Download PDF
Int J Sports Med 2016; 37(13): 1087-1090
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-107248
Orthopedics & Biomechanics
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Comparison of 3 Methods for Computing Loading Rate during Running

T. Ueda
1   Mechanical Engineering Faculty of Science and Technology, Tokyo University of Science, Chiba, Japan, Tokyo
,
H. Hobara
2   National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Human Informatics Research Institute, Tokyo Japan
,
Y. Kobayashi
2   National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Human Informatics Research Institute, Tokyo Japan
,
T. A. Heldoorn
2   National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Human Informatics Research Institute, Tokyo Japan
,
M. Mochimaru
2   National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Human Informatics Research Institute, Tokyo Japan
,
H. Mizoguchi
1   Mechanical Engineering Faculty of Science and Technology, Tokyo University of Science, Chiba, Japan, Tokyo
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History



accepted after revision 19 April 2016

Publication Date:
27 September 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Tibial stress fractures are among the most common and potentially serious overuse injuries in runners. The fractures are thought to be related in part, to excessive loading variables, such as vertical average loading rate (VALR) and vertical instantaneous loading rate (VILR). Although there are several methods for calculating loading rate in running, little is known about the differences between the results produced by these methods. The purpose of this study was to compare 3 previously published methods of calculating VALR and VILR during running. 9 male participants ran on a treadmill at 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5 m/s. VALR and VILR were calculated from vertical ground reaction force using 3 methods that differed by the period over which the loading rates were calculated; foot strike to first peak (method A), from 20 to 80% of the time to first peak (method B), and over the first 50 ms after foot strike (method C). There were significant differences among methods with regard to VALR, but not VILR. Therefore, the results of the present study suggest that VILR is preferable to VALR for consistent evaluation among methods, which make it more acceptable to make study comparisons.

Key words

tibial stress fracture - running injury - ground reaction force
 

  • References

  • 1 Aguinaldo A, Mahar A. Impact loading in running shoes with cushioning column systems. J Appl Biomech 2003; 19: 353-360
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bredeweg SW, Kluitenberg B, Bessem B, Buist I. Differences in kinetic variables between injured and noninjured novice runners: A prospective cohort study. J Sci Med Sport 2013; 16: 205-210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Davis I, Milner CE, Hamill J. Does increased loading during running lead to tibial stress fractures? A prospective study. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004; 36: S58
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 De Wit B, De Clercq D, Aerts P. Biomechanical analysis of the stance phase during barefoot and shod running. J Biomech 2000; 33: 269-278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ferber R, McClay-Davis I, Hamill J, Pollard CD, McKeown KA. Kinetic variables in subjects with previous lower extremity stress fracture. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002; 34: S5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Giandolioni M, Arnal PJ, Millet GY, Peyrot N, Samozino P, Dubois B, Morin JB. Impact reduction during running: efficiency of simple acute interventions in recreational runners. Eur J Appl Phyiol 2013; 113: 599-609
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gottschall JS, Kram R. Ground reaction forces during downhill and uphill running. J Biomech 2005; 38: 445-452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Grabowski AM, Kram R. Effects of velocity and weight support on ground reaction forces and metabolic power during running. J Appl Biomech 2008; 24: 288-297
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Ethical Standards in Sport and Exercise Science Research: 2016 Update. Int J Sports Med. 2015 36. 1121-1124
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hobara H, Sato T, Sakaguchi M, Sato T, Nakazawa K. Step frequency and lower extremity loading during running. Int J Sports Med 2012; 33: 310-313
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Jones BH, Thacker SB, Gilchrist J, Kimsey Jr CD, Sosin DM. Prevention of lower extremity stress fractures in athletes and soldiers: A systematic review. Epid Rev 2002; 24: 228-247
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Levine TR, Hullett CR. Eta squared, partial eta squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Hum Commun Res 2002; 28: 612-625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Milner CE, Ferber R, Pollard CD, Hamill J, Davis IS. Biomechanical factors associated with tibial stress fracture in female runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006; 38: 323-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Munro CF, Milner DI, Fuglevand AJ. Ground reaction forces in running: a reexamination. J Biomech 1987; 20: 147-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Pohl MB, Mullineaux DR, Milner CE, Hamil J, Davis IS. Biomechanical predictors of retrospective tibial stress fractures in runners. J Biomech 2008; 41: 1160-1165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Zadpoor AA, Nikooyan AA. The relationship between lower-extremity stress fractures and the ground reaction force: A systematic review. Clin Biomech 2011; 26: 21-28
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Zifchock RA, Davis I, Hamill J. Kinetic asymmetry in female runners with and without retrospective tibial stress fractures. J Biomech 2006; 39: 2792-2797
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar