Variations in ground reaction force parameters at different running speeds

Hamill, Joseph; Bates, Barry T.; Knutzen, Kathleen M.

doi:10.1016/0167-9457(83)90005-2

Cited by 126 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These impacts have magnitudes up to 2.3 times body weight (BW) with an impact load rate of 113 BW.s -1 (29). Increases in impact shock can result from an increase in running speed (21), from running downhill (22), from an increase in stride length (15,23) …”

Section: Paragraph Number 22mentioning

confidence: 99%

Difference in Mechanical and Energy Cost between Highly, Well, and Nontrained Runners

Slawinski

Billat

2004

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Paragraph Number 22mentioning

confidence: 99%

Difference in Mechanical and Energy Cost between Highly, Well, and Nontrained Runners

Slawinski

Billat

2004

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Previous studies have either determined the effects of running velocity at normal body weight (e.g., Daniels & Gilbert, 1979;Hamill et al, 1983;Munro et al, 1987;Nilsson & Thorstensson, 1989) or have determined the effects of body weight support at constant running velocities (Chang et al, 2000;Farley & McMahon, 1992;He et al, 1991;Teunissen et al, 2007). However, the combined effects of running velocity and weight support have not been systematically investigated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At faster running velocities, peak vertical and horizontal ground reaction forces (GRFs) increase, contact times decrease, and duty factors decrease (Hamill et al, 1983;Munro et al, 1987;Nilsson & Thorstensson, 1989). The increased magnitude of the vertical impact peak GRF and rate of vertical impact loading have been associated with an increased risk of overuse running injury (Ferber et al, 2002;Gerlach et al, 2005;Hreljac et al, 2000;Zifchock et al, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Velocity and Weight Support on Ground Reaction Forces and Metabolic Power during Running

Grabowski¹,

Kram²

2008

Journal of Applied Biomechanics

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors are with the Department of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.The biomechanical and metabolic demands of human running are distinctly affected by velocity and body weight. As runners increase velocity, ground reaction forces (GRF) increase, which may increase the risk of an overuse injury, and more metabolic power is required to produce greater rates of muscular force generation. Running with weight support attenuates GRFs, but demands less metabolic power than normal weight running. We used a recently developed device (G-trainer) that uses positive air pressure around the lower body to support body weight during treadmill running. Our scientific goal was to quantify the separate and combined effects of running velocity and weight support on GRFs and metabolic power. After obtaining this basic data set, we identified velocity and weight support combinations that resulted in different peak GRFs, yet demanded the same metabolic power. Ideal combinations of velocity and weight could potentially reduce biomechanical risks by attenuating peak GRFs while maintaining aerobic and neuromuscular benefits. Indeed, we found many combinations that decreased peak vertical GRFs yet demanded the same metabolic power as running slower at normal weight. This approach of manipulating velocity and weight during running may prove effective as a training and/or rehabilitation strategy.

show abstract

“…Algebra and trigonometry were applied to coordinates of each ball on the marker set to evaluate the deceleration phase of tibial rotation and the maximum tibial rotation (Cornwall & McPoil, 1995). Deceleration phase of tibial rotation is the difference between the rotation value at initial contact and the value at 22% of the stance phase (Hamill, Bates, & Knutzen, 1984;Hamill, Bates, Knutzen, & Sawhill, 1983). Maximum internal tibial rotation is the difference between the rotation value at initial contact and the value at the greatest degree of internal tibial rotation during stance.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining Biomechanical and Anthropometrical Factors as Contributors to Iliotibial Band Friction Syndrome

Bauer¹,

Duke²

2011

Sport Science Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Examining Biomechanical and Anthropometrical Factors as Contributors to Iliotibial Band Friction Syndrome This study was conducted in an attempt to determine if the biomechanical parameters thought to predict iliotibial band injury could accurately differentiate between iliotibial band (IT band) injured and healthy runners. 20 injured and 20 healthy runners were tested. Injured subjects were randomly assigned into groups of ten (INJ-1 or INJ-2). Ten healthy runners acted as controls (CON) and ten healthy (EXP) subjects trained for 1 week with a 1.27 cm felt heal pad in the shoe of their longer leg. All subjects completed a runner's questionnaire, and 13 lower extremity anatomical measurements, four clinical lower extremity assessments, and 2D kinematics from the sagittal and frontal planes during treadmill running were recorded. Comparison of kinematic values between INJ-1 vs. CON and INJ-2 vs. EXP indicated the INJ-1 group had a greater knee flexion angle than the CON group. No other direct comparisons revealed statistically significant differences between groups, nor did a discriminant function based on nine anatomical measurements or analysis of the running questionnaire responses. It was not possible to clearly distinguish between the healthy and injured runners of this study based on the biomechanical factors most commonly thought to predispose individuals to iliotibial band injury.

show abstract

Variations in ground reaction force parameters at different running speeds

Cited by 126 publications

References 3 publications

Difference in Mechanical and Energy Cost between Highly, Well, and Nontrained Runners

Difference in Mechanical and Energy Cost between Highly, Well, and Nontrained Runners

Effects of Velocity and Weight Support on Ground Reaction Forces and Metabolic Power during Running

Examining Biomechanical and Anthropometrical Factors as Contributors to Iliotibial Band Friction Syndrome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About