Dataset Information

Duty factor and foot-strike pattern do not represent similar running pattern at the individual level.

ABSTRACT: Runners were classified using their duty factor (DF) and using their foot-strike pattern (FSP; rearfoot, midfoot, or forefoot strikers), determined from their foot-strike angle (FSA). High and low DF runners showed different FSPs but DF was assumed to not only reflect what happens at initial contact with the ground (more global than FSP/FSA). Hence, FSP and DF groups should not necessarily be constituted by the same runners. However, the relation between FSP and DF groups has never been investigated, leading to the aim of this study. One hundred runners ran at 9, 11, and 13 km/h. Force data (1000 Hz) and whole-body kinematics (200 Hz) were acquired by an instrumented treadmill and optoelectronic system and were used to classify runners according to their FSA and DF. Weak correlations were obtained between FSA and DF values and a sensitivity of 50% was reported between FSP and DF groups, i.e., only one in two runners was attributed to the DF group supposedly corresponding to the FSP group. Therefore, 'local' FSP/FSA and DF do not represent similar running pattern information when investigated at the individual level and DF should be preferred to FSP/FSA when evaluating the global running pattern of a runner.

SUBMITTER: Patoz A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9338241 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Duty factor and foot-strike pattern do not represent similar running pattern at the individual level.

Patoz Aurélien A Lussiana Thibault T Breine Bastiaan B Gindre Cyrille C Malatesta Davide D

Scientific reports 20220729 1

Runners were classified using their duty factor (DF) and using their foot-strike pattern (FSP; rearfoot, midfoot, or forefoot strikers), determined from their foot-strike angle (FSA). High and low DF runners showed different FSPs but DF was assumed to not only reflect what happens at initial contact with the ground (more global than FSP/FSA). Hence, FSP and DF groups should not necessarily be constituted by the same runners. However, the relation between FSP and DF groups has never been investig ...[more]

PMID: 35906382

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInvestigations of foot strike patterns during overground distance running have foci on prevalence, performance and change in foot strike pattern with increased distance. To date, synthesised analyses of these findings are scarce.ObjectiveThe key objectives of this review were to quantify the prevalence of foot strike patterns, assess the impact of increased running distance on foot strike pattern change and investigate the potential impact of foot strike pattern on performance.MethodsRelevant peer-reviewed literature was obtained by searching EBSCOhost CINAHL, Ovid Medline, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus (inception-2021) for studies investigating foot strike patterns in overground distance running settings (> 10 km). Random effects meta-analyses of prevalence data were performed where possible.ResultsThe initial search identified 2210 unique articles. After removal of duplicates and excluded articles, 12 articles were included in the review. Meta-analysis of prevalence data revealed that 79% of long-distance overground runners rearfoot strike early, with prevalence rising to 86% with increased distance. In total, 11% of runners changed foot strike pattern with increased distance and of those, the vast majority (84%) do so in one direction, being non-rearfoot strike to rearfoot strike. Analysis of the relationship between foot strike pattern and performance revealed that 5 studies reported a performance benefit to non-rearfoot strike, 1 study reported a performance benefit to non-rearfoot strike in women but not men, 4 studies reported no benefit to non-rearfoot strike or rearfoot strike, and no studies reported a performance benefit of rearfoot strike over non-rearfoot strike.ConclusionMost overground distance runners rearfoot strike early, and the prevalence of this pattern increases with distance. Of those that do change foot strike pattern, the majority transition from non-rearfoot to rearfoot. The current literature provides inconclusive evidence of a competitive advantage being associated with long-distance runners who use a non-rearfoot strike pattern in favour of a rearfoot strike pattern.

Project description:ContentDistance running is one of the most popular physical activities, and running-related injuries (RRIs) are also common. Foot strike patterns have been suggested to affect biomechanical variables related to RRI risks.ObjectiveTo determine the effects of foot strike techniques on running biomechanics.Data sourcesThe databases of Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, and EBSCO were searched from database inception through November 2018.Study selectionThe initial electronic search found 723 studies. Of these, 26 studies with a total of 472 participants were eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis.Study designSystematic review and meta-analysis.Level of evidenceLevel 4.Data extractionMeans, standard deviations, and sample sizes were extracted from the eligible studies, and the standard mean differences (SMDs) were obtained for biomechanical variables between forefoot strike (FFS) and rearfoot strike (RFS) groups using a random-effects model.ResultsFFS showed significantly smaller magnitude (SMD, -1.84; 95% CI, -2.29 to -1.38; P < 0.001) and loading rate (mean: SMD, -2.1; 95% CI, -3.18 to -1.01; P < 0.001; peak: SMD, -1.77; 95% CI, -2.21 to -1.33; P < 0.001) of impact force, ankle stiffness (SMD, -1.69; 95% CI, -2.46 to -0.92; P < 0.001), knee extension moment (SMD, -0.64; 95% CI, -0.98 to -0.3; P < 0.001), knee eccentric power (SMD, -2.03; 95% CI, -2.51 to -1.54; P < 0.001), knee negative work (SMD, -1.56; 95% CI, -2.11 to -1.00; P < 0.001), and patellofemoral joint stress (peak: SMD, -0.71; 95% CI, -1.28 to -0.14; P = 0.01; integral: SMD, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.11 to -0.15; P = 0.01) compared with RFS. However, FFS significantly increased ankle plantarflexion moment (SMD, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.96; P < 0.001), eccentric power (SMD, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.08;P < 0.001), negative work (SMD, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.02 to 4.18; P = 0.001), and axial contact force (SMD, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.6; P < 0.001) compared with RFS.ConclusionRunning with RFS imposed higher biomechanical loads on overall ground impact and knee and patellofemoral joints, whereas FFS imposed higher biomechanical loads on the ankle joint and Achilles tendon. The modification of strike techniques may affect the specific biomechanical loads experienced on relevant structures or tissues during running.

Dataset Information

Duty factor and foot-strike pattern do not represent similar running pattern at the individual level.

Publications

Duty factor and foot-strike pattern do not represent similar running pattern at the individual level.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets