Using vectors as a tool, we can identify the necessary movement and loading requirements to maximize sport-specific propulsive patterns and choose appropriate training interventions when there are shortcomings.

So how can we actually apply “applied biomechanics”? To start, we must build an intuition around how movement is quantified. There are two basic building blocks: scalars and vectors.

The human body does not function as a symmetrical machine. So why do we innately strive for an unachievable standard of symmetry as an indicator of our movement health and performance?

In this post, we will discuss circumstances where performance asymmetry may not indicate a deficit and how it should drive performance and injury prevention decision-making.

While limb asymmetry assessments are pillars of movement health and return to sport functional milestones, determining readiness to return to activity is multifactorial. Here are some actionable guidelines for leveraging asymmetry testing in your practice.

In the last blog post, we discussed how much ado has been made about injury prediction. To make injury prediction a feasible endeavor, though, we need to study the athlete in their environment like it is a complex-adaptive system (because it is).

We all want to focus on the positive, but sometimes, putting too much faith in our ideas and beliefs leads us to miss the deficits that an athlete is presenting right in front of us. This can lead to rolling the dice on RTP decision making.

When was the last time you ventured out on a trip using a good old fashioned roadmap and a pencil to mark out your route? I can remember my parents working at the dining room table before a long road trip to trace out the route they would take. A bunch of working rules or heuristics guided their decision making. For example, if you were traveling with little kids, you would probably need to plan for a break every few hours and, ideally, those locations would have toilets and space for a good run.

This is the final blog post in a four-part series on the Plantiga system and how it can help the individual patient, the athlete, the weekend warrior, the clinician, and the performance practitioner generate their own objective measures to optimize their health and manage recovery after injury.

In 2017, a reported 60 million Americans actively participated in regular, run-focused activities. With the exception of a few social and migratory animals, this seems to be a uniquely human pastime. Why is that? The answer to this question may reside in our evolutionary history. 

We’ve all heard that we should aim to walk at least 10,000 steps each day. While the number 10,000 originated from a 1965 Japanese marketing campaign, it is not far from the 7,500 steps per day that provide the majority of the reduction in mortality. The simple act of walking may seem trivial, but it is one of the most valuable steps we can take for our health (pun intended). 

At the end of the day, a practitioner is trying to figure out how a person is doing (progressing, regressing or sometimes just maintaining) and if there are trainable deficits that can be addressed with exercise and treatment.

Companies like Plantiga have been provided an opportunity in these times of uncertainty. Last week therapists and coaches might have thought assessing clients outside the clinic was a “good idea.” This week they have been forced to find a way to monitor outcomes and make decisions remotely, evaluating their patients who are not physically in their brick and mortar clinic. Instead care has to be provided virtually.