A Comparison of Negative Joint Work and Vertical Ground Reaction Force Loading Rates in Chi Runners and Rearfoot-Striking Runners

Goss, Donald; Gross, Michael T.

doi:10.2519/jospt.2013.4542

Cited by 45 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is important, as barefoot running as well as adopting a forefoot or midfoot strike pattern has been shown to increase the mechanical demand of the ankle plantar flexors. 2,5,8,19,31,35,46 Furthermore, post hoc analysis revealed that there was no significant difference in ankle plantar flexor moment at the time of peak PFJ stress across the 3 trunk conditions. We propose that adopting a forward-lean trunk posture during running may be a preferable strategy to reduce PFJ stress without increasing the mechanical demand on ankle plantar flexors.…”

Section: Discussion Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Peak PFJ stress was significantly lower in the flexed condition (mean  SD, 20.2  3. at the ankle plantar flexors. 2,5,8,19,31,35,46 Recent studies suggest that sagittal plane trunk posture may be associated with tibiofemoral joint biomechanics during weight-bearing activities. For example, a forward trunk lean posture has been found to be associated with lower knee extensor moments during walking, stair ascent, and single-leg-hop landing.…”

Section: T T Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, converting from a rearfoot to a forefoot or midfoot strike pattern has been promoted as a means to reduce the peak impact force, loading rate, and knee extensor moment. 5,8,12,18,19,38 In a case series, Cheung and Davis 12 reported that individuals with PFP exhibited improvements in pain after transitioning to a nonrearfoot strike pattern. Furthermore, barefoot running, which typically results in a forefoot or midfoot strike pattern, 5,25,46 has been reported to decrease peak PFJ stress by 12% in asymptomatic runners.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sagittal Plane Trunk Posture Influences Patellofemoral Joint Stress During Running

Teng¹,

Powers²

2014

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussion Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: T T Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sagittal Plane Trunk Posture Influences Patellofemoral Joint Stress During Running

Teng¹,

Powers²

2014

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Chi and Pose running styles require multiple adaptations to running form outside of foot-strike pattern (eg, postural alignment, hips ahead of feet in midstance, knees bent at impact, no heel striking). 21 Runners who described themselves as Chi or Pose runners and had received formal training in either of these running styles were analyzed in a separate study because we did not want formal training in a particular running form to be a confounding variable.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…32 Additional details of the data-filtering settings were included in a previous report. 21 An inverse-dynamics approach was used to calculate joint moments. Data were averaged across 5 strides for each participant and averaged with data from other runners in the same group.…”

Section: Data Reductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Self-Reported Foot-Strike Patterns Among Runners in Traditional and Minimalist Shoes

Goss¹,

Lewek²,

Yu³

et al. 2015

Journal of Athletic Training

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context:The injury incidence rate among runners is approximately 50%. Some individuals have advocated using an anterior-foot-strike pattern to reduce ground reaction forces and injury rates that they attribute to a rear-foot-strike pattern. The proportion of minimalist shoe wearers who adopt an anterior-foot-strike pattern remains unclear.Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of self-reported footstrike patterns, compare negative ankle-and knee-joint angular work among runners using different foot-strike patterns and wearing traditional or minimalist shoes, and describe average vertical-loading rates.Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Setting: Research laboratory. Patients or Other Participants: A total of 60 healthy volunteers (37 men, 23 women; age ¼ 34.9 6 8.9 years, height ¼ 1.74 6 0.08 m, mass ¼ 70.9 6 13.4 kg) with more than 6 months of experience wearing traditional or minimalist shoes were instructed to classify their foot-strike patterns.Intervention(s): Participants ran in their preferred shoes on an instrumented treadmill with 3-dimensional motion capture.Main Outcome Measure(s): Self-reported foot-strike patterns were compared with 2-dimensional video assessments.Runners were classified into 3 groups based on video assessment: traditional-shoe rear-foot strikers (TSR; n ¼ 22), minimalist-shoe anterior-foot strikers (MSA; n ¼ 21), and minimalist-shoe rear-foot strikers (MSR; n ¼ 17). Ankle and knee negative angular work and average vertical-loading rates during stance phase were compared among groups.Results: Only 41 (68.3%) runners reported foot-strike patterns that agreed with the video assessment (j ¼ 0.42, P , .001). The TSR runners demonstrated greater ankle-dorsiflexion and knee-extension negative work than MSA and MSR runners (P , .05). The MSA (P , .001) and MSR (P ¼ .01) runners demonstrated greater ankle plantar-flexion negative work than TSR runners. The MSR runners demonstrated a greater average vertical-loading rate than MSA and TSR runners (P , .001).Conclusions: Runners often cannot report their foot-strike patterns accurately and may not automatically adopt an anterior-foot-strike pattern after transitioning to minimalist running shoes.Key Words: barefoot running, ground reaction forces, negative work, loading rate Key PointsAccuracy of self-reported foot-strike patterns for runners wearing minimalist running shoes was poor. A cohort of runners who wore minimalist shoes for at least 6 months demonstrated a rear-foot-strike pattern and potentially injurious ground reaction force rates of loading. Runners using a rear-foot-strike pattern and wearing traditional shoes demonstrated more overall knee excursion, greater knee-extension negative work, and greater ankle-dorsiflexion negative work than runners wearing minimalist shoes, regardless of foot-strike pattern.

show abstract

Using real‐time biofeedback to alter running biomechanics: A randomized controlled trial

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we assessed the effectiveness of a mobile feedback system on transitioning runners to a non‐rearfoot strike (NRFS) pattern and prospectively compared injury incidence rates at one year between rearfoot strike (RFS) and NRFS runners. 128 RFS runners participated in a 2‐hour training session to learn a NRFS pattern with 114 completing the 1‐year follow‐up. Participants were randomized into a control group (CON) with no additional training and a biofeedback group (BFG) where they received equipment to provide real‐time biofeedback to augment the transition to a NRFS pattern. Foot strike patterns (FSP) were assessed at baseline, post‐training, 6‐months, and 1‐year. Injury data were collected through weekly email surveys over one year. Eighty percent of runners demonstrated a NRFS pattern following the training session (91/114, P < .001). The percentage of NRFS runners remaining at the one‐year follow‐up decreased slightly in both groups, but was not significantly different between groups (CON = 69%, P = .29; BFG = 75%, P = .36). Injury rates were similar between RFS runners (37% injured) and NRFS runners (30% injured) after one year (P = .47). The relative risk for knee injury in RFS runners was 5.64 (95% CI: 1.90‐16.8; P = .02). In conclusion, both groups had a significant number of participants transition to a NRFS immediately after training and maintain NRFS at the 1‐year follow‐up. However, compliance with the sensor in the BFG group was very poor due to limitations of the sensor. Regardless of FSP, runners experienced 1‐year injury incidence rates between 30%‐37%. RFS runners had nearly a six times greater risk for developing a knee injury than NRFS runners.

show abstract

A Comparison of Negative Joint Work and Vertical Ground Reaction Force Loading Rates in Chi Runners and Rearfoot-Striking Runners

Cited by 45 publications

References 38 publications

Sagittal Plane Trunk Posture Influences Patellofemoral Joint Stress During Running

Sagittal Plane Trunk Posture Influences Patellofemoral Joint Stress During Running

Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Self-Reported Foot-Strike Patterns Among Runners in Traditional and Minimalist Shoes

Using real‐time biofeedback to alter running biomechanics: A randomized controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About