How do training experience and geographical origin of a runner affect running biomechanics?

BACKGROUND: Several studies compared African runners with runners from other places with difference ethnicities to identify biomechanical factors that may contribute to their extraordinary running performance. However, most studies only assessed runners at the elite level. Whether the performance difference was a result of nature or nurture remains unclear. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: This case study aimed to assess the effect of geographical origin and the effect of training on running biomechanics. METHODS: We recruited twenty male runners from two regions (Asian and Africa) at two performance levels (elite and recreational), and asked them to run on an instrumented treadmill at 12 km∙h-1. We measured running kinetics and kinematics parameters, and focused on the parameters that have been shown associated with running performance. We used Friedman test to compare the effect of geographical origin and training on running biomechanics. RESULTS: Compared to recreational runners, elite runners applied higher amount of ground reaction force in both vertical and anterior-posterior directions (P <  0.05, Cohen's d = 1.63-2.03), together with a longer aerial time (P =  0.039, Cohen's d = 1.11). On the other hand, African runners expressed higher vertical stiffness than Asian runners (P =  0.027, Cohen's d = 0.98). However, the increased vertical stiffness in African runners did not lead to a higher vertical loading rate (P >  0.555, Cohen's d < 0.3), which could be a result of a lower footstrike angle during landing (P =  0.012, Cohen's d = 1.36). SIGNIFICANCE: For elite runners, the higher amount of ground reaction force might facilitate a longer aerial time, but could also lead to higher amount of mechanical energy loss. African runners expressed higher vertical stiffness and higher step rate, which might lead to a lower CoM vertical displacement, and furthermore reduce mechanical energy loss.

Biomechanical effects following footstrike pattern modification using wearable sensors.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the biomechanical effects of an in-field sensor-based gait retraining program targeting footstrike pattern modification during level running, uphill running and downhill running. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental design. METHODS: Sixteen habitual rearfoot strikers were recruited. All participants underwent a baseline evaluation on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speeds on three slope settings. Participants were then instructed to modify their footstrike pattern from rearfoot to non-rearfoot strike with real-time audio biofeedback in an 8-session in-field gait retraining program. A reassessment was conducted to evaluate the post-training biomechanical effects. Footstrike pattern, footstrike angle, vertical instantaneous loading rate (VILR), stride length, cadence, and knee flexion angle at initial contact were measured and compared. RESULTS: No significant interaction was found between training and slope conditions for all tested variables. Significant main effects were observed for gait retraining (p-values≤0.02) and slopes (p-values≤0.01). After gait retraining, 75% of the participants modified their footstrike pattern during level running, but effects of footstrike pattern modification were inconsistent between slopes. During level running, participants exhibited a smaller footstrike angle (p≤0.01), reduced VILR (p≤0.01) and a larger knee flexion angle (p=0.01). Similar effects were found during uphill running, together with a shorter stride length (p=0.01) and an increased cadence (p≤0.01). However, during downhill running, no significant change in VILR was found (p=0.16), despite differences found in other biomechanical measurements (p-values=0.02-0.05). CONCLUSION: An 8-session in-field gait retraining program was effective in modifying footstrike pattern among runners, but discrepancies in VILR, stride length and cadence were found between slope conditions.

Running biomechanics before and after Pose® method gait retraining in distance runners.

Pose® Method gait retraining has been claimed to modify running form and prevent injury. This study examined the running biomechanics before and after Pose® Method gait retraining. Fourteen runners underwent a 4-week Pose® Method gait retraining program delivered by a certified coach. Paired t-tests were employed to compare vertical average (VALR) and instantaneous loading rates (VILR), lower limb kinematics, footstrike angle and trunk flexion in the sagittal plane before and after the training. Kinetically, there were no significant differences in the VALR (p= 0.693) and VILR (p= 0.782) before and after the training. Kinematically, participants exhibited greater peak hip flexion (p= 0.008) and knee flexion (p= 0.003) during swing. Footstrikeangle also reduced significantly (p= 0.008), indicating a footstrike pattern switch from rearfoot strike to midfoot strike. There was no significant difference in the trunk flexion in the sagittal plane after training (p= 0.658). After a course of Pose® Method gait retraining, runners demonstrated a footstrike pattern switch and some kinematics changes at the hip and knee joint during swing. However, injury-related biomechanical markers (e.g., VALR and VILR) and the trunk kinematics remained similar after training. Runners may consider other gait retraining programs for impact loading reduction.

Walking with head-mounted virtual and augmented reality devices: Effects on position control and gait biomechanics.

What was once a science fiction fantasy, virtual reality (VR) technology has evolved and come a long way. Together with augmented reality (AR) technology, these simulations of an alternative environment have been incorporated into rehabilitation treatments. The introduction of head-mounted displays has made VR/AR devices more intuitive and compact, and no longer limited to upper-limb rehabilitation. However, there is still limited evidence supporting the use of VR and AR technology during locomotion, especially regarding the safety and efficacy relating to walking biomechanics. Therefore, the objective of this study is to explore the limitations of such technology through gait analysis. In this study, thirteen participants walked on a treadmill in normal, virtual and augmented versions of the laboratory environment. A series of spatiotemporal parameters and lower-limb joint angles were compared between conditions. The center of pressure (CoP) ellipse area (95% confidence ellipse) was significantly different between conditions (p = 0.002). Pairwise comparisons indicated a significantly greater CoP ellipse area for both the AR (p = 0.002) and VR (p = 0.005) conditions when compared to the normal laboratory condition. Furthermore, there was a significant difference in stride length (p<0.001) and cadence (p<0.001) between conditions. No statistically significant difference was found in the hip, knee and ankle joint kinematics between the three conditions (p>0.082), except for maximum ankle plantarflexion (p = 0.001). These differences in CoP ellipse area indicate that users of head-mounted VR/AR devices had difficulty maintaining a stable position on the treadmill. Also, differences in the gait parameters suggest that users walked with an unusual gait pattern which could potentially affect the effectiveness of gait rehabilitation treatments. Based on these results, position guidance in the form of feedback and the use of specialized treadmills should be considered when using head-mounted VR/AR devices.

Neurophysiological Correlates of Gait Retraining With Real-Time Visual and Auditory Feedback.

Most people acquire motor skills through feedback-based training. How the human brain processes sensory feedbacks during training, especially in a gait training, remain largely unclear. The purpose of this paper is to explore how humans adopt a new gait pattern to reduce impacts during walking-with the aid of visual and audio feedbacks. This paper demonstrates the features of underlying brain activity in incorporating the visual or auditory cues to acquire a new gait pattern. Electroencephalography (EEG) and peak positive acceleration (PPA) of the heel were collected from 23 participants during walking on a treadmill with no feedback, with visual feedback, or with audio feedback. The feedbacks were presented after each foot strike, where a sub-threshold PPA triggered a positive feedback (green/low-pitched), and a suprathreshold PPA triggered a negative feedback (red/high-pitched). The participants were instructed to voluntarily control their gait, so that low PPA could be achieved. This control was perturbed in some sessions by an additional cognitive task, and the influence of such distraction was also explored. The PPA was significantly lower in the sessions with visual or audio feedback than in sessions without feedback, showing an immediate improvement in gait pattern, when the feedback was provided. Different feedbacks modulated neural activities at different locations and/or levels during training. Alpha event-related synchronization (ERS) was particularly increased during the encoding of auditory feedback or the introduction of a distracting task. In the meantime, prominent frontal and posterior theta ERS were coupled with negative feedback, and strong beta event-related desynchronization (ERD) was observed only in sessions with feedbacks. Our results indicate that feedback effectively enhances motor planning when acquiring a new gait.

Shoe-mounted accelerometers should be used with caution in gait retraining.

Real-time biofeedback gait retraining has been reported to be an effective intervention to lower the impact loading during gait. While many of the previous gait retraining studies have utilized a laboratory-based setup, some studies used accelerometers affixed at the distal tibia to allow training outside the laboratory environment. However, many commercial sensors for gait modification are shoe-mounted. Hence, this study sought to compare impact loading parameters measured by shoe-mounted and tibia sensors in participants before and after a course of walking or running retraining using signal source from the shoe-mounted sensors. We also compared the correlations between peak positive acceleration measured at shoe (PPAS ) and tibia (PPAT ) and vertical loading rates, as these loading rates have been related to injury. Twenty-four and 14 participants underwent a 2-week visual biofeedback walking and running retraining, respectively. Participants in the walking retraining group experienced lower PPAS following the intervention (P < 0.005). However, they demonstrated no change in PPAT (P = 0.409) nor vertical loading rates (P > 0.098) following the walking retraining. In contrast, participants in the running retraining group experienced a reduction in the PPAT (P = 0.001) and vertical loading rates (P < 0.013) after running retraining. PPAS values were four times that of PPAT for both walking and running suggesting an uncoupling of the shoe with tibia. As such, PPAS was not correlated with vertical loading rates for either walking or running, while significant correlations between PPAT and vertical loading rates were noted. The present study suggests potential limitations of the existing commercial shoe-mounted sensors.

Can runners maintain a newly learned gait pattern outside a laboratory environment following gait retraining?

BACKGROUND: Previous peak tibial shock gait retraining programs, which were usually conducted on a treadmill, were reported to be effective on impact loading reduction in runners. However, whether the trained runners can translate the training effect at different running modes (treadmill/overground), or running slopes (uphill/downhill), remains unknown. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is the training effect from a treadmill-based gait retraining translatable to unconstrained running conditions, including overground and uphill/downhill running? METHODS: The peak tibial shock was measured during treadmill/overground running, as well as level/uphill/downhill running before and after a course of treadmill-based gait retraining. The 8-session training aimed to soften footfalls using real-time biofeedback of tibial shock data. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to examine the effect of training, running mode, and running slope, on a group level. Reliable change index of each participant was used to assess the individual response to the training protocol used in this study. RESULTS: Eighty percent of the participants were responsive to the gait retraining and managed to reduce their peak tibial shock following training. They managed to translate the training effect to treadmill slope running (Level: p < 0.05, Cohen's d = 1.65; Uphill: p = 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.91; Downhill: p < 0.05; Cohen's d = 1.29) and overground level running (p = 0.014, Cohen's d = 0.85). However, their peak tibial shock were not reduced during overground slope running (Uphill: p = 0.054; Cohen's d = 0.62; Downhill p = 0.12; Cohen's d = 0.48). SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings indicated that a newly learned gait pattern may not fully translate to running outside of the laboratory environment.

Does maximalist footwear lower impact loading during level ground and downhill running?

A new model of running shoes which features an extreme cushioning and an oversized midsole, known as the maximalist (MAX) was launched. This design claims to provide excellent shock absorption, particularly during downhill running. This study sought to assess the effects of MAX on the external impact loading, footstrike pattern, and stride length during level ground and downhill running on an instrumented treadmill. Twenty-seven distance runners completed four 5-minute running trials in the two footwear conditions (MAX and traditional running shoes (TRS)) on a level surface (0%) and downhill (10%-declination). Average and instantaneous loading rates (ILRs), footstrike pattern and stride length were measured during the last minute of each running trial. A 12% greater ILR was observed in downhill running with MAX (p = .045; Cohen's d = 0.44) as compared to TRS. No significant difference was found in the loading rates (p > .589) and stride length (p = .924) when running on a level surface. Majority of runners maintained the same footstrike pattern in both footwear conditions. Findings of this study suggested that MAX might not reduce the external impact loading in runners during level and downhill treadmill running. Instead, this type of footwear may conceivably increase the external impact loading during downhill treadmill running.

Immediate and short-term biomechanical adaptation of habitual barefoot runners who start shod running.

This study investigated the immediate and short-term effects of minimalist shoes (MS) and traditional running shoes (TRS) on vertical loading rates, foot strike pattern and lower limb kinematics in a group of habitual barefoot runners. Twelve habitual barefoot runners were randomly given a pair of MS or TRS and were asked to run with the prescribed shoes for 1 month. Outcome variables were obtained before, immediate after and 1 month after shoe prescription. Average and instantaneous vertical loading rates at the 1-month follow-up were significantly higher than that at the pre-shod session (P < 0.034, η2p > 0.474). Foot strike angle in the TRS group was significantly lower than that in the MS group (P = 0.045, η2p = 0.585). However, there was no significant time nor shoe effect on overstride, knee and ankle excursion (P > 0.061). Habitual barefoot runners appeared to land with a greater impact during shod running and they tended to have a more rearfoot strike pattern while wearing TRS. Lower limb kinematics were comparable before and after shoe prescription. Longer period of follow-up is suggested to further investigate the footwear effect on the running biomechanics in habitual barefoot runners.

Gait Retraining for the Reduction of Injury Occurrence in Novice Distance Runners: 1-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The increasing popularity of distance running has been accompanied by an increase in running-related injuries, such that up to 85% of novice runners incur an injury in a given year. Previous studies have used a gait retraining program to successfully lower impact loading, which has been associated with many running ailments. However, softer footfalls may not necessarily prevent running injury. PURPOSE: To examine vertical loading rates before and after a gait retraining program and assess the effectiveness of the program in reducing the occurrence of running-related injury across a 12-month observation period. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: A total of 320 novice runners from the local running club completed this study. All the participants underwent a baseline running biomechanics evaluation on an instrumented treadmill with their usual running shoes at 8 and 12 km/h. Participants were then randomly assigned to either the gait retraining group or the control group. In the gait retraining group (n = 166), participants received 2 weeks of gait retraining with real-time visual feedback. In the control group (n = 154), participants received treadmill running exercise but without visual feedback on their performance. The training time was identical between the 2 groups. Participants' running mechanics were reassessed after the training, and their 12-month posttraining injury profiles were tracked by use of an online surveillance platform. RESULTS: A significant reduction was found in the vertical loading rates at both testing speeds in the gait retraining group ( P < .001, Cohen's d > 0.99), whereas the loading rates were either similar or slightly increased in the control group after training ( P = .001 to 0.461, Cohen's d = 0.03 to -0.14). At 12-month follow-up, the occurrence of running-related musculoskeletal injury was 16% and 38% in the gait retraining and control groups, respectively. The hazard ratio between gait retraining and control groups was 0.38 (95% CI, 0.25-0.59), indicating a 62% lower injury risk in gait-retrained runners compared with controls. CONCLUSION: A 2-week gait retraining program is effective in lowering impact loading in novice runners. More important, the occurrence of injury is 62% lower after 2 weeks of running gait modification. Registration: HKUCTR-1996 (University of Hong Kong Clinical Trials Registry).

Control of impact loading during distracted running before and after gait retraining in runners.

Gait retraining using visual biofeedback has been reported to reduce impact loading in runners. However, most of the previous studies did not adequately examine the level of motor learning after training, as the modified gait pattern was not tested in a dual-task condition. Hence, this study sought to compare the landing peak positive acceleration (PPA) and vertical loading rates during distracted running before and after gait retraining. Sixteen recreational runners underwent a two-week visual biofeedback gait retraining program for impact loading reduction, with feedback on the PPA measured at heel. In the evaluation of PPA and vertical loading rates before and after the retraining, the participants performed a cognitive and verbal counting task while running. Repeated measures ANOVA indicated a significant interaction between feedback and training on PPA (F = 4.642; P = 0.048) but not vertical loading rates (F > 1.953; P > 0.067). Pairwise comparisons indicated a significantly lower PPA and vertical loading rates after gait retraining (P < 0.007; Cohen's d > 0.68). Visual feedback after gait retraining reduced PPA and vertical loading rates during distracted running (P < 0.033; Cohen's d > 0.36). Gait retraining is effective in lowering impact loading even when the runners are distracted. In dual-task situation, visual biofeedback provided beneficial influence on kinetics control after gait retraining.

Effects of Kinesio tape in individuals with lateral epicondylitis: A deceptive crossover trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the true and immediate effect of applying Kinesio tape (KT) on the pain intensity, pain-free grip strength, maximal grip strength, and electromyographic activity with facilitatory KT, inhibitory KT, sham KT, and untaped condition in patients with lateral epicondylitis (LE) who were ignorant about KT. DESIGN: Deceptive crossover trial. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three patients with unilateral chronic LE who were ignorant about KT, 30 of them were successfully deceived in this study. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated into different sequences of four taping conditions: facilitatory KT, inhibitory KT, sham KT, and untaped condition. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity, pain-free grip strength, maximal grip strength, and electromyographic activity of wrist extensor muscles were assessed immediately after each tape application. RESULTS: No significant differences in the pain intensity (p = 0.321, η2 = 0.04); pain-free grip strength (p = 0.312, η 2 = 0.04); maximal grip strength (p = 0.499, η2 = 0.03); and electromyographic activity (maximal grip: p = 0.774, η2 = 0.01; and pain-free grip: p = 0.618, η2 = 0.02) were recorded among various taping conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Neither facilitatory nor inhibitory effects were observed between different application techniques of KT in patients with LE. Hence, alternative intervention should be used to manage LE.

Measurement agreement between a newly developed sensing insole and traditional laboratory-based method for footstrike pattern detection in runners.

This study introduced a novel but simple method to continuously measure footstrike patterns in runners using inexpensive force sensors. Two force sensing resistors were firmly affixed at the heel and second toe of both insoles to collect the time signal of foot contact. A total of 109 healthy young adults (42 males and 67 females) were recruited in this study. They ran on an instrumented treadmill at 0°, +10°, and -10° inclinations and attempted rearfoot, midfoot, and forefoot landings using real time visual biofeedback. Intra-step strike index and onset time difference between two force sensors were measured and analyzed with univariate linear regression. We analyzed 25,655 footfalls and found that onset time difference between two sensors explained 80-84% of variation in the prediction model of strike index (R-squared = 0.799-0.836, p<0.001). However, the time windows to detect footstrike patterns on different surface inclinations were not consistent. These findings may allow laboratory-based gait retraining to be implemented in natural running environments to aid in both injury prevention and performance enhancement.

A new footwear technology to promote non-heelstrike landing and enhance running performance: Fact or fad?

This study sought to compare the kinetics and kinematics data in a group of habitual shod runners when running in traditional running shoes and newly designed minimalist shoes with lug platform. This novel footwear design claims to simulate barefoot running and reduce energy loss during impact. We compared footstrike angle (FSA), vertical average (VALR) and instantaneous (VILR) loading rates, energy loss and initial vertical stiffness between two shoe conditions. Runners demonstrated a decreased FSA while running in minimalist shoes with lug platform than traditional shoes (P = 0.003; Cohen's d = 0.918). However, we did not observe a landing pattern transition. VALR and VILR between two footwear conditions showed no significant difference (P = 0.191-0.258; Cohen's d = 0.304-0.460). Initial vertical stiffness (P = 0.032; Cohen's d = 0.671) and energy loss (P = 0.044; Cohen's d = 0.578) were greater when running in minimalist shoes with lug platform. The results show that minimalist shoes with lug platform reduce the FSA but may not lead to a landing pattern switch or lower vertical loading rates. Interestingly, the new shoe design leads to a greater energy loss than traditional running shoes, which could be explained by a higher initial vertical stiffness.

Comparison of the correlations between impact loading rates and peak accelerations measured at two different body sites: Intra- and inter-subject analysis.

BACKGROUND: High average (VALR) and instantaneous vertical loading rates (VILR) during impact have been associated with many running-related injuries. Peak acceleration (PA), measured with an accelerometer, has provided an alternative method to estimate impact loading during outdoor running. This study sought to compare both intra- and inter-subject correlations between vertical loading rates and PA measured at two body sites during running. METHODS: Ground reaction force data were collected from 10 healthy adults (age=23.6±3.8 years) during treadmill running at different speeds and inclination surfaces. Concurrently, PAs at the lateral malleoli and the distal tibia were measured using synchronized accelerometers. RESULTS: We found significant positive intra-subject correlation between loading rates and PA at the lateral malleoli (r=0.561-0.950, p<0.001) and the distal tibia (r=0.486-0.913, p<0.001). PA measured at the lateral malleoli showed stronger correlation with loading rates (p=0.004) than the measurement at the distal tibia. On the other hand, inter-subject variances were observed in the association between PA and vertical loading rates. The inter-subject variances at the distal tibia were 3.88±3.09BW/s and 5.69±3.05BW/s in VALR and VLIR respectively. Similarly, the inter-subject variances in the measurement at lateral malleoli were 5.24±2.85BW/s and 6.67±2.83BW/s in VALR and VLIR respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PA measured at lateral malleoli has stronger correlation with VALR or VILR than the measurement at distal tibia. Caution is advised when using PA to conduct inter-subject comparisons of vertical loading rates during running.