A method is presented for detecting changes in the axial peak tibial acceleration while adapting to self-discovered lower-impact running. Ten runners with high peak tibial acceleration were equipped with a wearable auditory biofeedback system. They ran on an athletic track without and with real-time auditory biofeedback at the instructed speed of 3.2 m·s −1 . Because inter-subject variation may underline the importance of individualized retraining, a change-point analysis was used for each subject. The tuned change-point application detected major and subtle changes in the time series. No changes were found in the no-biofeedback condition. In the biofeedback condition, a first change in the axial peak tibial acceleration occurred on average after 309 running gait cycles (3 40"). The major change was a mean reduction of 2.45 g which occurred after 699 running gait cycles (8 04") in this group. The time needed to achieve the major reduction varied considerably between subjects. Because of the individualized approach to gait retraining and its relatively quick response due to a strong sensorimotor coupling, we want to highlight the potential of a stand-alone biofeedback system that provides real-time, continuous, and auditory feedback in response to the axial peak tibial acceleration for lower-impact running.

Purpose: Numerous methods exist to quantify training load (TL). However, the relationship with performance is not fully understood. Therefore the purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of the existing TL quantification methods on performance modeling and the outcome parameters of the fitness-fatigue model. Methods: During a period of 8 weeks, 9 subjects performed 3 interval training sessions per week. Performance was monitored weekly by means of a 3-km time trial on a cycle ergometer. After this training period, subjects stopped training for 3 weeks but still performed a weekly time trial. For all training sessions, Banister training impulse (TRIMP), Lucia TRIMP, Edwards TRIMP, training stress score, and session rating of perceived exertion were calculated. The fitness-fatigue model was fitted for all subjects and for all TL methods. Results: The error in relating TL to performance was similar for all methods (Banister TRIMP: 618 [422], Lucia TRIMP: 625 [436], Edwards TRIMP: 643 [465], training stress score: 639 [448], session rating of perceived exertion: 558 [395], and kilojoules: 596 [505]). However, the TL methods evolved differently over time, which was reflected in the differences between the methods in the calculation of the day before performance on which training has the biggest positive influence (range of 19.6 d). Conclusions: The authors concluded that TL methods cannot be used interchangeably because they evolve differently.