Changes in gluteal muscle forces with alteration of footstrike pattern during running

Healthy Running Habits for the Distance Runner: Clinical Utility of the American College of Sports Medicine Infographic

ABSTRACT

Healthy running form is characterized by motion that minimizes mechanical musculoskeletal injury risks and improves coactivation of muscles that can buffer impact loading and reduce stresses related to chronic musculoskeletal pain. The American College of Sports Medicine Consumer Outreach Committee recently launched an infographic that describes several healthy habits for the general distance runner. This review provides the supporting evidence, expected acute motion changes with use, and practical considerations for clinical use in patient cases. Healthy habits include: taking short, quick, and soft steps; abdominal bracing; elevating cadence; linearizing arm swing; controlling forward trunk lean, and; avoiding running through fatigue. Introduction of these habits can be done sequentially one at a time to build on form, or more than one over time. Adoption can be supported by various feedback forms and cueing. These habits are most successful against injury when coupled with regular dynamic strengthening of the kinetic chain, adequate recovery with training, and appropriate shoe wear.

Analysis of ground reaction forces and muscle activity in individuals with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction during different running strike patterns

BACKGROUND

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction provides successful clinical outcomes. However, reconstruction cannot restore normative lower limb mechanics during running. While numerous studies have investigated running characteristics in individuals with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, no study has been compared foot strike patterns among them.

RESEARCH QUESTION

If ground reaction forces and lower extremity muscle activities in individuals with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and healthy control ones differ during three running strike patterns?

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, fourteen healthy adult males and fourteen adult males with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were recruited to participate. Surface electromyography of selected lower limb muscles and ground reaction forces were measured during three-strike patterns: rearfoot strike pattern, midfoot strike pattern, and forefoot strike pattern during barefoot running (∼ 3.3 m/s).

RESULTS

The results revealed that the strike patterns influenced the peak lateral ground reaction force (P < 0.001) and peak vertical impact ground reaction force (P = 0.002) during the stance phase of running for both groups. The strike pattern also influenced the tibialis anterior (P < 0.001) and vastus lateralis (P = 0.035) activities during the early stance phase for both groups. However, the vastus medialis (P = 0.030) presented reduced activity, and the biceps femoris (P = 0.039) presented increased activity in the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction group. Tibialis anterior (P = 0.021), gastrocnemius medialis (P < 0.001) and vastus medialis (P < 0.001) presented lesser activity irrespective of strike patterns in the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction group.

SIGNIFICANCE

Running with a forefoot strike pattern may be associated with lesser rearfoot eversion due to lower peak lateral ground reaction forces than running with a rearfoot strike pattern or midfoot strike pattern. Moreover, the altered muscle activities could contribute to the elevated risk of future joint injury in the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction population.

What are the Benefits and Risks Associated with Changing Foot Strike Pattern During Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Injury, Running Economy, and Biomechanics

BACKGROUND

Running participation continues to increase. The ideal strike pattern during running is a controversial topic. Many coaches and therapists promote non-rearfoot strike (NRFS) running with a belief that it can treat and prevent injury, and improve running economy.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this review were to synthesise the evidence comparing NRFS with rearfoot strike (RFS) running patterns in relation to injury and running economy (primary aim), and biomechanics (secondary aim).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis. Consideration was given to within participant, between participant, retrospective, and prospective study designs.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus.

RESULTS

Fifty-three studies were included. Limited evidence indicated that NRFS running is retrospectively associated with lower reported rates of mild (standard mean difference (SMD), 95% CI 3.25, 2.37-4.12), moderate (3.65, 2.71-4.59) and severe (0.93, 0.32-1.55) repetitive stress injury. Studies prospectively comparing injury risk between strike patterns are lacking. Limited evidence indicated that running economy did not differ between habitual RFS and habitual NRFS runners at slow (10.8-11.0 km/h), moderate (12.6-13.5 km/h), and fast (14.0-15.0 km/h) speeds, and was reduced in the immediate term when an NRFS-running pattern was imposed on habitual RFS runners at slow (10.8 km/h; SMD = - 1.67, - 2.82 to - 0.52) and moderate (12.6 km/h; - 1.26, - 2.42 to - 0.10) speeds. Key biomechanical findings, consistently including both comparison between habitual strike patterns and following immediate transition from RFS to NRFS running, indicated that NRFS running was associated with lower average and peak vertical loading rate (limited-moderate evidence; SMDs = 0.72-2.15); lower knee flexion range of motion (moderate-strong evidence; SMDs = 0.76-0.88); reduced patellofemoral joint stress (limited evidence; SMDs = 0.63-0.68); and greater peak internal ankle plantar flexor moment (limited evidence; SMDs = 0.73-1.33).

CONCLUSION

The relationship between strike pattern and injury risk could not be determined, as current evidence is limited to retrospective findings. Considering the lack of evidence to support any improvements in running economy, combined with the associated shift in loading profile (i.e., greater ankle and plantarflexor loading) found in this review, changing strike pattern cannot be recommended for an uninjured RFS runner.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42015024523.

Relationship among maximum hip isometric strength, hip kinematics, and peak gluteal muscle force during running

OBJECTIVE

To determine if there is a relationship among isometric hip strength, hip kinematics, and peak gluteal muscle forces in cross-country runners during running.

DESIGN

Cross Sectional.

SETTING

University Biomechanics Laboratory.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-six NCAA Division III collegiate cross-country runners (18 males, 28 females).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pearson correlation coefficients were used to describe relationships among isometric hip strength, hip kinematics, and peak gluteal muscle forces during the stance phase of running. Strength of correlations were interpreted as little to no relationship (r < 0.25), fair relationship (0.25 ≤ r < 0.5), moderate relationship (0.5 ≤ r < 0.75), and strong relationship (r ≥ 0.75). Correlations were considered significant if p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Little to no relationships were found among isometric hip strength and gluteal muscle forces during running (r < 0.25). A fair relationship was present between prone external rotation isometric hip strength and peak hip adduction (0.25 <r < 0.5). Little to no relationship was shown between gluteus medius force and hip internal rotation. Moderate relationships were present among peak gluteus medius and minimus muscle forces and peak hip adduction (0.5 <r < 0.75).

CONCLUSION

Isometric hip strength does not appear to be related to gluteal muscle forces and hip kinematics during the stance phase of running while gluteal muscle force was moderately related to hip adduction. Factors other than strength may be related to muscle force production and hip kinematics during running.

Effects of Foot Strike Techniques on Running Biomechanics: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTENT

Distance running is one of the most popular physical activities, and running-related injuries (RRIs) are also common. Foot strike patterns have been suggested to affect biomechanical variables related to RRI risks.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of foot strike techniques on running biomechanics.

DATA SOURCES

The databases of Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, and EBSCO were searched from database inception through November 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

The initial electronic search found 723 studies. Of these, 26 studies with a total of 472 participants were eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

DATA EXTRACTION

Means, standard deviations, and sample sizes were extracted from the eligible studies, and the standard mean differences (SMDs) were obtained for biomechanical variables between forefoot strike (FFS) and rearfoot strike (RFS) groups using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

FFS showed significantly smaller magnitude (SMD, -1.84; 95% CI, -2.29 to -1.38; P < 0.001) and loading rate (mean: SMD, -2.1; 95% CI, -3.18 to -1.01; P < 0.001; peak: SMD, -1.77; 95% CI, -2.21 to -1.33; P < 0.001) of impact force, ankle stiffness (SMD, -1.69; 95% CI, -2.46 to -0.92; P < 0.001), knee extension moment (SMD, -0.64; 95% CI, -0.98 to -0.3; P < 0.001), knee eccentric power (SMD, -2.03; 95% CI, -2.51 to -1.54; P < 0.001), knee negative work (SMD, -1.56; 95% CI, -2.11 to -1.00; P < 0.001), and patellofemoral joint stress (peak: SMD, -0.71; 95% CI, -1.28 to -0.14; P = 0.01; integral: SMD, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.11 to -0.15; P = 0.01) compared with RFS. However, FFS significantly increased ankle plantarflexion moment (SMD, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.96; P < 0.001), eccentric power (SMD, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.08;P < 0.001), negative work (SMD, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.02 to 4.18; P = 0.001), and axial contact force (SMD, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.6; P < 0.001) compared with RFS.

CONCLUSION

Running with RFS imposed higher biomechanical loads on overall ground impact and knee and patellofemoral joints, whereas FFS imposed higher biomechanical loads on the ankle joint and Achilles tendon. The modification of strike techniques may affect the specific biomechanical loads experienced on relevant structures or tissues during running.

Biomechanical risk factors for running-related injury differ by sample population: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of biomechanical variables of running gait in the development of running related injury has not been clearly elucidated. Several systematic reviews have examined running biomechanics and its association with particular running related injuries. However, due to retrospective designs, inferences into the cause of these injuries are limited. Although prospective studies have been completed, no quantitative analysis pooling these results has been completed.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PubMed was completed. Articles included used prospective study designs, human subjects currently completing a regular running program, and a minimum 12-week follow-up period. Excluded articles had no biomechanical data reported, participants who were beginning runners or military recruits, or had an intervention provided.

FINDINGS

Thirteen studies met these criteria. Pooled analyses were completed if two or more studies were available with samples that investigated the same sex and competition level. A qualitative synthesis was completed when pooled analysis was not possible. Five unique running samples were identified and allowed for pooled analyses of variables in mixed-sex collegiate runners and female recreational runners. Moderate evidence exists for increased hip adduction and reduced peak rearfoot eversion as risk factors for running related injury in female recreational runners. Variables differed in other samples of runners.

INTERPRETATION

A runner's sex and competition level may affect the relationship between biomechanical factors and the development of running related injury. Hip adduction and rearfoot eversion may be important factors related to running related injury in female recreational runners. Further investigation of biomechanical factors in running injury is warranted.

Muscle force characteristics of male and female collegiate cross-country runners during overground running

Males and females demonstrate unique running mechanics that may contribute to sex-related differences in common running related injuries. Understanding differences in muscle forces during running may inform intervention approaches, such as gait retraining addressing muscle force distribution. The purpose of this study was to compare muscle force characteristics and inter-trial variability between males and females during running. Twenty female and 14 male collegiate cross-country runners were examined. Three-dimensional kinetic and kinematic data were collected during overground running and used to estimate muscle forces via musculoskeletal modelling. Principle components analysis was used to capture the primary sources of variance from the muscle force waveforms. The magnitude of the forces for the hamstrings, gastrocnemius, and soleus muscles were higher across the majority of stance in male runners regardless of footstrike pattern. Males also demonstrated greater inter-trial variability in the timing of the peak gluteus maximus force and the magnitude of local peaks in the gastrocnemius force waveform. Male and female collegiate cross-country runners appear to employ unique lower extremity muscle force characteristics during overground running.

Sex differences in gluteal muscle forces during running

Sex differences in common sports injuries to the lower extremity have been reported. Biomechanical factors of the hip have been investigated between sexes with regard to running-related injury. This study investigates gluteal muscle forces between sexes to aid in our understanding of sex-related biomechanical factors in running. Twenty-one healthy male and female runners were participants. Each ran at a controlled speed of 3.52-3.89 m/s down a 20-m runway. Kinetic and kinematic data were utilised to estimate muscle forces. Multivariate analysis of variance tests were utilised to detect differences in gluteal and hamstring muscle forces, hip and pelvic kinematics, and hip kinetic variables between sexes. Males produced greater peak gluteus maximus force, but lesser peak gluteus medius, minimus, and hamstring force than females during running. Males also demonstrated less hip adduction and greater hip flexion and anterior pelvic tilt than females. Finally, males produced lesser peak hip abduction and external rotation moments than females. Males and females demonstrate differences in gluteal muscle forces and hip kinetics and kinematics during running. Further understanding of underlying muscle forces may offer further insight into biomechanical differences in running between males and females.