Table 1.
Studies published related to Tug of War.
| Anthropometrics | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Authors | Year | N | Method | Variables | Results |
| Physiological and metabolic characteristics of elite tug of war athletes | Warrington, G; Ryan, C; Murray, F; Duffy, P; Kirwan, J. P | 2001 | 16 male 34 ± 2 years |
Collected data were comparing with a group of rugby forwards from the international squad | Anthropometrics | body mass: 83.6 (3.0) kg; lean body mass (69.4 (2.1) kg body fat: (16.7 (0.9) %) fat mass 14.2 kg height 1.81 cm |
| Physical and Phisiologycal Capacities | ||||||
| Effects of 3-weeks intense training on physiological capacities of tug-of-war team | Northuis, M. E. and Cook, B | 1998 | 9 males 6 males (control) |
3-week training period Pre period Post period |
Muscular strength Strength endurance Power Body composition Lower back and hamstring flexibility Body water volume Blood lactate |
3-week training resulted ns. Neuromuscular changes ↑ muscular strength and ↑ strength endurance. ↑ lactate clearance time indicate sig. systemic metabolic changes. |
| Physiological and metabolic characteristics of elite tug of war athletes | Warrington et al. | 2001 | 16 male 34 ± 2 years |
Collected data were comparing with a group of rugby forwards from the international squad | VO2MAX Strength Muscular power Flexibility Biochemical profile |
BM: TOW< RF VO2MAX: TOW < RF Relative VO2MAX: TOW > RF Max HR: TOW = RF Bf: TOW < RF Composite strength: TOW > RF CMJ: TOW < RF Leg flexibility: TOW > RF Bag flexibility: Erythrocyte volume: TOW < RF |
| The Strain of The Pull: Examining the Physiological Effects of An Endurance Tug of War | Rider et al. | 2017 | 15 male | 3 weeks to prepare. Pre-Train and Post Train test. Blood and urine were collected at four time points (PreTrain, PostTrain, PullDay, and PostPull) |
Flexibility Power Muscular strength Body composition Blood Urine SG CK. |
Flexibility ↑ (24.42 ± 5.2 vs. 31.03 ± 6.1 cm, p < 0.05) CK: Pre-Train (2113.7 ± 1207.6) > Post Train (598 ± 73) Pull Day (1384.8 ± 936.6) > Post Pull (910.7 ± 244.7) Hydration levels ↓ during training (PreTrain:1.02 ± 0.01 vs. PostTrain: 1.03 ± 0.01 vs. PullDay: 1.03 ± 0.01 |
| Injuries | ||||||
| Tug-of-War Injuries: A Case Report and Review of the Literature | Pranit, N. C. and Abdelgawad, A. A. |
2002 | 1 10 years man |
Case Report | Measures should be taken to increase the awareness about these safety rules and prevention of consequent injuries | |
| Tug of war: introduction to the sport and an epidemiological injury study among elite pullers | Smith, J. and Krabak, B |
2002 | 252 31 ± 9.5 years 187 males 65 females |
Survey during World TOW Championships in 1998 |
Demographic data Participation history Injury history during TOW Injury number Injury type |
Strains: >50% Sprains: 42% Shoulder–upper limb: 23% Knee: 17% Similar between males and females. |
| Trauma resulting from tug-of war | Ferguson, A. and Kierkegaard, E. |
1981 | 1 | Case Report | No data has been found | No data has been found |
| Adult bochdalek hernia after playing at a tug of war | Liai et al. | 1997 | 1 38 years Female |
Case Report | No data has been found | Hernia repair with direct suturing through a thoracotomy |
| Tug-of-war hand: transforearm amputation by an unusual mechanism | Bruce W. And Hayes C.W. |
1999 | 1 21 years man |
Case Report | No data has been found | Amputation below elbow Rehabilitation Prosthesis |
| Extensive retinal hemorrhage after a game of tug-of-war | Moran M. | 1984 | 1 | Case Report | No data has been found | Extensive retinal hemorrhage |
| Injuries During a Massive Tug-of-War Game | Pei-Hsin Lin et al. | 2003 | 1 64 years man |
Case Report | No data has been found | Comprised liver and spleen rupture with C5-6 spinal cord Bilateral brachial plexus injuries |
| Arm Pain from Tug of War | Khosravi et al. | 2006 | 1 16 years man |
Case Report | No data has been found | Tear of the biceps muscle |
| Kinetics Analisys | ||||||
| Influence of Training on the Force-Velocity Relationship of the Arm Flexors of Active Sportsmen | de Koning et al. | 1984 | 15 National level: 4 rowers (20–28 years) 6 runners (17–36 years) 5 athlete’s TOWS (27–42 years) |
1 training year 3 measured stages | FVC Max. mechanical power Torques Angular velocities |
Force-velocity characteristics of muscle of previously well-trained sportsmen can hardly be influenced |
| Biomechanical analysis on tug of war | Yamamoto et al. | 1988 | 16 | Hold session during 10 s | Body mass Grip strength Back strength Power hold Power stroke EMG |
EMG: high activity of dorsal muscle Ind. power hold 148.5 + −31.7 kg Calculated team power hold: 1188 kg. Real team power hold: 792 kg |
| Influences of some sports shoes on the strength of pulling exercise in Indoor Tug-of-War | Yamamoto, et al. | 1997 | 8 males 28.1± 2.95 years 176.3 ± 4.65 cm 77.6 ± 5.39 kg |
4 types of shoes 3 different mats Maximal pull on each shoe for 5 sg |
Static coefficient of friction PF at each shoe |
English or Japanese mat: TOR 107/TOR 109 European mat: ns differences |
| Biomechanical considerations of pulling force in tug of war with computer simulation | Kawahara et al. | 2001 | 1 21 years active college student. |
Biomechanical model of human body: 5-segmented 3 joints |
CG SCG Height Body mass Holding height |
Holding height vs. PF pulling force. sig. correlation Body inclination vs. PF sig. correlation |
| A three-dimensional motion analysis of two-handed and waist belt pulling backward exercises in elite tug of war athletes | Tanaka et al. | 2004 | 20 Males 28.3 ± 3.3 years 174.4 ± 4.3 cm 71.9 ± 6.0 kg |
Each subject performed TH and WB pull in the DF at his maximal effort | Static maximal pulling forces Stride length Stride frequency Walking speed |
TH vs. WB sig. correlation The speeds of backward walking: 0.2 ms−1 in TH 0.3 ms−1 in WB The stride lengths: 0.2 m in TH and WB Stride frequency: 1.4 steps/s TH 1.6 steps/s WB |
| Dynamical Analysis of Indoor Eight People Make Tug of War Attack Movements—’European Back-Step’ and ‘Japanese Back-Step’ | Fong-Wei Wang and Chien-Lu Tsai |
2005 | 8 22.1 ± 2.4 years 174.1 ± 3.6 cm 72.7 ± 2.4 kg |
The 3D data EBS & JBS attack movements were analyzed | Peak a minimum of GRF | Peak backward GRF: JBS (1.9 bw) > EBS (1.85 bw). Minimum backward GRF: JBS (1.55 bw) > EBS (1.47 b w) |
| The analysis of pulling force curves in tug-of-war | Jui Hung Tu et al. | 2005 | 11 Female 17.8 ± 0.99 years 163.9 ± 2.98 cm 59.1 ± 4.21 kg |
3 trials of pulling force curves in DFB and AFB movement The rest time: more than 10 min |
MaxF MinF AveF RT FS |
MaxF, MinF, and FS sig. different in DFB and AFB Time-related parameters ns. |
| The study of team resultant force vanishing percentage in elite tug of war players | ChunHui Liou et al. | 2005 | 9 Female 16.9 ± 0.6 years 163.8 ± 2.7 cm 58.7 ± 4.3 kg senior |
6 kinds of team pulling: (A) two players (B) three players (C) four players (D) five players; (E) six (F) seven players (G) eight players |
Sum of individual maximal PF (kqf) Team maximal PF Force vanishing % |
The sum of maximal individual PF > team maximal PF. More number of players ↑ vanishing % |
| Characteristics of pulling movement for Japanese elite tug of war athletes | Nakagawa et al. | 2005 | 16 2 teams Elite team Average team. |
2 cameras recorded 2 trials. 2D motion analysis system was used |
Analysis points on body: 8 points 6 angles |
Produced the motion to pull by arm and body. To hold arm to body: closed their side, trunk, inclined their body and lower body Inclined their upper body slightly in comparison with average team |
| Biomechanical Analysis on dynamic pulling skill in elite indoor tug of war athletes | Tanaka et al. | 2005 | 20 male | Each subject performed TH pull in the DF at his maximal effort | Maximal PF Dynamic PF Static PF Anatomical landmarks of the body |
Maximal PF: 1041.6 ± 123.9 N Maximal PF: 201.8 ± 38.2% relative BM Dynamic PF: 149.0 ± 23.1% divided by the weight |
| Analysis of timing skill of drop exercise in elite indoor tug of war athletes | Tanaka et al. | 2006 | 30 male 22 World Indoor TOW 2004 Champions 8 novice male students |
Load cells with a strain amplifier connected to a pen oscillograph, in paper speed of 25 mm/sg A strobe light synchronized with a pen oscillograph |
PT PT exerted by two pullers. Individual PeF PeF exerted by two pullers |
The sum of individual PeF in two pullers was 305.9 ± 41.4 kgw and PeF exerted by the two pullers was 286.3 ± 38.8 kgw, 93.6% of the sum PeF in skilled pullers. 6% loss of PeF in skilled pair. Smaller PT differences are in two pullers The smaller is the reduction of PeF in pair |
| Fundamental experiment for constructing it-tow bio |
Nakagawa et al. | 2006 | 1 A healthy female participant no experience with TW 22 years 162 cm 529.2 N |
PF measured in 3 tests and 3 trials per one test: -Drive phase -Hold phase |
PF | PF data must be exchanged and not be measured by a load cell |
| Backward pulling distance in drop phase for Japanese elite Tug-of-war athletes | Nagahama et al. | 2007 | 80. 5 elite teams (finalists) and 5 normal teams (non finalists) Women Lightweight division |
Pulling distance on 1 sg of DF The BDP distance on DF was measured |
BPD | Elite team pulled the rope longer than normal team Anchorman pulled the rope shorter than other positions comparatively |
| The biomechanical analysis for plyometric strength training effect of elite male tuggers | Lin, J. D et al. | 2007 | 11 male high school 16.8 ± 0.99 years 171.59 ± 3.18 cm 70.14 ± 2.65 kg |
Plyometric strength training machine of TOW for 8 weeks Pre-training and post-training FC |
DFB AFB PF AveF MaxT MinF RT/FS |
DFB: MaxT, MinF, RT AveF sig. differences pre-post training AFB: the first peak MinF, Max] and RT, AveF, F] sig. differences |
| Team pulling technique of the Tug-of-war—A birds eye analysis of TOW | Mukwaya et al. | 2007 | 10 teams matches were recorded in All Japan women’s Tug of War Championship |
2D motion analysis system Angles 1st line 2nd line |
PF Loss of force The slanting angles (Sum of 7 angles) |
0.5% of team PF was wasted in first DF The lateral slanting has very little relation with the loss of the force in DF |
| A cross-sectional study of gender differences in pulling strength of tow for Japanese elementary school children | Sato et al. | 2009 | 16 children 8 male 8 female |
The participants performed 1 trial for each parameter. The pulling mini game (4vs4) was set for 30 s and performed 3~5 games for each pairing |
Back strength PF |
Difference between rope tension and sum of pulling strength in male > females |
| Parametric analysis in tug of war based on ideal biomechanical model | Bing Zhang | 2012 | No data has been found | Parametric analysis in TOW Ideal biomechanical model |
Maximum pressure Conduct force analysis of rope |
The sequence is arrayed from short to tall and only when the heights are the same the athletes with the greater weight should stand behind |
| The Origin Development and Winning Skills of Tug of War | Xinyu Li | 2015 | 1 puller of each team | The force analysis | a center of gravity of body Static friction force on the ground Force pulls The size of hand grip |
Weight is the important factors: The greater the weight and the maximum static friction force is Work time is one of the important factors to success |
| Team pulling technique of elite female indoor-tow athletes from a drone’s point of view | Nakagawa et al. | 2016 | 16 2 women team |
2 games were filmed the R side of the competition lane. 2D motion analysis system. Video camera at roof of gymnasium Analysis time was 10 s of drop phase |
X, Y-axis for all puller Foot position. |
Synchronized movement: rightward and backward, caused synchronize pulling timing and direction, which culminated in lower the loss of the force |
| The novel biomechanical measurement and analysis system for tug-of-war | Chun-ta Linl et al. | 2016 | No data has been found | Digitizing system for collecting body segment parameters | PF Force curve Joint Moment Trunk segment Thigh segment Leg segment |
Theoretical methods for PF estimation and joint moment analysis modules have been derived Experimental verification for the proposed system is being carried out |
| Differences in Force Gradation between Tug-of-War Athletes and Non-Athletes during Rhythmic Force Tracking at High Exertion Levels |
Yen-Ting Lin et al. | 2016 | 32 16 elite males 21.5 ±0.6 years 177.3 ± 4 cm 82.1 ± 5.7 kg; 16 non athletes 21.3 ± 0.6 years 174.1 ± 3.3 cm 64.4 ± 7.7 kg |
Isometric handgrip (3 times of 20 sg) |
Grip force Force fluctuation Force pulse variables |
TOW athletes exhibited: ↑ Fmean ↑ ratio Fmean to body mass, ↑superior force-generating capacity ↑ economic force-grading. |
| Contribution of upper limb muscles to two different gripping styles in elite indoor tug of war athletes | Wen-Tzu Tang et al. | 2017 | 20 Athletes 1 group GS1 16.5 ± 0.7 years 172.0 ± 4.2 cm 68.0 ± 6.6 kg 2 group GS2 16.8 ± 0.3 years 172.4 ± 4.9 cm 69.2 ± 7.4 kg |
Pulling on a tug machine, participants used GS1 or GS2 their own habitual gripping style to pull for 5 in 15 sg trials. 14-segment anthropometric Kwon3D system. |
Max F Max T Avg T Min T Max T-Min T PT COG Body tilting posture Surface EMG signal of UE muscles |
Force and kinematic measurements showed a significantly better force performance and higher centre-of-gravity tilting angle with the GS1 than with (GS2) Higher and more symmetrical muscle activation detected by normalized surface electromyography signal amplitude was found in the GS2 group In both groups, the distal and flexor muscles were more activated than the proximal and extensor muscles, respectively |
Legend: ↑: increase/↓: decrease/AFB: Attack fast break/AveF: Average Force/BF: Body Fat/Bf: Back flexion/BPD: Backward pulling distance/CK: creatine kinase/CMJ: Counter movement jump/COG: Center of gravity/DFB: Defend fast break/EBS: European Back-Step/FS: Force Slope/FVC: force-velocity curve/FC: Force curve/GS1: Gripping style one/GS2: Gripping style two/GRF: Ground Reaction Force/JBS: Japanese Back-Step/Max HR: Maximal heart rate/MaxF: Maximal pulling Force/MaxT: Time of the peak pull force/MinF: Minimum pulling force/ns: No significant/PeF: Peak Force/PF: Pulling Force/PT: Peak force time/RF: Reference group/RT: Reaction Time/SG: specific gravity/sig: significant/TH: Two handed/TOW: Tug of war/VO2MAX: maximal oxygen uptake/WB: Waist belt/CG: Segment center of gravity/SCG: Synthesis center of gravity.