Stride-to-Stride Variability of the Center of Mass in Male Trained Runners After an Exhaustive Run: A Three Dimensional Movement Variability Analysis With a Subject-Specific Anthropometric Model

Neuromechanical stabilisation of the centre of mass during running

BACKGROUND

Stabilisation of the centre of mass (COM) trajectory is thought to be important during running. There is emerging evidence of the importance of leg length and angle regulation during running, which could contribute to stability in the COM trajectory The present study aimed to understand if leg length and angle stabilises the vertical and anterior-posterior (AP) COM displacements, and if the stability alters with running speeds.

METHODS

Data for this study came from an open-source treadmill running dataset (n = 28). Leg length (m) was calculated by taking the resultant distance of the two-dimensional sagittal plane leg vector (from pelvis segment to centre of pressure). Leg angle was defined by the angle subtended between the leg vector and the horizontal surface. Leg length and angle were scaled to a standard deviation of one. Uncontrolled manifold analysis (UCM) was used to provide an index of motor abundance (IMA) in the stabilisation of the vertical and AP COM displacement.

RESULTS

IMAAP and IMAvertical were largely destabilising and always stabilising, respectively. As speed increased, the peak destabilising effect on IMAAP increased from -0.66(0.18) at 2.5 m/s to -1.12(0.18) at 4.5 m/s, and the peak stabilising effect on IMAvertical increased from 0.69 (0.19) at 2.5 m/s to 1.18 (0.18) at 4.5 m/s.

CONCLUSION

Two simple parameters from a simple spring-mass model, leg length and angle, can explain the control behind running. The variability in leg length and angle helped stabilise the vertical COM, whilst maintaining constant running speed may rely more on inter-limb variation to adjust the horizontal COM accelerations.

Experience influences kinematic motor synergies: an Uncontrolled manifold approach to simulated Nordic skiing

Motor synergies are defined as central nervous system mechanisms which adjust participating degrees of freedom to ensure dynamic stability (control) of certain performance variables and have been identified during many motor tasks. The potential for synergistic control of individual segments during full-body tasks is often overlooked. Thus, this study compared individual differences in the potential stabilization of multiple performance variables on the basis of experience during a full-body sport activity. Normalized time series of synergy indices from Uncontrolled Manifold analyses on experienced (n = 9) and inexperienced (n = 19) participants were analysed using statistical parametric mapping during simulated Nordic skiing. Regardless of experience, hand, upper arm, and whole-body centre of mass (COM) kinematics were found to be stabilized by kinematic motor synergies. Only experienced Nordic skiers stabilized trunk COM position at all, while trunk COM velocity was stabilized for a longer duration than inexperienced participants. However, inexperienced participants stabilized hand velocity for a greater duration overall and to a greater magnitude during early pull phase than the experienced skiers. That motor synergies for hand and trunk COM velocity differed between experience groups suggests potential utility for these performance variables as indicators of motor skill development for full-body tasks such as Nordic skiing.

Variability of the Center of Mass in Trained Triathletes in Running After Cycling: A Preliminary Study Conducted in a Real-Life Setting

While the sport of short-distance (Sprint) triathlon provides an opportunity to research the effect of the center of mass (CoM) when cycling and running, much remains to be done. The literature has failed to consistently or adequately report how changes to hand position influence subsequent running as inferred by the magnitude of CoM acceleration. The demands of cycle training in a drops and aerodynamic position followed by running remain unquantified in Sprint Distance triathlon. Thus, far data collected indicate that the cycle to run transition (T2) is important for overall race success. While many age-groupers participate in Sprint Distance triathlon, the lack of T2 based research make comparisons between cycle hand position and ensuing running difficult. The motion of the human body when cycling and running in triathlon can be described by the motion of its CoM in a local coordinate system. Unobtrusive wearable sensors have proven to be an informative resource to monitor the magnitude of CoM accelerations in running. However, the extent to which they are used in cycling is unclear. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to analyse the temporal magnitudes of CoM acceleration when cycling position and cadence is changed and to analyse these effects on running after cycling. Ten recreational triathletes completed two 20 km cycling trials at varied cadence in a drops position (parts of the handlebars that curve outward, CycleDrops) and an aerodynamic position (arms bent, forearms parallel to the ground, CycleAero) immediately followed by a 5 km run at self-selected pace. Torso kinematics by way of CoM acceleration magnitude were captured in a typical training setting using a triaxial accelerometer. CoM acceleration was quantified in m/s2 and variability was measured by the coefficient of variation (CV) and root mean square (RMS). Results from CycleAero indicated that acceleration of the CoM in longitudinal (CV = 1%) and mediolateral directions (CV = 3%) was significantly reduced (p < 0.001) compared to CycleDrops. As for rate of perceived exertion (RPE), a significant difference was observed with triathletes reporting higher values in CycleAero alongside a greater CoM acceleration magnitude in the anteroposterior direction. The CoM varied significantly from RunAero with less longitudinal (CV = 0.2, p < 0.001) and mediolateral acceleration observed (CV = 7.5%, p < 0.001) compared to RunDrops. Although greater longitudinal acceleration was observed in the initial 1 km epoch of RunAero, triathletes then seemingly adjusted their CoM trajectory to record lower magnitudes until completion of the 5 km run, completing the run quicker compared to RunDrops (22.56 min1 ± 0.2, 23.34 min1 ± 0.5, p < 0.001, CV = 1.3%). Coaches may look to use triaxial accelerometers to monitor performance in both cycling and running after cycling.