The Effects of Forefoot Striking, Increasing Step Rate, and Forward Trunk Lean Running on Trunk and Lower Limb Kinematics and Comfort

The biomechanics of running and running styles: a synthesis

Running movements are parametrised using a wide variety of devices. Misleading interpretations can be avoided if the interdependencies and redundancies between biomechanical parameters are taken into account. In this synthetic review, commonly measured running parameters are discussed in relation to each other, culminating in a concise, yet comprehensive description of the full spectrum of running styles. Since the goal of running movements is to transport the body centre of mass (BCoM), and the BCoM trajectory can be derived from spatiotemporal parameters, we anticipate that different running styles are reflected in those spatiotemporal parameters. To this end, this review focuses on spatiotemporal parameters and their relationships with speed, ground reaction force and whole-body kinematics. Based on this evaluation, we submit that the full spectrum of running styles can be described by only two parameters, namely the step frequency and the duty factor (the ratio of stance time and stride time) as assessed at a given speed. These key parameters led to the conceptualisation of a so-called Dual-axis framework. This framework allows categorisation of distinctive running styles (coined 'Stick', 'Bounce', 'Push', 'Hop', and 'Sit') and provides a practical overview to guide future measurement and interpretation of running biomechanics.

Influence of foot strike patterns and cadences on patellofemoral joint stress in male runners with patellofemoral pain

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the effect of foot strike patterns and cadences in male runners with patellofemoral pain (PFP).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Biomechanics lab.

METHODS

20 male runners with PFP were instructed to randomly complete six running conditions (three cadence conditions in rearfoot strike pattern (RFS) or forefoot strike (FFS)) under a preferred running speed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were peak knee joint and moment, and secondary outcomes were patellofemoral joint stress.

RESULTS

Running with increased cadence has a lower flexion angle (P = 0.027, η2 = 0.45), lower extension moment (P = 0.011, η2 = 0.29), lower internal rotation moment (P = 0.040, η2 = 0.17), lower patellofemoral stress (P = 0.029, η2 = 0.52) than preferred cadence. FFS running performed significantly lower flexion angle (P = 0.003, η2 = 0.39), lower extension moment (P < 0.001, η2 = 0.91), lower adduction moment (P = 0.020, η2 = 0.25) lower patellofemoral stress (P < 0.001, η2 = 0.81) than RFS running for all cadence.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary findings provide new perspectives for male runners with PFP to unload patellofemoral joint stress in managing PFP through the combination of the FFS pattern and increased cadence.

Using beat frequency in music to adjust running cadence in recreational runners: A randomized multiple baseline design

Running with music has been shown to acutely change cadence. However, it is unclear if the increased cadence remains long-term when running without music in an in-field situation. The aim of this 12-week study was to investigate the effect of a 4-week music running program on cadence, speed and heartrate during and after the music running program. Seven recreational runners with a cadence of <170 steps per minute were randomly assigned to a baseline and post-intervention period of different durations. During the intervention phase, the participants ran with a musical beat that was 7.5-10% higher than their mean cadence at the start of the study. Cadence, heartrate and running speed were measured twice a week during a 5-kilometer run with a watch, and were analyzed using randomization tests and visual data inspection. Two participants dropped-out due to shortage of time (n = 1) and an acute calf injury (n = 1). Cadence significantly increased during the intervention period (+8.5%), and remained elevated during the post-intervention period (+7.9% (p = .001)) in comparison with the baseline period. Heartrate and running speed did not significantly change during any period. This study among five participants shows that four weeks of running with a musical beat that is 7.5-10% higher than the preferred cadence may be an effective and feasible intervention to increase running cadence. Importantly, the increased cadence occurred without simultaneous increases in running speed and heartrate, hereby potentially reducing mechanical loading without increasing metabolic load.HighlightsRunning with a musical rhythm that is higher than the preferred cadence leads to an increased running cadence, without increasing heartrate and running speed.This cadence remains elevated for at least three to five weeks after the music intervention period.All individuals showed a practically relevant increase in cadence during and after the intervention.

What is the Effect of Changing Running Step Rate on Injury, Performance and Biomechanics? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Running-related injuries are prevalent among distance runners. Changing step rate is a commonly used running retraining strategy in the management and prevention of running-related injuries.

Objective

The aims of this review were to synthesise the evidence relating to the effects of changing running step rate on injury, performance and biomechanics.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus.

Results

Thirty-seven studies were included that related to injury (n = 2), performance (n = 5), and biomechanics (n = 36). Regarding injury, very limited evidence indicated that increasing running step rate is associated with improvements in pain (4 weeks: standard mean difference (SMD), 95% CI 2.68, 1.52 to 3.83; 12 weeks: 3.62, 2.24 to 4.99) and function (4 weeks: 2.31, 3.39 to 1.24); 12 weeks: 3.42, 4.75 to 2.09) in recreational runners with patellofemoral pain. Regarding performance, very limited evidence indicated that increasing step rate increases perceived exertion ( − 0.49,  − 0.91 to − 0.07) and awkwardness (− 0.72, − 1.38 to − 0.06) and effort (− 0.69, − 1.34, − 0.03); and very limited evidence that an increase in preferred step rate is associated with increased metabolic energy consumption (− 0.84, − 1.57 to − 0.11). Regarding biomechanics, increasing running step rate was associated with strong evidence of reduced peak knee flexion angle (0.66, 0.40 to 0.92); moderate evidence of reduced step length (0.93, 0.49 to 1.37), peak hip adduction (0.40, 0.11 to 0.69), and peak knee extensor moment (0.50, 0.18 to 0.81); moderate evidence of reduced foot strike angle (0.62, 034 to 0.90); limited evidence of reduced braking impulse (0.64, 0.29 to 1.00), peak hip flexion (0.42, 0.10 to 0.75), and peak patellofemoral joint stress (0.56, 0.07 to 1.05); and limited evidence of reduced negative hip (0.55, 0.20 to 0.91) and knee work (0.84, 0.48 to 1.20). Decreasing running step rate was associated with moderate evidence of increased step length (− 0.76, − 1.31 to − 0.21); limited evidence of increased contact time (− 0.95, − 1.49 to − 0.40), braking impulse (− 0.73, − 1.08 to − 0.37), and negative knee work (− 0.88, − 1.25 to − 0.52); and limited evidence of reduced negative ankle work (0.38, 0.03 to 0.73) and negative hip work (0.49, 0.07 to 0.91).

Conclusion

In general, increasing running step rate results in a reduction (or no change), and reducing step rate results in an increase (or no change), to kinetic, kinematic, and loading rate variables at the ankle, knee and hip. At present there is insufficient evidence to conclusively determine the effects of altering running step rate on injury and performance. As most studies included in this review investigated the immediate effects of changing running step rate, the longer-term effects remain largely unknown.

Prospero Registration

CRD42020167657.

Cadence in youth long-distance runners is predicted by leg length and running speed

BACKGROUND

Lower cadence has been previously associated with injury in long-distance runners. Variations in cadence may be related to experience, speed, and anthropometric variables. It is unknown what factors, if any, predict cadence in healthy youth long-distance runners.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Are demographic, anthropometric and/or biomechanical variables able to predict cadence in healthy youth long-distance runners.

METHODS

A cohort of 138 uninjured youth long-distance runners (M = 62, F = 76; Mean ± SD; age = 13.7 ± 2.7; mass = 47.9 ± 13.6 kg; height = 157.9 ± 14.5 cm; running volume = 19.2 ± 20.6 km/wk; running experience: males = 3.5 ± 2.1 yrs, females = 3.3 ± 2.0 yrs) were recruited for the study. Multiple linear regression (MLR) models were developed for total sample and for each sex independently that only included variables that were significantly correlated to self-selected cadence. A variance inflation factor (VIF) assessed multicollinearity of variables. If VIF≥ 5, variable(s) were removed and the MLR analysis was conducted again.

RESULTS

For all models, VIF was > 5 between speed and normalized stride length, therefore we removed normalized stride length from all models. Only leg length and speed were significantly correlated (p < .001) with cadence in the regression models for total sample (R² = 51.9 %) and females (R² = 48.2 %). The regression model for all participants was Cadence = -1.251 *Leg Length + 3.665 *Speed + 254.858. The regression model for females was Cadence = -1.190 *Leg Length + 3.705 *Speed + 249.688. For males, leg length, cadence, and running experience were significantly predictive (p < .001) of cadence in the model (R² = 54.7 %). The regression model for males was Cadence = -1.268 *Leg Length + 3.471 *Speed - 1.087 *Running Experience + 261.378.

SIGNIFICANCE

Approximately 50 % of the variance in cadence was explained by the individual's leg length and running speed. Shorter leg lengths and faster running speeds were associated with higher cadence. For males, fewer years of running experience was associated with a higher cadence.

Running Footwear and Impact Peak Differences in Recreational Runners

Simple Summary

Running is a physical activity practiced by many people to maintain good levels of movement. Recreational runners commonly strike the ground with the postero–lateral zone of the foot, which may be associated with a higher biomechanical load on the lower limb, called impact peak. Different running shoes with specific cushioning are available to overcome the biomechanical load, e.g., shoes with a thickness difference between the forefoot and heel parts of the sole, called heel-to-toe drop. Analyzing the running pattern of recreational runners may be challenging because biomechanics laboratories mainly analyze these characteristics in individuals with visible alterations. To overcome these limitations, we employed a 3D markerless system; furthermore, we investigated footwear use. These parameters were studied to understand the behavior of those runners with and without a higher impact peak. Thirty participants underwent a running analysis and a questionnaire about their footwear. The study’s main finding highlighted kinematic and spatiotemporal differences between the runners presenting a higher impact peak and those without it. Furthermore, we observed that runners without an impact peak prefer shoes with a lower heel-to-toe drop, while the other group prefers shoes with a higher heel-to-toe drop. Investigating biomechanics characteristics is essential to reduce possible injury.

Abstract

Running is a physical activity and the investigation of its biomechanical aspects is crucial both to avoid injuries and enhance performance. Recreational runners may be liable to increased stress over the body, particularly to lower limb joints. This study investigates the different running patterns of recreational runners by analyzing characteristics of the footwear impact peak, spatiotemporal, and kinematic parameters among those that present with a peak impact and those that do not, with a 3D markerless system. Thirty recreational runners were divided into two groups: impact peak group (IP) (n = 16) and no impact peak group (n = 14) (n-IP). Kinematic and spatiotemporal parameters showed a large Cohen’s d effect size between the groups. The mean hip flexion was IP 40.40° versus n-IP 32.30° (d = −0.82). Hip extension was IP 30.20° versus n-IP 27.70° (d = −0.58), and ankle dorsiflexion was IP 20.80°, versus n-IP 13.37° (d = −1.17). Stride length was IP 117.90 cm versus n-IP 105.50 cm (d = −0.84). Steps per minute was IP group 170 spm, versus n-IP 163 spm (d = −0.51). The heel-to-toe drop was mainly 10–12 mm for the IP group and 4–6 mm for the n-IP group. Recreational runners whose hip extension is around 40°, ankle dorsiflexion around 20°, and initial foot contact around 14°, may be predisposed to the presence of an impact peak.

Are Altered Kinematics in Runners With Patellofemoral Pain Sex Specific?

BACKGROUND

Altered kinematics have been frequently observed in runners with patellofemoral pain (PFP), and few studies have aimed to understand the influence of sex on kinematics of this population. The aim of this study was to investigate whether altered hip and knee kinematics in runners with PFP are sex specific.

HYPOTHESIS

Kinematics will be different between female and male runners with and without PFP.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 2.

METHODS

Eighty-four runners were divided into 4 groups: 42 runners with PFP (20 women, 22 men) and 42 asymptomatic runners (21 women, 21 men). Three-dimensional gait analyses of the hip in the frontal and transverse plane and the knee in the frontal plane were analyzed at self-selected running speed on a treadmill. One-way analysis of covariance was used to test for differences in kinematic variables between groups.

RESULTS

Women with PFP ran with a significantly greater peak hip adduction compared with men with PFP (mean difference [MD] = 4.45°; P = 0.00; effect size [ES] = 0.58) and male control subjects (MD = 4.2°; P = 0.01; ES = 0.54) and greater hip adduction range of motion (ROM) than men with PFP (MD = 3.44°; P = 0.01; ES = 0.49). No significant differences were identified between women with and without PFP. Female control subjects ran with greater peak hip adduction than men with PFP (MD = 5.46°; P < 0.01; ES = 0.58) and male control subjects (MD = 5.21°; P < 0.01; ES = 0.55); greater hip adduction ROM than men with PFP (MD = 4.02°; P = 0.00; ES = 0.52) and male control subjects (MD = 2.91°;P = 0.04; ES = 0.36); and greater peak knee abduction than men with PFP (MD = 3.35°; P = 0.02; ES = 0.44) and male control subjects (MD = 3.69°; P = 0.01; ES = 0.4).

CONCLUSION

Women have greater hip adduction than men regardless of the presence of PFP. There were no kinematics difference between women with and without PFP. Comparisons of hip internal rotation between all groups were nonsignificant.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Altered hip and knee kinematics does not appear to be sex specific in runners with PFP.

Increasing Step Rate Affects Rearfoot Kinematics and Ground Reaction Forces during Running

Simple Summary

Excessive movements, or inadequate timing in movement patterns, during running may contribute to the development of some running-related injuries. Specifically, excessive movement at the rearfoot, influencing lower leg rotation, has been a focus on different running-related injuries. One method to change how the lower limbs move is to increase step rate, or cadence. There is little research available describing how the rearfoot is affected by changes in step rate; therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of increasing step rate on rearfoot motion during running. Reflective markers were placed on twenty runners’ lower legs and feet in order to capture leg and foot movements while running on a treadmill at the runners’ preferred speed and step rate. Step rate was increased by 5% and 10%, while runners were cued by a metronome. Three-dimensional rearfoot motion was calculated during the stance phase (foot in contact with the ground) of running. The main finding of this study was that increasing step rate decreased peak rearfoot and lower leg rotation. These findings may be useful for rehabilitation for some running-related injuries.

Abstract

Relatively high frontal and transverse plane motion in the lower limbs during running have been thought to play a role in the development of some running-related injuries (RRIs). Increasing step rate has been shown to significantly alter lower limb kinematics and kinetics during running. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of increasing step rate on rearfoot kinematics, and to confirm how ground reaction forces (GRFs) are adjusted with increased step rate. Twenty runners ran on a force instrumented treadmill while marker position data were collected under three conditions. Participants ran at their preferred pace and step rate, then +5% and +10% of their preferred step rate while being cued by a metronome for three minutes each. Sagittal and frontal plane angles for the rearfoot segment, tibial rotation, and GRFs were calculated during the stance phase of running. Significant decreases were observed in sagittal and frontal plane rearfoot angles, tibial rotation, vertical GRF, and anteroposterior GRF with increased step rate compared with the preferred step rate. Increasing step rate significantly decreased peak sagittal and frontal plane rearfoot and tibial rotation angles. These findings may have implications for some RRIs and gait retraining.

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.

Effects of 12-week cadence retraining on impact peak, load rates and lower extremity biomechanics in running

Background

Excessive impact peak forces and vertical load rates are associated with running injuries and have been targeted in gait retraining studies. This study aimed to determine the effects of 12-week cadence retraining on impact peak, vertical load rates and lower extremity biomechanics during running.

Methods

Twenty-four healthy male recreational runners were randomised into either a 12-week cadence retraining group (n = 12), which included those who ran with a 7.5% increase in preferred cadence, or a control group (n = 12), which included those who ran without any changes in cadence. Kinematics and ground reaction forces were recorded simultaneously to quantify impact force variables and lower extremity kinematics and kinetics.

Results

Significantly decreased impact peak (1.86 ± 0.30 BW vs. 1.67 ± 0.27 BW, P = 0.003), vertical average load rates (91.59 ± 18.91 BW/s vs. 77.31 ± 15.12 BW/s, P = 0.001) and vertical instantaneous load rates (108.8 ± 24.5 BW/s vs. 92.8 ± 18.5 BW/s, P = 0.001) were observed in the cadence retraining group, while no significant differences were observed in the control group. Foot angles (18.27° ± 5.59° vs. 13.74° ± 2.82°, P = 0.003) and vertical velocities of the centre of gravity (CoG) (0.706 ± 0.115 m/s vs. 0.652 ± 0.091 m/s, P = 0.002) significantly decreased in the cadence retraining group at initial contact, but not in the control group. In addition, vertical excursions of the CoG (0.077 ± 0.01 m vs. 0.069 ± 0.008 m, P = 0.002) and peak knee flexion angles (38.6° ± 5.0° vs. 36.5° ± 5.5°, P < 0.001) significantly decreased whilst lower extremity stiffness significantly increased (34.34 ± 7.08 kN/m vs. 38.61 ± 6.51 kN/m, P = 0.048) in the cadence retraining group. However, no significant differences were observed for those variables in the control group.

Conclusion

Twelve-week cadence retraining significantly increased the cadence of the cadence retraining group by 5.7%. This increased cadence effectively reduced impact peak and vertical average/instantaneous load rates. Given the close relationship between impact force variables and running injuries, increasing the cadence as a retraining method may potentially reduce the risk of impact-related running injuries.

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.

Validation of a Video-Based Performance Analysis System (Mediacoach®) to Analyze the Physical Demands during Matches in LaLiga

The aim of the present study was to assess the accuracy of a multi-camera tracking system (Mediacoach^®) to track elite football players’ movements in real time. A total of 207 observations of 38 official matches from Liga 1, 2, 3™ (2nd Spanish Division, season 2017/18) were included in the study (88 defenders, 84 midfielders, and 35 attackers of the same team). Total distance (TD, m) distance in zone 4 (DZ4) at a speed of 14–21 km/h, distance in zone 5 (DZ5) at a speed of 21–24 km/h (DZ5), distance in zone 6 (DZ6) at a speed of ≥24 km/h, maximum speed (km/h), and number of sprints (actions above 24 km/h) were registered with the Apex^® GPS system (STATSports™, Newry, N. Ireland) and Mediacoach^® semi-automatic tracking system (LaLiga™, Madrid, Spain). The level of agreement between variables estimated by the two systems was analyzed. Bias was also calculated by deducting the GPS estimated value from the video estimated value, and then dividing the difference score by the GPS estimated value. All variables showed high ICC values (>0.75) and very large correlations (r > 0.70). However the video-based performance analysis system overestimated the results obtained in the different speed zones (DZ5: +16.59 ± 62.29 m; LOA95%: −105.49 to 138.68; DZ6: +93.26 ± 67.76 m; LOA95%: −39.55 to 226.07), the number of sprints (+2.27 ± 2.94; LOA95%: −3.49 to 8.02), and the maximum speed (+0.32 ± 1.25 km/h; LOA95%: −2.13 to 2.77). The maximum bias was found in DZ6 (47%). This demonstrates that Mediacoach^® is as accurate as a GPS system to obtain objective data in real time, adapted to physical and movement demands of elite football, especially for total distance and distances traveled at medium speeds.

Patellofemoral joint stress measured across three different running techniques

BACKGROUND

Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is the most common running-related injury. It has been shown in previous studies that gait retraining may have a beneficial effect on patellofemoral joint stress (PFJS).

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is there a reduction of PFJS across 4 running conditions: 1. runner's typical rearfoot strike pattern, 2. forefoot landing, 3. step rate increase by 10% and 4. forward trunk lean?

METHODS

Nineteen healthy runners (28.05 ± 5.03 years; 26.58 ± 8.85 km/week, 6.00 ± 4.51 years of running experience) completed one running trial for each condition, at the same subject-specific comfortable speed on a treadmill. Kinetic and kinematic data were collected and measures of hip, knee and ankle joint moments and PFJS were calculated.

RESULTS

Compared to rearfoot strike condition, peak PFJS and PFJS-time integral per step were significantly (P < 0.01) lower during forefoot landing and step rate increase conditions. PFJS per kilometer was significantly reduced for forefoot landing (17.01%; P < 0.01) and increased step rate (12.90%; P = 0.003). Forward trunk lean technique showed no significant differences in peak PFJS (P = 0.187), PFJS-time integral per step (P = 0.815) and PFJS per kilometer (P = 0.077) compared to rearfoot strike pattern.

INTERPRETATION

The comparison between techniques revealed greater reductions on PFJS by forefoot landing, followed by 10% step rate increase condition. These changes were the result of different lower limb movement strategies across the 2 running conditions. We conclude that compared to a rearfoot strike pattern, both a forefoot landing and step rate increase result in lower cumulative PFJS joint stress in healthy runners, with the forefoot landing being the most effective. These running technique modifications could be recommended to reduce PFJS loads and may have implications for PFP prevention.