Effects of running retraining on biomechanical factors associated with lower limb injury

Abstract

Injury risk is an important concern for runners; however, limited evidence exists regarding changes to injury risk following running style retraining. Biomechanical factors, such as absolute peak free moment, knee abduction impulse, peak foot eversion and foot eversion excursion, have been shown to predict lower limb injury. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of Pose running retraining on biomechanical factors associated with lower limb running injury. Twenty uninjured recreational runners were pair-matched based on their five km run time performance and randomly assigned to control (n = 10) and intervention (three 2-h Pose running retraining sessions) groups (n = 10). Three dimensional kinetic and kinematic data were collected from all participants running at relative (REL: 1.5 km·h below respiratory compensation point) and absolute (ABS: 4.5 m·s) speeds. Biomechanical factors associated with lower limb injury, as well as selected kinematic variables (to aid interpretation), were assessed. Following a six-week, non-coached time-period, all assessments were repeated. No changes to the biomechanical factors associated with lower limb injury examined in this study were observed (P > .05). Intervention group participants (presented as pre- and post-intervention respectively) exhibited an increased foot strike index (REL speed: 21.79-42.66%; ES = 4.73; P = .012 and ABS speed: 22.38-46.98%; ES = 2.83; P = .008), reduced take-off distance (REL speed: -0.35 to -0.32 m; ES = 0.75; P = .012), increased knee flexion at initial contact (REL speed: -14.11 to -18.50°; ES = -0.88; P = .003), increased ankle dorsiflexion at terminal stance (REL speed: -33.61 to -28.35°; ES = 1.57; P = .036) and reduced stance time (ABS speed: 0.21-0.19 s; ES = -0.85; P = .018). Finally, five km run time did not change (22:04-22:19 min; ES = 0.07; P = .229). It was concluded that following Pose running retraining, retrained participants adopted a running style that was different to their normal style without changing specific, biomechanical factors associated with lower limb injury or compromising performance.

Factors Affecting Training and Physical Performance in Recreational Endurance Runners

“…Briefly, this method proposes running with a forward trunk lean, a more flexed position at touch-down, a mid-foot striking style, and a low range of arm motion [119]. A previous study demonstrated that adopting this particular RT did not result in changes in specific biomechanical factors associated with injury risk, nor in running performance [120]. Also, RE deteriorated when RT was altered with this method by reducing stride length and vertical oscillations [121].…”

Gait Retraining With Visual Biofeedback Reduces Rearfoot Pressure and Foot Pronation in Recreational Runners

“…It has been reported that the most effective strategy for reducing high-risk factors for RRI-such as impact loading-is the introduction of real-time feedback related to kinetics and/or kinematics and strike pattern. [26][27][28]35,38 Therefore, the present study included both short-term gait retraining with visual biofeedback and static training with visual biofeedback (after gait retraining with visual biofeedback) based on methodologies used in previous studies. The goal was to reduce the static and dynamic plantar load on the medial and lateral rearfoot.…”

“…Dunn et al 28 performed running retraining that resulted in increases in foot strike index, knee flexion at initial contact, and ankle dorsiflexion at terminal stance. In the gait retraining of recreational runners, one possible explanation for the benefit of forefoot and rearfoot plantar loading rate reduction in the static condition may be better control of foot pronation; this has been well verified by changing the postural pattern back to normal, thereby reducing the medial body weight projection with regard to the support point of the calcaneus and metatarsals.…”

“…9,30 Gait retraining programs that include visual feedback are promising tools for improving foot support by reducing plantar loading and RRIs. 15,20,[26][27][28]31 They are particularly attractive due to their convenience, availability, interactivity, and relatively low cost to develop and implement. [26][27][28]31 However, most studies have been performed using a treadmill and with the instrumented force platform; there is an absence of studies that verify the effects of this type of training in a run on the plantar pressure distribution pattern.…”

“…15,20,[26][27][28]31 They are particularly attractive due to their convenience, availability, interactivity, and relatively low cost to develop and implement. [26][27][28]31 However, most studies have been performed using a treadmill and with the instrumented force platform; there is an absence of studies that verify the effects of this type of training in a run on the plantar pressure distribution pattern. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the shortterm effects of a gait retraining strategy that uses visual biofeedback on the plantar pressure distribution pattern and foot posture in recreational runners.…”