Surface effects on ground reaction forces and lower extremity kinematics in running.

Clicks: 191
ID: 86107
2000
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Star

Ranked #43 of 95 articles by views in medicine and science in sports and exercise

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Although running surface stiffness has been associated with overuse injuries, all evidence to support this suggestion has been circumstantial. In the present study, the biomechanical response of heel-toe runners to changes in running surface has been investigated.Six heel-toe runners performed shod running trials over three surfaces: a conventional asphalt surface, a new rubber-modified asphalt surface, and an acrylic sports surface. The surfaces were categorised according to impact absorbing ability using standard impact test procedures (BS 7044).The rubber-modified asphalt was found to exhibit the greatest amount of mechanical impact absorption, and the conventional asphalt the least. The comparison of peak impact force values across surfaces for the group of subjects demonstrated no significant differences in magnitude of force. However, a significant reduction in loading rate of peak impact force was detected for the rubber-modified surface compared with conventional asphalt (P < 0.1). Although analysis of group data revealed no significant differences in kinematic variables when running on the different surfaces, a varied response to surface manipulation among runners was demonstrated, with marked differences in initial joint angles, peak joint angles, and peak joint angular velocities being observed.For some subjects, the maintenance of similar peak impact forces for different running surfaces was explained by observed kinematic adjustments. For example, when running on the surface providing the least impact absorption, an increased initial knee flexion was observed for some subjects, suggesting an increased lower extremity compliance. However, for some subjects, sagittal plane kinematic data were not sufficient for the explanation of peak impact force results. It appears that the mechanism of adaptation varies among runners, highlighting the requirement of individual subject analyses.
Reference Key
dixon2000surfacemedicine Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Dixon, S J;Collop, A C;Batt, M E;
Journal medicine and science in sports and exercise
Year 2000
DOI
DOI not found
URL URL not found
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.