Comparisons of increases in knee and ankle joint moments following an increase in running speed from 8 to 12 to 16km·h−1

Petersen, Jesper; Nielsen, Rasmus Oestergaard; Rasmussen, Sten; Sørensen, Henrik Toft

doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.09.003

Cited by 34 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Box A represents the structure-specific capacity just before the first stride of a running session. The equation presented in box B, to calculate structure specific cumulative load per session, is adapted of Petersen et al 67 using the more generic "load" instead of the biomechanically more specific "stress" (force/area) originally used. Box C represents the reduction in structure-specific capacity caused by the structure-specific cumulative load in box A.…”

Section: Part B: Structure-specific Cumulative Load Per Running Sesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…33 Alternatively, during swing phase, the load magnitude will predominantly be determined by kinematic properties such as hip flexor range of motion. 33 Thus, the magnitude of the stride-specific load during stance and swing phase is influenced by factors, including but not limited to, body weight and terrain, running speed, 35,[66][67][68] and vertical oscillation. [69][70][71]…”

Section: Load Magnitude Per Stridementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A framework for the etiology of running‐related injuries

Bertelsen

Hulme

Petersen

et al. 2017

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

203

191

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The etiology of running-related injury is important to consider as the effectiveness of a given running-related injury prevention intervention is dependent on whether etiologic factors are readily modifiable and consistent with a biologically plausible causal mechanism. Therefore, the purpose of the present article was to present an evidence-informed conceptual framework outlining the multifactorial nature of running-related injury etiology. In the framework, four mutually exclusive parts are presented: (a) Structure-specific capacity when entering a running session; (b) structure-specific cumulative load per running session; (c) reduction in the structure-specific capacity during a running session; and (d) exceeding the structure-specific capacity. The framework can then be used to inform the design of future running-related injury prevention studies, including the formation of research questions and hypotheses, as well as the monitoring of participation-related and non-participation-related exposures. In addition, future research applications should focus on addressing how changes in one or more exposures influence the risk of running-related injury. This necessitates the investigation of how different factors affect the structure-specific load and/or the load capacity, and the dose-response relationship between running participation and injury risk. Ultimately, this direction allows researchers to move beyond traditional risk factor identification to produce research findings that are not only reliably reported in terms of the observed cause-effect association, but also translatable in practice.

show abstract

Section: Part B: Structure-specific Cumulative Load Per Running Sesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Load Magnitude Per Stridementioning

confidence: 99%

A framework for the etiology of running‐related injuries

Bertelsen

Hulme

Petersen

et al. 2017

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

203

191

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another factor that has been related to running injuries is the excessive pace or excessive training volume (Nielsen et al, 2013). However, only a handful of studies have focused on examining the effect of running speed on gait biomechanics (Petersen et al, 2014; Schache et al, 2011), and the available evidence is rather conflicting. This can be partly explained by the fact that running biomechanics has been examined either without controlling the gait speed or by obtaining the data for a single controlled gait speed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A public dataset of running biomechanics and the effects of running speed on lower extremity kinematics and kinetics

Fukuchi

Duarte

2017

PeerJ

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. The goals of this study were (1) to present the set of data evaluating running biomechanics (kinematics and kinetics), including data on running habits, demographics, and levels of muscle strength and flexibility made available at Figshare (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4543435); and (2) to examine the effect of running speed on selected gait-biomechanics variables related to both running injuries and running economy. Methods. The lower-extremity kinematics and kinetics data of 28 regular runners were collected using a three-dimensional (3D) motion-capture system and an instrumented treadmill while the subjects ran at 2.5 m/s, 3.5 m/s, and 4.5 m/s wearing standard neutral shoes. Results. A dataset comprising raw and processed kinematics and kinetics signals pertaining to this experiment is available in various file formats. In addition, a file of metadata, including demographics, running characteristics, foot-strike patterns, and muscle strength and flexibility measurements is provided. Overall, there was an effect of running speed on most of the gait-biomechanics variables selected for this study. However, the foot-strike patterns were not affected by running speed. Discussion. Several applications of this dataset can be anticipated, including testing new methods of data reduction and variable selection; for educational purposes; and answering specific research questions. This last application was exemplified in the study's second objective.

show abstract

“…Each of the participants then ran at a standardized speed of 13.6 km/h for 1 minute [17]. This standardized speed is within the range of previously tested speeds used by recreational runners [17,18]. The self‐selected running speed has been used in previous studies of running kinetics and kinematics [19] to represent each participant's typical long‐distance training pace [20].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The self‐selected running speed has been used in previous studies of running kinetics and kinematics [19] to represent each participant's typical long‐distance training pace [20]. Similar to previous work, the order of the 2 running speeds was incremental rather than randomized for practical reasons [18]. The grade of the treadmill was maintained at 0° for both speeds.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinematic, Cardiopulmonary, and Metabolic Responses of Overweight Runners While Running at Self‐Selected and Standardized Speeds

Zdziarski

Chen

Horodyski

et al. 2015

PM&R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To determine the differences in kinematic, cardiopulmonary, and metabolic responses between overweight and healthy weight runners at a self-selected and standard running speed. Design Comparative descriptive study. Setting Tertiary care institution, university-affiliated research laboratory. Participants Overweight runners (n = 21) were matched with runners of healthy weight (n = 42). Methods Participants ran at self-selected and standardized speeds (13.6 km/h). Sagittal plane joint kinematics were captured simultaneously with cardiopulmonary and metabolic measures using a motion capture system and portable gas analyzer, respectively. Main Outcome Measurements Spatiotemporal parameters (cadence, step width and length, center of gravity displacement, stance time) joint kinematics, oxygen cost, heart rate, ventilation and energy expenditure. Results At the self-selected speed, overweight individuals ran slower (8.5 ± 1.3 versus 10.0 ± 1.6 km/h) and had slower cadence (163 versus 169 steps/min; P < .05). The sagittal plane range of motion (ROM) for flexion-extension at the ankle, knee, hip, and anterior pelvic tilt were all less in overweight runners compared to healthy weight runners (all P < .05). At self-selected speed and 13.6 km/h, energy expenditure was higher in the overweight runners compared to their healthy weight counterparts (P < .05). At 13.6 km/h, only the frontal hip and pelvis ROM were higher in the overweight versus the healthy weight runners (P < .05), and energy expenditure, net energy cost, and minute ventilation were higher in the overweight runners compared to the healthy weight runners (P < .05). Conclusion At self-selected running speeds, the overweight runners demonstrated gait strategies (less joint ROM, less vertical displacement, and shorter step lengths) that resulted in cardiopulmonary and energetic responses similar to those of healthy weight individuals.

show abstract

Comparisons of increases in knee and ankle joint moments following an increase in running speed from 8 to 12 to 16km·h−1

Cited by 34 publications

References 20 publications

A framework for the etiology of running‐related injuries

A framework for the etiology of running‐related injuries

A public dataset of running biomechanics and the effects of running speed on lower extremity kinematics and kinetics

Kinematic, Cardiopulmonary, and Metabolic Responses of Overweight Runners While Running at Self‐Selected and Standardized Speeds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About