Comparison of lower leg muscle activity in running on tarmac and grass

Dolenec, Aleš; Štirn, Igor; Strojnik, Vojko

doi:10.1080/19424280.2011.575843

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies investigating muscle activity have been performed at relatively slow speeds (10.8-15.4 km/h), making the lack of air drag [21] unlikely to primarily contribute to these differences. A higher surface stiffness has however been shown to induce higher muscle activity in several muscles [68,88]. Of the seven studies investigating differences in the amplitude of muscle activation, two studies used track as an overground surface [51,69], three studies used a lab runway [50,61,65], one study used concrete [64], and one used a combination of different surfaces [68].…”

Section: Electromyographic Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Motorized Treadmill Running Biomechanically Comparable to Overground Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Over Studies

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Treadmills are often used in research, clinical practice, and training. Biomechanical investigations comparing treadmill and overground running report inconsistent findings. Objective This study aimed at comparing biomechanical outcomes between motorized treadmill and overground running. Methods Four databases were searched until June 2019. Crossover design studies comparing lower limb biomechanics during non-inclined, non-cushioned, quasi-constant-velocity motorized treadmill running with overground running in healthy humans (18-65 years) and written in English were included. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed where possible. Results 33 studies (n = 494 participants) were included. Most outcomes did not differ between running conditions. However, during treadmill running, sagittal foot-ground angle at footstrike (mean difference (MD) − 9.8° [95% confidence interval: − 13.1 to − 6.6]; low GRADE evidence), knee flexion range of motion from footstrike to peak during stance (MD 6.3° [4.5 to 8.2]; low), vertical displacement center of mass/pelvis (MD − 1.5 cm [− 2.7 to − 0.8]; low), and peak propulsive force (MD − 0.04 body weights [− 0.06 to − 0.02]; very low) were lower, while contact time (MD 5.0 ms [0.5 to 9.5]; low), knee flexion at footstrike (MD − 2.3° [− 3.6 to − 1.1]; low), and ankle sagittal plane internal joint moment (MD − 0.4 Nm/kg [− 0.7 to − 0.2]; low) were longer/higher, when pooled across overground surfaces. Conflicting findings were reported for amplitude of muscle activity. Conclusions Spatiotemporal, kinematic, kinetic, muscle activity, and muscle-tendon outcome measures are largely comparable between motorized treadmill and overground running. Considerations should, however, particularly be given to sagittal plane kinematic differences at footstrike when extrapolating treadmill running biomechanics to overground running. Protocol registration CRD42018083906 (PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).

show abstract

Section: Electromyographic Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Motorized Treadmill Running Biomechanically Comparable to Overground Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Over Studies

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inconsistent to our study, scholars demonstrated that runners subconsciously adjusted their lower-limb stiffness based on the perception of different surface hardness [ 37 ]. Indeed, runners were previously found to increase their leg stiffness and decrease the knee and ankle joint stiffness when running on softer surfaces [ 6 , 13 , 14 ]. However, in the current study, as the running speed was close to participant’s comfortable speeds, they did not need to modify their running postures to maintain performance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Synthetic rubber, concrete, and asphalt surfaces are the three most common road surfaces for distance runners [ 4 , 5 ]. Artificial grass surface is also popular among recreational runners [ 6 , 7 ]. Different road surfaces may differ in flatness, stiffness, and/or elasticity, thereby altering running biomechanics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface effects on kinematics, kinetics and stiffness of habitual rearfoot strikers during running

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The surface effects on running biomechanics have been greatly investigated. However, the effects on rearfoot strike runners remain unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of surfaces on the running kinematics, kinetics, and lower-limb stiffness of habitual rearfoot strikers. Thirty healthy male runners were recruited to run at 3.3 ± 0.2 m/s on a customized runway covered with three different surfaces (artificial grass, synthetic rubber, or concrete), and their running kinematics, kinetics, and lower-limb stiffness were compared. Differences among the three surfaces were examined using statistical parametric mapping and one-way repeated-measure analysis of variance. There were no statistical differences in the lower-limb joint motion, vertical ground reaction force (GRF), loading rates, and lower-limb stiffness when running on the three surfaces. The braking force (17%–36% of the stance phase) and mediolateral GRF were decreased when running on concrete surface compared with running on the other two surfaces. The moments of ankle joint in all three plane movement and frontal plane hip and knee joints were increased when running on concrete surface. Therefore, habitual rearfoot strikers may expose to a higher risk of running-related overuse injuries when running on a harder surface.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, past studies have shown that humans alter their legs' stiffness [7] and adjust their foot-surface traction component [19] to obtain the desired traction condition when running on different surfaces to maintain the running mechanics. Past study also highlighted that humans maintain their running kinematics under different surfaces by adapting their muscle activation to the surfaces [20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Additional Surface on Force Platform’s Ground Reaction Force Data During Walking and Running

Ismail¹,

Nunome²,

Marzuki³

et al. 2018

AJSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compares the vertical ground reaction force exerted from walking and running movement on two different surfaces of a force platform. Five skilled male futsal players were recruited to perform the walking and running tasks over the force platform. In the first setting, the players moved directly in contact with the force platform's bare surface while in the second setting, the players performed the same tasks on the force platform covered with a typical futsal pitch surface material. The force from the peak heel and peak forefoot strikes were recorded and used for further analysis. A paired t-test was conducted for comparison and the results indicated that there are no significant differences between the two force platform conditions in terms of the magnitude of peak heel strike and peak forefoot strike forces during walking and running. Results also showed that there is a significant difference (p<0.05) on the ratio of the heel and forefoot strike peak force during walking task (1.05 in force platform bare surface, 0.99 in force platform + futsal court surface). While the data obtained in this study suggests that an additional surface on the force plate has no significant effect on the magnitudes of vertical ground reaction force data, there were indeed some changes that occurred on the heel/forefoot strike force ratio in walking task. The result might suggest that an additional surface (futsal court material) on the force platform has some impacts on the movement pattern of the foot during walking task due to the different conditions of the shoe's outsole-flooring surface interaction.

show abstract

Comparison of lower leg muscle activity in running on tarmac and grass

Cited by 6 publications

References 4 publications

Is Motorized Treadmill Running Biomechanically Comparable to Overground Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Over Studies

Is Motorized Treadmill Running Biomechanically Comparable to Overground Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Over Studies

Surface effects on kinematics, kinetics and stiffness of habitual rearfoot strikers during running

The Influence of Additional Surface on Force Platform’s Ground Reaction Force Data During Walking and Running

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About