Final Prosection Exam: Student Name To Receive Credit 376452

Final Prosection Examstudent Nameto Receive Credit Where Credit Should

Final Prosection Exam student Name To receive credit where credit should be given be sure to follow the ensuing rubric. Your answer should be similarly formatted to the example shown below. DUE THURSDAY December 20, 2018 Example: Analyze an individual performing a prowler push from Point A: start position or neutral position to Point B: final position after a 3-5 steps performed. Incorporate the following joints; ankle, knee, hip/pelvis, shoulder girdle, shoulder joint, and elbow. Secondly, state the concentric and eccentric portions of the exercise, and list at least two prime movers for each of the following actions that occur. (Copy and Paste into Browser if Clicking doesn’t work) RUBRIC FOR ANALYSIS 2: TOTAL BODY MOVEMENT ANALYSIS (The ‘Elbow’ & ‘Hand / Wrist’ categories have been omitted from this example) Joint Action Eccentric (E), Concentric (C), or Isometric (I) At Least 2 Agonists (Separate with a comma ‘,’) Ankle A-B: Dorsiflexion A-B: C A-B: Tibialis Anterior, Peroneus Tertius B-C: Plantar Flexion B-C: C B-C: Gastrocnemius, Tibialis Posterior C-D: C-D: C-D: Knee A-B: Slight Flexion A-B: C A-B: Biceps Femoris, Semitendinosus B-C: Extension B-C: C B-C: Rectus Femoris, Vastus Medialis C-D: C-D: C-D: Hip/Pelvis A-B: Flexion A-B: C A-B: Iliopsoas, Rectus Femoris B-C: Extension B-C: C B-C: Semimembranosus, Semitendinosus C-D: C-D: C-D: Shoulder Girdle A-B: Remains consistent through the starting & final position A-B: N/A A-B: B-C: Protraction, Upward Rotation B-C: I B-C: Pectoralis Minor, Serratus Anterior C-D: C-D: C-D: Shoulder Joint A-B: Remains consistent through the starting & final position A-B: N/A A-B: B-C: Transversely Adducted, Flexion B-C: I B-C: Anterior Deltoid, Pectoralis Major C-D: C-D: C-D: Problem 1: Below is the link to a video demonstrating an Olympic Snatch. This resistance exercise requires total body movement. Analyze the full movement in the video several times and discuss what is happening from the start position to the final position ( i.e., A-B; B-C; C-D). (Copy and Paste into Browser if Clicking doesn’t work) Point A: Start Position; Crouched, grasping the barbell Point B: Weight pull with barbell at waist level Point C: Squatted with weight overhead Point D: Standing upright Joint Action Eccentric (E), Concentric (C), or Isometric (I) At Least 2 Agonists (Separate with a comma ‘,’) Ankle A-B: A-B: A-B: B-C: B-C: B-C: C-D: C-D: C-D: Knee A-B: A-B: A-B: B-C: B-C: B-C: C-D: C-D: C-D: Hip/Pelvis A-B: A-B: A-B: B-C: B-C: B-C: C-D: C-D: C-D: Shoulder Girdle A-B: A-B: A-B: B-C: B-C: B-C: C-D: C-D: C-D: Shoulder Joint A-B: A-B: A-B: B-C: B-C: B-C: C-D: C-D: C-D: Elbow A-B: A-B: A-B: B-C: B-C: B-C: C-D: C-D: C-D: Wrist/Hand A-B: A-B: A-B: B-C: B-C: B-C: C-D: C-D: C-D: Be sure to follow the rubric (example question) when answering this question. You do not need to state ALL agonists for each aspect of the movement. Problem 2: Below is the link to a video demonstrating a standing long jump. Analyze the full movement in the video several times and discuss what is happening from the start position (i.e., standing at edge of sand pit) to the final position (i.e., landing in the sand). Follow the rubric guidelines and be sure to include the different positions throughout the movement (i.e., A-B, B-C, C-D) (Copy and Paste into Browser if Clicking doesn’t work) A: Standing edge of sand pit B: Ready to Launch C: Launching D: Landing in sand Be sure to follow the rubric (example question) when answering this question. You do not need to state ALL agonists for each aspect of the movement. Joint Action Eccentric (E), Concentric (C), or Isometric (I) At Least 2 Agonists (Separate with a comma ‘,’) Ankle A-B: A-B: A-B: B-C: B-C: B-C: C-D: C-D: C-D: Knee A-B: A-B: A-B: B-C: B-C: B-C: C-D: C-D: C-D: Hip/Pelvis A-B: A-B: A-B: B-C: B-C: B-C: C-D: C-D: C-D: Shoulder Girdle A-B: A-B: A-B: B-C: B-C: B-C: C-D: C-D: C-D: Shoulder Joint A-B: A-B: A-B: B-C: B-C: B-C: C-D: C-D: C-D: Elbow A-B: A-B: A-B: B-C: B-C: B-C: C-D: C-D: C-D: Wrist/Hand A-B: A-B: A-B: B-C: B-C: B-C: C-D: C-D: C-D: washingtonpost.com > Health Correction to This Article Previous versions of this article misspelled the name of Tito Fojo, of the National Cancer Institute. This version has been corrected. Review of prostate cancer drug Provenge renews medical cost-benefit debate TOOLBOX Resize Print E-mail Reprints By Rob Stein Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, November 8, 2010; 7:52 AM Federal officials are conducting an unusual review to determine whether the government should pay for an expensive new vaccine for treating prostate cancer, rekindling debate over whether some therapies are too costly. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services , which dictate what treatments the massive federal health-insurance program for the elderly will cover, is running a "national coverage analysis" of Provenge , the first vaccine approved for treating any cancer. The treatment costs $93,000 a patient and has been shown to extend patients' lives by about four months. Although Medicare is not supposed to take cost into consideration when making such rulings, the decision to launch a formal examination has raised concerns among cancer experts, drug companies, lawmakers, prostate cancer patients and advocacy groups. Provenge, which was approved for advanced prostate cancer in April, is the latest in a series of new high-priced cancer treatments that appear to eke out only a few more months of life, prompting alarm about their cost. "This absolutely is the opening salvo in the drive to save money in the health-care system," said Skip Lockwood, who heads Zero - the Project to End Prostate Cancer , a Washington-based lobbying group. "If the cost wasn't a consideration, this wouldn't even be under discussion." Those concerns have been heightened because the review comes after the bitter health-care reform debate, which was marked by accusations about rationing and "death panels." The appointment of Donald M. Berwick to head Medicare only intensified anxieties. President Obama sidestepped a Senate battle by naming Berwick , who has advocated for scrutinizing costs, when Congress was in recess in July. Because men tend to be elderly when they get diagnoses of advanced prostate cancer, Medicare's decision will have a major effect on Provenge's availability. Regional Medicare providers paying for Provenge would have to stop. Private insurers also tend to follow Medicare's lead. Medicare officials, who are convening a panel of outside advisers to vet the issue at a public hearing Nov. 17, say Provenge's price tag isn't an issue. But Berwick and other officials declined to discuss the rationale for the review. "Certainly no one in the Medicare program would publicly state that the price tag would have anything to do with Medicare looking at it. But they are human beings, too. They notice things like that," said Sean Tunis , director of the Center for Medical Technology Policy and a former chief medical officer at Medicare. Tunis said, though, that other factors, such as the special nature of the therapy and lingering questions about its effectiveness, were probably playing a more crucial role. The review comes as the Food and Drug Administration considers withdrawing an approval for another expensive cancer treatment- Avastin for metastatic breast cancer - which triggered a similar debate even though the FDA too is not supposed to factor costs into its analyses. Medicare usually covers new cancer drugs once they have been approved by the FDA. The decision in June to scrutinize Provenge prompted several members of Congress to question the action. Supporters have inundated the agency with hundreds of thousands of comments . "I don't want to blame Obamacare, but it just kind of figures that people are taking a look at what the cost-benefit ratios are and all that sort of stuff," said David Dykes, 69, of Lorton, a retired federal employee who was hoping to try Provenge. "That may sound pretty good to the people who want to cut costs, but it doesn't sound too good to me. This is something that could extend my life. I'd like to give that a shot." Some fear the move will discourage pharmaceutical companies from developing new cancer drugs. "It is extremely chilling if, after spending a huge sum of money, time and effort to get a drug through FDA approval, you'll then have to go through it all again to see if CMS will pay for it," said Allen S. Lichter, head of the American Society of Clinical Oncology . "Firing a shot across the bow like this is not the way to have an intelligent and meaningful discussion about how we start to address the complex issue of drug costs." Provenge has long been the center of controversy. The FDA delayed Provenge's approval in 2007. The rejection triggered outrage among patients, advocates and investors in Dendreon , the Seattle company that developed Provenge. The campaign to win Provenge's approval included anonymous death threats, accusations of conflicts of interest, protests, congressional lobbying and vitriolic Internet postings. Prostate cancer strikes 192,000 men in the United States each year and kills about 27,000. The only therapies are surgery, radiation, hormones and the chemotherapy drug Taxotere. Unlike standard vaccines, which are given before someone gets sick to stimulate their immune system to fight off infections, Provenge is a "therapeutic vaccine," designed to attack cancer cells in the body. To produce Provenge, doctors remove immune system cells from patients, expose the cells in the laboratory to a protein found on most prostate cancer cells and an immune system stimulator, and infuse the cells back into the patient in a month-long series of three treatments. In a study involving 512 patients with advanced prostate cancer, Provenge increased median survival from 21.7 months to 25.8 months. "To charge $90,000 for four months, which comes out to $270,00 for a year of life, I think that's too expensive," said Tito Fojo of the National Cancer Institute . "A lot of people will say, 'It's my $100,000, and it's my four months.' Absolutely: A day is worth $1 million to some people. Unfortunately, we can't afford it as a society." Others agreed, especially given the modest benefit. "I'd like to think cost doesn't need to come up when it's a slam dunk," said H. Gilbert Welch of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice. "But when it's a close call like this, it certainly has to be a factor. That's $100,000 Medicare can't spend elsewhere." But such commentary has caused widespread alarm among patients and advocates. "The men most impacted by prostate cancer are African American men. If CMS doesn't approve this, then this treatment becomes an exclusive kind of treatment for men who can afford it out of pocket," said Thomas Farrington, president of the Prostate Health Education Network . Others stressed that many men live far longer on the treatment and that even four months is extremely valuable to some. "Whenever you are faced with a disease where you can lose your life, you really would like to extend it as much as you can," said Leibel B. Harelik, 61, a prostate cancer patient who is executive director of the Prostate Cancer Resource Center in Austin. Company officials say the cost is not out of line with that of other cancer drugs. Each treatment with Provenge, which the company estimates cost nearly $1 billion to develop, is tailored to each patient. "Because of that, we have higher costs associated with this product," said Mitchell H. Gold, Dendreon's chief executive. "Provenge is a unique new medicine that prolongs the lives of patients with late-stage prostate cancer. These patients need access to innovative new medicines." Whatever the outcome on Provenge, many on both sides agreed that more debate over other new high-tech therapies was likely to come. "At some point, if we keep paying these very high prices for treatments that provide very limited benefit, we're going to reach the point where we can no longer afford health care," said Alan Garber , a professor of medicine and economist at Stanford University. "Some say we're living through that right now." © 2010 The Washington Post Company

Paper For Above instruction

The movement patterns involved in performing a proper Olympic snatch are complex and require coordinated activity across multiple joints and muscle groups. Analyzing the full movement from initial start position to the final catch position involves understanding joint actions, muscle roles, and the dynamic phases of the lift. This comprehensive analysis will elucidate the biomechanics involved in executing an Olympic snatch, focusing on joint articulations from the start (A) to finish (D), detailing eccentric, concentric, and isometric actions, alongside key prime movers engaged during each phase.

Start Position (Point A):

The athlete begins in a deeply flexed position with a barbell on the floor, feet shoulder-width apart, knees bent, hips flexed, and shoulders flexed. The spine maintains a neutral position, and the arms grasp the barbell with a grip width slightly wider than shoulder. In this initial stance, the ankle joints are in dorsiflexion, the knees flexed (approximately 90 degrees), and the hips flexed. The shoulder girdle is in a slight protracted position with the shoulder joint in a neutral position.

Pull Phase (A to B):

As the athlete initiates the lift by extending the hips and knees—known as the first pull—the movement predominantly involves concentric action at the ankle, knee, and hip joints. The primary muscles involved include the gastrocnemius and soleus (plantar flexors during extension), the quadriceps (knee extension), and the gluteus maximus and hamstrings (hip extension). The shoulder girdle remains relatively stable initially, with the arms pulling upward, engaging the trapezius and posterior deltoids for scapular retraction. This phase transitions from floor to just above the knees, where the athlete maintains a steady, aggressive extension of the hips and knees to generate upward momentum.

Transition Phase (B to C):

This phase involves a rapid, explosive movement called the 'triple extension'—extension at the ankles, knees, and hips—leading to the barbell reaching mid-thigh height. Simultaneously, the athlete begins shrugging the shoulders and elevating the scapula, engaging the upper traps and levator scapulae in an isometric contraction to prepare for the overhead squat. The muscles involved switch to concentric actions, especially the calves, quadriceps, gluteus maximus, and erector spinae for maintaining torso extension. The goal in this phase is maximum power generation to propel the bar upward.

Pull Under / Lockout Phase (C to D):

From the peak (C) to the final receiving position (D), the athlete pulls themselves under the bar into a deep squat position. The body's rapid downward movement involves eccentric action mainly at the hip and knee joints—eccentric flexion of the hips, knees, and ankles. The prime movers here include the quadriceps and glute muscles for controlled descent, and the shoulder muscles continue to stabilize the bar overhead. During this phase, the shoulders flex and abduct slightly as the arms stabilize the bar overhead in an overhead squat position. This segment requires precise coordination of muscle actions to catch the bar securely and balance in a deep squat.

Final Position (Point D):

At the final catch, the athlete is in a full squat with the barbell stabilized overhead. The joints are in a position of static isometric contraction—ankle dorsiflexion with active stabilization, knees and hips flexed and stabilized, shoulders flexed, abducted, and internally rotated to support the bar. Prime movers involved in maintaining this position include the quadriceps, gluteus medius, abductors, deltoids, and trapezius in isometric states. The entire kinetic chain works collectively to sustain balance and prepare for standing to complete the lift.

Summary of Joint Actions and Prime Movers