Grounded Running Reduces Musculoskeletal Loading

Bonnaerens, Senne; Fiers, Pieter; Galle, Samuel; Aerts, Peter; Frederick, Edward C.; Kaneko, Yasunori; Derave, Wim; Clercq, Dirk De

doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000001846

Cited by 31 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it has been shown that quadrupeds, such as elephants, run without a t f [3]. Similarly, several bipeds use an intermediate gait, termed grounded running by Andrada et al [4], that shares the characteristics of the spring–mass model of running during stance, but is deprived of a t f [4,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, a study [5] observed modifications of biomechanical and metabolic parameters in runners that performed instructed grounded running at a slow speed (2.1 m·s −1 ). When using this intermediate form of gait instead of their natural running gait, runners decreased their musculoskeletal load but increased their energy expenditure [5]. In this particular style of gait, the presence of a t f does not appropriately discriminate walking and running.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Duty Factor Is a Viable Measure to Classify Spontaneous Running Forms

Patoz¹,

Gindre²,

Thouvenot

et al. 2019

Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Runners were classified using two different methods based on their spontaneous running form: (1) subjectively using the V®score from the Volodalen® scale, leading to terrestrial and aerial groups; and (2) objectively using the duty factor (DF), leading to high (DFhigh) and low (DFlow) DF groups. This study aimed to compare these two classification schemes. Eighty-nine runners were divided in two groups using the V®score (VOL groups) and were also ranked according to their DF. They ran on a treadmill at 12 km·h−1 with simultaneous recording of running kinematics, using a three-dimensional motion capture system. DF was computed from data as the ratio of ground contact time to stride time. The agreement (95% confidence interval) between VOL and DF groups was 79.8% (69.9%, 87.6%), with relatively high sensitivity (81.6% (68.0%, 91.2%)) and specificity (77.5% (61.6%, 89.2%)). Our results suggest that the DF and V®score reflect similar constructs and lead to similar subgroupings of spontaneous running form (aerial runners if DF < 27.6% and terrestrial runners if DF > 28.8% at 12 km·h−1). These results suggest that DF could be a useful objective measure to monitor real-time changes in spontaneous running form using wearable technology. As a forward-looking statement, spontaneous changes in running form during racing or training could assist in identifying fatigue or changes in environmental conditions, allowing for a better understanding of runners.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Duty Factor Is a Viable Measure to Classify Spontaneous Running Forms

Patoz¹,

Gindre²,

Thouvenot

et al. 2019

Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Grounded running incurs a lower vertical, but larger antero-posterior oscillation of the COM with each stride. 12 With a reduced vertical oscillation of the COM, -Duty Factor 12-14 22 ↑ Leg Stiffness 14 ↓ vGRF 11 12 14 ↓ ✗, Absent; ✓, Present; ↓, Lower; ↑, Higher; -, No difference; COM, Centre of mass; vGRF, Vertical ground reaction force.…”

Section: Biomechanics Of Grounded Runningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 However, when grounded running was compared to aerial running at a population average speed (3.2 m•s −1 ), an approximate 25% increase in energy expenditure was observed compared to aerial running. 12 The elevated metabolic cost is likely a primary explanation for why many humans do not naturally use a grounded running technique. This notion is supported by Iwami and Ogihara's 14 finding that grounded running was difficult to adopt as it was more exhaustive.…”

Section: Energetics Of Grounded Runningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10 Of note, we typically consider running to involve a flight phase where neither foot is in contact with the ground (see figure 1). Grounded running is an alternative running technique, which maintains characteristics similar to traditional aerial running (eg, low centre of mass (COM) and maximum vertical ground reaction force (vGRF) at midstance), [11][12][13] while having alternating single and double stance with no flight phase (see figure 2). 11 Though grounded running might look similar to that of walking, the key characteristics that differentiate grounded running from walking are a unimodal vGRF shape, low COM at mid-stance and shorter double support period.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mechanics, energetics and implementation of grounded running technique: a narrative review

Davis

Fox

Bonacci

et al. 2020

BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grounded running predominantly differs from traditional aerial running by having alternating single and double stance with no flight phase. Approximately, 16% of runners in an open marathon and 33% of recreational runners in a 5 km running event adopted a grounded running technique. Grounded running typically occurs at a speed range of 2–3 m·s−1, is characterised by a larger duty factor, reduced vertical leg stiffness, lower vertical oscillation of the centre of mass (COM) and greater impact attenuation than aerial running. Grounded running typically induces an acute increase in metabolic cost, likely due to the larger duty factor. The increased duty factor may translate to a more stable locomotion. The reduced vertical oscillation of COM, attenuated impact shock, and potential for improved postural stability may make grounded running a preferred form of physical exercise in people new to running or with low loading capacities (eg, novice overweight/obese, elderly runners, rehabilitating athletes). Grounded running as a less impactful, but metabolically more challenging form, could benefit these runners to optimise their cardio-metabolic health, while at the same time minimise running-related injury risk. This review discusses the mechanical demands and energetics of grounded running along with recommendations and suggestions to implement this technique in practice.

show abstract

Acute Effects of Gait Interventions on Tibial Loads During Running: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Changing running technique or equipment can alter tibial loads. The efficacy of interventions to modify tibial loads during running is yet to be synthesised and evaluated. This article reviewed the effect of running technique and footwear interventions on tibial loading during running. Methods Electronic databases were searched using terms relevant to tibial load and running. Interventions were categorised according to their approach (i.e., footwear; barefoot running; speed; surface; overground versus treadmill; orthotics, insoles and taping; and technique); if necessary, further subgrouping was applied to these categories. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for changes in tibial loading were calculated and meta-analyses performed where possible. Results Database searches yielded 1617 articles, with 36 meeting the inclusion criteria. Tibial loading increased with (1) barefoot running (SMD 1.16; 95% CI 0.50, 1.82); (2) minimalist shoe use by non-habitual users (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.40, 1.39); (3) motion control shoe use (SMD 0.46; 95% CI 0.07, 0.84); (4) increased stride length (SMD 0.86; 95% CI 0.18, 1.55); and (5) increased running speed (SMD 1.03; 95% CI 0.74, 1.32). Tibial loading decreased when (1) individuals ran on a treadmill versus overground (SMD − 0.83; 95% CI − 1.53, − 0.12); and (2) targeted biofeedback was used (SMD − 0.93; 95% CI − 1.46, − 0.41). Conclusions Running barefoot, in motion control shoes or in unfamiliar minimalist shoes, and with an increased stride length increases tibial loads and may increase the risk of a tibial stress injury during periods of high training load. Adopting interventions such as running on a treadmill versus overground, and using targeted biofeedback during periods of high loads could reduce tibial stress injury.

show abstract

Grounded Running Reduces Musculoskeletal Loading

Cited by 31 publications

References 24 publications

Duty Factor Is a Viable Measure to Classify Spontaneous Running Forms

Duty Factor Is a Viable Measure to Classify Spontaneous Running Forms

Mechanics, energetics and implementation of grounded running technique: a narrative review

Acute Effects of Gait Interventions on Tibial Loads During Running: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About