Vincent Heather K, Coffey Kyle, Villasuso Aiden, Vincent Kevin R, Sharififar Sharareh, Pezzullo Lydia, Nixon Ryan M
Exercise and Functional Fitness Laboratory, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Department of Applied Physiology and Kinesiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Front Sports Act Living. 2024 Dec 11;6:1491486. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2024.1491486. eCollection 2024.
Foot strike pattern is often associated with running related injury and the focus of training and rehabilitation for athletes. The ability to modify foot strike pattern depends on awareness of foot strike pattern before being able to attempt change the pattern. Accurate foot strike pattern detection may help prevent running related injury (RRI) and facilitate gait modifications and shoe transitions. The purposes of this study were to determine the accuracy of self-reported foot strike pattern among endurance runners, to identify what factors were predictive of accurate foot strike detection and recent RRI.
This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study which included endurance runners ( = 710; 51.5% female; 35.4 ± 15.5 years; 51.6% were training competitively at the time of testing) with different running injury histories. Runners self-reported foot strike pattern [rearfoot, non-rearfoot (mid or forefoot), or "don't know"] and information about shoewear specifics. All runners performed a single session of running at self-selected speed on an instrumented treadmill with 3D motion capture and high-speed filming that verified actual foot strike. Logistic regression was used to predict accuracy of foot strike detection and RRI.
Overall accuracy of foot strike detection was low (42.7%; < 0.01). Self-reported foot strike was 28.3% for rearfoot, 47.0% for nonrearfoot forefoot strike and 24.6% did not know. Biomechanical analyses actually showed that 34% of rearfoot strikers accurately detected rearfoot strike, while 69.5% of non-rearfoot strikers self-reported accurate non-rearfoot strike ( < 0.05). Runners who "did not know" their strike had the highest prevalence of RRI compared to runners who self-reported nonrearfoot or rearfoot strike (73% vs. 56% and 58%; < .001). After accounting for several variables, shoe heel-to-toe drop was a consistent predictor of accurate strike detection [OR = 0.93 (0.88-0.99); = 0.026] and RRI in last six months [OR = 1. 1 (1.01-1.17); = 0.018]. RRI were also predicted by recent shoe change [OR = 2.8 (1.7-4.6); < 0.001].
Accurate detection of actual foot strike by endurance runners varies by the actual foot strike type determined during testing and is associated shoe characteristics. These findings demonstrate the importance of accurately identifying foot strike pattern and recommending footwear as a factor if planning to use retraining to alter foot strike pattern.
着地方式通常与跑步相关损伤以及运动员的训练和康复重点相关。改变着地方式的能力取决于在尝试改变着地方式之前对着地方式的认知。准确的着地方式检测可能有助于预防跑步相关损伤(RRI),并促进步态调整和鞋子更换。本研究的目的是确定耐力跑者自我报告的着地方式的准确性,识别哪些因素可预测着地方式的准确检测和近期的RRI。
这是一项回顾性横断面研究,纳入了具有不同跑步损伤史的耐力跑者(n = 710;51.5%为女性;35.4±15.5岁;51.6%在测试时进行竞争性训练)。跑者自我报告着地方式(后足着地、非后足着地(中足或前足着地)或“不知道”)以及有关鞋类细节的信息。所有跑者在配备3D运动捕捉和高速拍摄功能的仪器化跑步机上以自选速度进行单次跑步,以验证实际着地方式。采用逻辑回归来预测着地方式检测的准确性和RRI。
着地方式检测的总体准确性较低(42.7%;P < 0.0)。自我报告的着地方式中,后足着地占28.3%,非后足(前足着地)占47.0%,24.6%表示不知道。生物力学分析实际显示,34%的后足着地者准确检测到后足着地,而69.5%的非后足着地者自我报告准确的非后足着地(P < 0.05)。与自我报告非后足或后足着地的跑者相比,“不知道”自己着地方式的跑者RRI患病率最高(73%对56%和58%;P < 0.001)。在考虑了几个变量后,鞋跟到趾尖的落差是着地方式准确检测[比值比(OR)= 0.93(0.88 - 0.99);P = 0.026]和过去六个月内RRI[OR = 1.1(1.01 - 1.17);P = 0.018]的一致预测因素。近期鞋子更换也可预测RRI[OR = 2.8(1.7 - 4.6);P < 0.001]。
耐力跑者对实际着地方式的准确检测因测试期间确定的实际着地方式类型而异,并且与鞋子特征相关。这些发现表明,在计划使用再训练来改变着地方式时,准确识别着地方式并推荐鞋类作为一个因素的重要性。