Julia A. Freedman

Context:

Impact is known to cause injury during running, while variability is thought to promote healthy performance.

Objective:

Quantify contributions of the lower extremity and back and the variability of impact generation among (1) prepubescent girls (Grp 1), (2) normally menstruating women (Grp 2), and (3) postmenopausal women (Grp 3) to address possible lifespan changes during running.

Design:

A mixed model experiment.

Setting:

Biomechanics Laboratory.

Participants:

31 healthy females owing membership to Grp1, Grp 2, or Grp 3.

Intervention:

Participants ran on a treadmill at their preferred speed (45 s) and at a speed 10% faster (45 s) while instrumented with uniaxial accelerometers.

Main Outcome Measures:

Lower extremity attenuation, back attenuation and variability of peak impact acceleration values.

Results:

Lower extremity attenuation and variability were greatest for Grp 1 while impact variability was least for Grp 2.

Conclusion:

Lifespan phases appear to affect impact attenuation strategies and variability of impact during running for females.

Restricted access

Sam T. Johnson, Grace M. Golden, John A. Mercer, Brent C. Mangus and Mark A. Hoffman

Context:

Form skipping has been used to help injured athletes progress to running. Because little research has been done on form-skipping mechanics, its justification as a progression to running exercises is unclear.

Objective:

To compare ground-reaction forces (GRF) during form skipping and running in healthy subjects at clinically relevant speeds, 1.75 m/s and 3.83 m/s, respectively.

Design:

Dependent t tests (α = .05).

Setting:

Sports-injury research center.

Participants:

9 male college athletes (age 20 ± 1.33 years, mass 848.4 ± 43.24 N, height 1.80 ± 0.07 m).

Main Outcome Measures:

Average (Fz avg) and maximum (Fz max) vertical GRF and (Fy) braking impulse were compared.

Results:

Fz avg and Fz max were greater during running than during form skipping (P < .05). Braking impulses were not different (P > .05).

Conclusions:

It appears that Fz, but not the Fy, GRF might explain why form skipping might be an appropriate progression to running.