Mechanical misconceptions: Have we lost the “mechanics” in “sports biomechanics”?

Biomechanics principally stems from two disciplines, mechanics and biology. However, both the application and language of the mechanical constructs are not always adhered to when applied to biological systems, which can lead to errors and misunderstandings within the scientific literature. Here we a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of biomechanics 2019-08, Vol.93, p.1-5
Main Authors: Vigotsky, Andrew D., Zelik, Karl E., Lake, Jason, Hinrichs, Richard N.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biomechanics
Bones
Classical mechanics
Communication
Force
Gravity
Joint reaction force
Military readiness
Military strategy
Misunderstandings
Myths
Researchers
Sports
Sports injuries
Sports medicine
Textbooks
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Biomechanics principally stems from two disciplines, mechanics and biology. However, both the application and language of the mechanical constructs are not always adhered to when applied to biological systems, which can lead to errors and misunderstandings within the scientific literature. Here we address three topics that seem to be common points of confusion and misconception, with a specific focus on sports biomechanics applications: (1) joint reaction forces as they pertain to loads actually experienced by biological joints; (2) the partitioning of scalar quantities into directional components; and (3) weight and gravity alteration. For each topic, we discuss how mechanical concepts have been commonly misapplied in peer-reviewed publications, the consequences of those misapplications, and how biomechanics, exercise science, and other related disciplines can collectively benefit by more carefully adhering to and applying concepts of classical mechanics.
ISSN:0021-9290
1873-2380
DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.07.005