Olympic Games and participation in sport

Article Outline

• Copyright

This issue of Physical Therapy in Sport coincides with the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, China. Our enthusiasm for witnessing the advances in sports performance has progressively built over the past 4 years culminating in this feast of high-level sports. Over the same period, significant research and practice advances have been made in elevating the level of human performance in sport, and in the physical conditioning and rehabilitation from injury for athletes.

Whilst watching the tremendous feats of athletes on the Olympic and world stage, I often ponder the question of what does the Olympic Games do for the overwhelming majority of the rest of our society, that is, those athletes who do not make it to the Olympic Games, those athletes who simply participate for recreational and health purposes, and those who do not participate in sport at all. One could perhaps argue an analogy similar to that of high-level motor racing as a research and development platform for general-use road vehicles. That is, perhaps the technological and physical developments which are researched and developed for elite sports performance are also helpful for the lower level athlete or those participating for other purposes: advances in fitness and conditioning programs, technological advances in sports equipment, and advances in rehabilitation techniques are but a few examples. These could all be seen as positive effects of an Olympic Games. Another positive impact of an Olympic Games and its extensive television coverage is the surge in sport participation (especially in some sports such as gymnastics) that occurs immediately post Games. This increased participation is viewed as a result of younger children wanting to emulate the performances they have seen on television—and after all, we should support such increased participation in sport.

There is, however, one aspect of the modern Olympic Games that the cynic (or perhaps the realist) in me thinks is worthy of further consideration. Extensive dialogue exists on the decision to host the Games of the XXIX Olympiad in China, a debate I will not recount in detail in this Editorial. Some saw it as a genuine effort to take the Games to one of the most populous nations in the world whilst others viewed the decision as one that was driven by corporate interest in terms of being able to gain access to over a billion people in a country that was slowly opening to the outside world, not to mention several other billion people through television and advertising. A simple look at the main sponsors of the Beijing Olympic Games tells an interesting story; companies whose main products include high-energy drinks, high-fat fast foods, passive forms of transportation, and computer and other small-screen products. Whilst these types of products have high convenience factors, they could also be seen as contributing to the increasing sedentary nature of current-day existence (i.e., passive forms of transportation and increased time using computers and other small-screen technology) as well as to the obesity epidemic (through the increasing consumption of high-fat and high-energy food) we are currently facing.

So despite the obvious advantages for sport participation that an Olympic Games affords, as we enjoy the spectacle of athletes striving to be faster, higher and stronger (Citius, Altuis, Fortius) we must not forget to examine the other influences that the modern Olympic Games has on participation in sport and recreational activities and the overall health of our population.

This issue of Physical Therapy in Sport includes a range of original research papers and literature review papers. The issue leads with a paper by Karen Giles and Iris Musa from Cardiff University in Wales. These authors report on a survey of glenohumeral joint rotation range and its relationship to nonspecific shoulder pain in 133 elite cricketers. One of their interesting findings was the relationship between shoulder pain and greater dominant-to-nondominant shoulder internal rotation differences. They advocate the measurement of passive glenohumeral joint rotation as an important part of musculoskeletal screening with elite cricketers. In the second paper, Tania Pizzari from La Trobe University in Australia and her colleagues tackle the difficult area of osteitis pubis. Recognising the great confusion that exists around this condition they examined current management practices for this condition in the elite Australian Football League. In-depth qualitative interviews demonstrated that the key to prevention is balancing pelvic integrity and load, and the ability to recognise symptoms at an early stage. This paper reminds us of the benefits that can be gained by using qualitative methodologies in a discipline that is often weighted with quantitative research. The third original research paper included in this issue involves sonographic evaluation of the axillary artery during simulated overhead throwing arm positions. In this paper Claire Stapleton and her colleagues at Liverpool John Moores University and University of Salford in the United Kingdom looked at the changes in axillary artery diameter and peak systolic velocity as a way of assessing vascular pathology. In their conclusions they question the specificity of individual diagnostic tests such as the hyperabduction manoeuvre, and strongly support interpreting test results alongside subjective assessment and other physical findings.

This issue also includes two literature review papers. In the first paper, Tom Hughes and Patsy Rochester from the University of Bradford reviewed the literature on the effects on proprioception of proprioceptive exercise and taping in cases of functional ankle instability. Although they found some agreement that muscle reaction time, kinaesthetic deficits, and postural sway may improve with proprioceptive exercise, the literature in this area is rather scarce and is often limited due to methodological quality. The final paper of this issue comes from Wayne Hing and colleagues at Auckland University of Technology in New Zealand. They conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials that have focused on the therapeutic efficacy of contrast therapy. Their conclusion was that insufficient evidence exists that contrast therapy aids in sports recovery, and suggest future research that looks at whole-body immersion recovery strategies in sport settings.

Enjoy this issue of Physical Therapy in Sport, whether you are reading it during those commercial advertisement breaks in the Olympic Games coverage or at some other stage.