Boyer Elizabeth R, Derrick Timothy R
Department of Kinesiology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA
Department of Kinesiology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA.
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Sep;43(9):2310-7. doi: 10.1177/0363546515592837. Epub 2015 Aug 4.
Some frontal plane and transverse plane variables have been associated with running injury, but it is not known if they differ with foot strike style or as stride length is shortened.
To identify if step width, iliotibial band strain and strain rate, positive and negative free moment, pelvic drop, hip adduction, knee internal rotation, and rearfoot eversion differ between habitual rearfoot and habitual mid-/forefoot strikers when running with both a rearfoot strike (RFS) and a mid-/forefoot strike (FFS) at 3 stride lengths.
Controlled laboratory study.
A total of 42 healthy runners (21 habitual rearfoot, 21 habitual mid-/forefoot) ran overground at 3.35 m/s with both a RFS and a FFS at their preferred stride lengths and 5% and 10% shorter.
Variables did not differ between habitual groups. Step width was 1.5 cm narrower for FFS, widening to 0.8 cm as stride length shortened. Iliotibial band strain and strain rate did not differ between foot strikes but decreased as stride length shortened (0.3% and 1.8%/s, respectively). Pelvic drop was reduced 0.7° for FFS compared with RFS, and both pelvic drop and hip adduction decreased as stride length shortened (0.8° and 1.5°, respectively). Peak knee internal rotation was not affected by foot strike or stride length. Peak rearfoot eversion was not different between foot strikes but decreased 0.6° as stride length shortened. Peak positive free moment (normalized to body weight [BW] and height [h]) was not affected by foot strike or stride length. Peak negative free moment was -0.0038 BW·m/h greater for FFS and decreased -0.0004 BW·m/h as stride length shortened.
The small decreases in most variables as stride length shortened were likely associated with the concomitant wider step width. RFS had slightly greater pelvic drop, while FFS had slightly narrower step width and greater negative free moment.
Shortening one's stride length may decrease or at least not increase propensity for running injuries based on the variables that we measured. One foot strike style does not appear universally better than the other; rather, different foot strike styles may predispose runners to different types of injuries.
一些额状面和横断面变量与跑步损伤有关,但尚不清楚它们是否因着地方式不同或步幅缩短而有所差异。
确定在三种步幅下以足跟着地(RFS)和中/前脚掌着地(FFS)跑步时,习惯性足跟着地者和习惯性中/前脚掌着地者在步宽、髂胫束应变及应变率、正负自由力矩、骨盆下降、髋关节内收、膝关节内旋和后足外翻方面是否存在差异。
对照实验室研究。
42名健康跑步者(21名习惯性足跟着地者,21名习惯性中/前脚掌着地者)在地面上以3.35米/秒的速度跑步,分别采用RFS和FFS,步幅为各自偏好的步幅以及缩短5%和10%。
各习惯性组别之间的变量无差异。FFS的步宽窄1.5厘米,随着步幅缩短增宽至0.8厘米。两种着地方式下髂胫束应变及应变率无差异,但随着步幅缩短而降低(分别为0.3%和1.8%/秒)。与RFS相比,FFS的骨盆下降减少0.7°,随着步幅缩短,骨盆下降和髋关节内收均降低(分别为0.8°和1.5°)。膝关节内旋峰值不受着地方式或步幅影响。两种着地方式下后足外翻峰值无差异,但随着步幅缩短降低0.6°。正自由力矩峰值(相对于体重[BW]和身高[h]归一化)不受着地方式或步幅影响。FFS的负自由力矩峰值大-0.0038BW·m/h,随着步幅缩短降低-0.0004BW·m/h。
随着步幅缩短,大多数变量的小幅降低可能与随之变宽的步宽有关。RFS的骨盆下降略大,而FFS的步宽略窄且负自由力矩更大。
基于我们测量的变量,缩短步幅可能会降低或至少不会增加跑步损伤的倾向。一种着地方式似乎并不普遍优于另一种;相反,不同的着地方式可能使跑步者易患不同类型的损伤。