Changes in Distance Running Mechanics Due to Systematic Variations in Running Style

Abstract

There is little information on how a change in one feature of an individual’s running mechanics affects other aspects of running style. This study manipulated experimental conditions such that eight subjects ran with three different step lengths, three step widths, and three varying degrees of shoulder rotation. The effect of these changes on rearfoot pronation measures, step length, and step width were examined. Results showed that varying step length over a range of 18 cm and shoulder rotation over a range of 17° caused no significant differences in maximal pronation angle, total amount of pronation, or maximal pronation velocity. Varying step width from landing approximately 5 cm lateral to the midline to crossing over a midline by 2 cm increased the maximum pronation from 12.2 to 18.3°, the amount of pronation from 14.1 to 21.1°, and maximal pronation velocity from. 329°/s to 535°/s. It is suggested that runners with problems due to excessive pronation might try changing step width. Changes in step width and shoulder rotation had no significant effect on step length, and alterations to shoulder rotation did not affect step length or step width significantly. These results suggest that a runner attempts to maintain some aspects of running mechanics despite major alterations to other elements of running style.

Gait modifications to change lower extremity gait biomechanics in runners: a systematic review

“…Similarly, step length did not respond to alterations in foot strike pattern or step width (no evidence) 24 34 49. Step length was decreased by the Pose technique (ES=0.5424 and 0.6621 moderate evidence).…”

“…Foot strike manipulation (forefoot/mid-foot strike vs rearfoot strike) was the most common intervention with nine studies using this intervention 20 24 34–40. Step frequency (six studies)37 41–45 and step length (six studies)45–50 modifications were also common interventions, followed by step width (three studies) 36 49 51. Four studies provided real-time feedback about peak-positive tibial acceleration.…”

“…Three studies examined peak rearfoot eversion. Two of these studies varied step width, finding that in all but one instance (‘normal’ vs ‘wide step’ (ES=0.37)56) that a crossover gait increased peak rearfoot eversion (compared with ‘normal’ (ES=0.4456 and 0.6649and ‘wide step’ (ES=0.8056) and a wide gait decreased it (ES=1.21)) 49. Pohl et al 36 also found that peak eversion decreased with a forefoot strike versus rearfoot strike (ES=0.69).…”

Running retraining to treat lower limb injuries: a mixed-methods study of current evidence synthesised with expert opinion

“…The primary reason for exclusion on obtainment of full text was inadequate participant numbers (ie, less than 10 participants per group), and included six studies on step rate manipulation,34–38 five studies on strike pattern comparison36 39–42 including one in a PFP population,41 one study on step width manipulation,43 one study on cues to reduce hip adduction,44 two studies on reducing impact loading variables45 46 and three combination studies 40 47–49. Additional reasons for exclusion included one combination study for absence of clinical or biomechanical analysis,50 one combination study for including transition to minimalist footwear during gait retraining,51 two step rate manipulation studies52 53 for absence of statistical comparison of biomechanical differences and one step rate manipulation study54 which combined hill running.…”

Changes in Gait During Constant Pace Treadmill Running

“…There was no difference between the early and late-stage joint angles of the hip and ankle, and while the differences of 2° in the knee angle at both initial contact and toe-off were found using effect sizes to be very likely positive, they were within the boundaries of normal variation (26) and might not be a result of fatigue. In addition, there was no difference in stride width with distance run; the stability of this variable might be due to the need to maintain rearfoot motion to a subcritical value and thereby reduce the risk of injury (34).…”