Similar Running Economy With Different Running Patterns Along the Aerial-Terrestrial Continuum

Lussiana, Thibault; Gindre, Cyrille; Hébert‐Losier, Kim; Sagawa, Yoshimasa; Gimenez, Philippe; Mourot, Laurent

doi:10.1123/ijspp.2016-0107

Cited by 28 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, having a low DF (short t c ) should promote an elastic behaviour; therefore, we hypothesized greater symmetry within contact and aerial phases compared with the DF high group. Moreover, a similar EC at endurance running speeds has been observed in runners exhibiting different running forms (Lussiana et al, 2017a). Therefore, despite these differences in running kinematics, we anticipated similar EC values at typical endurance speeds (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 64%

“…Instead of decreasing t c to minimize EC, one effective strategy could be to increase t c to limit Δz and t a . Such a biomechanical strategy to optimize EC has been proposed recently under the name 'terrestrial running form' (Lussiana et al, 2017a), which resembles the grounded locomotive pattern used by some animal species (e.g. quail: Andrada et al, 2013) or the Groucho running style (McMahon et al, 1987).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The implications of time on the ground on running economy: less is not always better

Lussiana

Patoz²,

Gindre³

et al. 2019

Journal of Experimental Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A lower duty factor (DF) reflects a greater relative contribution of leg swing versus ground contact time during the running step. Increasing time on the ground has been reported in the scientific literature to both increase and decrease the energy cost (EC) of running, with DF reported to be highly variable in runners. As increasing running speed aligns running kinematics more closely with spring-mass model behaviours and re-use of elastic energy, we compared the centre of mass (COM) displacement and EC between runners with a low (DF low ) and high (DF high ) duty factor at typical endurance running speeds. Forty well-trained runners were divided in two groups based on their mean DF measured across a range of speeds. EC was measured from 4 min treadmill runs at 10, 12 and 14 km h −1 using indirect calorimetry. Temporal characteristics and COM displacement data of the running step were recorded from 30 s treadmill runs at 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18 km h −1 . Across speeds, DF low exhibited more symmetrical patterns between braking and propulsion phases in terms of time and vertical COM displacement than DF high . DF high limited global vertical COM displacements in favour of horizontal progression during ground contact. Despite these running kinematics differences, no significant difference in EC was observed between groups. Therefore, both DF strategies seem energetically efficient at endurance running speeds.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The implications of time on the ground on running economy: less is not always better

Lussiana

Patoz²,

Gindre³

et al. 2019

Journal of Experimental Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Depending on speed, we have observed differences of 10% to 30% in t f of two different spontaneous running forms [7,8,9]. In these aforementioned studies, we have used a global subjective rating scale (named Volodalen ® scale) to classify runners into two main categories, based on scores along a continuum (V ® score).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In these aforementioned studies, we have used a global subjective rating scale (named Volodalen ® scale) to classify runners into two main categories, based on scores along a continuum (V ® score). Aerial runners (AER) favor vertical oscillations and longer t f as opposed to terrestrial runners (TER) who prefer propelling their body forward and use shorter t f [9]. These groups are termed VOL groups in what follows.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Duty Factor Is a Viable Measure to Classify Spontaneous Running Forms

Patoz¹,

Gindre²,

Thouvenot

et al. 2019

Sports

Self Cite

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

“…Here, we provide further evidence that the greater muscle forces in mid-/forefoot strikers are more economically produced due to the lower muscle contraction velocities and hence no difference in GM, GL or SOL metabolic energy consumption between foot strike patterns exist. Moreover, previous experimental research already demonstrated that differences in whole body metabolic energy consumption between foot strike patterns are small (Ogueta-Alday et al, 2014) or even non-existing (Cunningham et al, 2010; Gruber et al, 2013; Lussiana et al, 2017; Perl et al, 2012). Studies investigating the effect of gait retraining from rearfoot to forefoot strike running do not find an effect on the metabolic energy consumption during running when enough training sessions (?8) were offered (Ekizos et al, 2018; Roper et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitual foot strike pattern does not affect simulated Triceps Surae muscle metabolic energy consumption during running

Swinnen

Hoogkamer

Groote

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

7Foot strike pattern affects ankle joint work and Triceps Surae muscle-tendon dynamics during running. 8Whether these changes in muscle-tendon dynamics also affect Triceps Surae muscle energy 9 consumption is still unknown. In addition, as the Triceps Surae muscle accounts for a substantial 10 amount of the whole body metabolic energy consumption, changes in Triceps Surae energy 11 consumption may affect whole body metabolic energy consumption. However, direct measurements 12 of muscle metabolic energy consumption during dynamic movements is hard. Model-based 13 approaches can be used to estimate individual muscle and whole body metabolic energy consumption 14 based on Hill type muscle models. In this study, we use an integrated experimental and dynamic 15 optimization approach to compute muscle states (muscle forces, lengths, velocities, excitations and 16 activations) of 10 habitual mid-/forefoot striking and 9 habitual rearfoot striking runners while running 17 at 10 and 14 km/h. The Achilles tendon stiffness of the musculoskeletal model was adapted to fit 18 experimental ultrasound data of the Gastrocnemius medialis muscle during ground contact. Next, we 19 calculated Triceps Surae muscle and whole body metabolic energy consumption using four different 20 metabolic energy models provided in literature. Neither Triceps Surae metabolic energy consumption 21 (p > 0.35), nor whole body metabolic energy consumption (p > 0.14) was different between foot strike 22 patterns, regardless of the energy model used or running speed tested. Our results provide new 23 evidence that mid-/forefoot and rearfoot strike pattern are metabolically equivalent.

show abstract

Similar Running Economy With Different Running Patterns Along the Aerial-Terrestrial Continuum

Cited by 28 publications

References 31 publications

The implications of time on the ground on running economy: less is not always better

The implications of time on the ground on running economy: less is not always better

Duty Factor Is a Viable Measure to Classify Spontaneous Running Forms

Habitual foot strike pattern does not affect simulated Triceps Surae muscle metabolic energy consumption during running

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About