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).

The purpose of the present study was to examine the influence of anthropometric data on joint kinetics during gait. We particularly focused on the sensitivity of inverse dynamics solutions to the use of models for body segment parameters (BSP) estimation. Six often used estimation models were selected to provide BSP values for the three segments of the lower limb. Kinematics and dynamics were sampled from seven subjects performing barefoot gait at three different speeds. Joint kinetics were estimated with the bottom-up method using BSP values derived from each estimation model as anthropometric inputs. The BSP estimates were highly sensitive to the model used with deviations ranging from at least 9.73% up to 60%. Maximal variations of peak values for the hip joint flexion/extension moment during the swing phase were 20.11%. Hence, our findings suggest that the influence of BSP cannot be neglected. Observed deviations are especially due to the effect of varying simultaneously the mass, moments of inertia and the center of mass location values, according to the underlying relationship of interdependency linking each component. Considering both the differences found in joint kinetics and the level of accuracy of BSP models, evidence is provided that using multiple regression BSP estimation functions derived from Zatsiorsky and Seluyanov should be recommended to assess joint kinetics.

There are evidences to suggest that wearing footwear constrains the natural barefoot motion during locomotion. Unlike prior studies that deduced foot motions from shoe sole displacement parameters, the aim of this study was to examine the effect of footwear motion on forefoot to rearfoot relative motion during walking and running. The use of a multi-segment foot model allowed accurate both shoe sole and foot motions (barefoot and shod) to be quantified. Two pairs of identical sandals with different midsole hardness were used. Ten healthy male subjects walked and ran in each of the shod condition. The results showed that for barefoot locomotion there was more eversion of the forefoot and it occurred faster than for shod locomotion. In this later condition, the range of eversion was reduced by 20% and the rate of eversion in late stance by 60% in comparison to the barefoot condition. The sole constrained both the torsional (eversion/inversion) and adduction range of motion of the foot. Interestingly, during the push-off phase of barefoot locomotion the rate and direction of forefoot torsion varied between individuals. However, most subjects displayed a forefoot inversion direction of motion while shod. Therefore, this experiment showed that the shoes not only restricted the natural motion of the barefoot but also appeared to impose a specific foot motion pattern on individuals during the push-off phase. These findings have implications for the matching of footwear design characteristics to individual natural foot function.