You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Discussion
Why not consider a sex factor within the ISO 11088 ski binding setting standard?
  1. Gerhard Ruedl,
  2. Martin Burtscher
  1. Department of Sport Science, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
  1. Correspondence to Dr Gerhard Ruedl, Department of Sport Science, University of Innsbruck, Fürstenweg 185, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria; gerhard.ruedl{at}uibk.ac.at

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098572

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    In recreational alpine skiing, about one-third of all injuries are related to the knee joint.1 However, female recreational skiers have twice the knee injury incidence of male skiers and the ACL injury risk is even three times higher in female skiers.1 A total of 60%–80% of knee injuries after a self-inflicted fall seem to be associated with a failure of binding release and again with decisive sex differences.1 Female skiers reported about 20% more often failure of binding release than men.1 In an epidemiological study including more than 1300 injured recreational skiers, self-reported failure of binding release was significantly higher in women when compared with men (51% vs 32%), irrespective of the injured body part.2 Noteworthy, among uninjured skiers, three times more women were unable to release their ski bindings during a self-release test even though their bindings were currently adjusted according to the official ski standards (International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 11088) for binding setting values.3

    Strong thigh muscles seem to be a prerequisite for the ability to self-release the ski binding especially when set at a high level. …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.