Dataset Information

Foot Strike Patterns During Overground Distance Running: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT:

Background

Investigations 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.

Objective

The 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.

Methods

Relevant 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.

Results

The 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.

Conclusion

Most 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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-021-00369-9.

SUBMITTER: Bovalino S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8581084 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundTreadmills are often used in research, clinical practice, and training. Biomechanical investigations comparing treadmill and overground running report inconsistent findings.ObjectiveThis study aimed at comparing biomechanical outcomes between motorized treadmill and overground running.MethodsFour databases were searched until June 2019. Crossover design studies comparing lower limb biomechanics during non-inclined, non-cushioned, quasi-constant-velocity motorized treadmill running with overground running in healthy humans (18-65 years) and written in English were included. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed where possible.Results33 studies (n = 494 participants) were included. Most outcomes did not differ between running conditions. However, during treadmill running, sagittal foot-ground angle at footstrike (mean difference (MD) - 9.8° [95% confidence interval: - 13.1 to - 6.6]; low GRADE evidence), knee flexion range of motion from footstrike to peak during stance (MD 6.3° [4.5 to 8.2]; low), vertical displacement center of mass/pelvis (MD - 1.5 cm [- 2.7 to - 0.8]; low), and peak propulsive force (MD - 0.04 body weights [- 0.06 to - 0.02]; very low) were lower, while contact time (MD 5.0 ms [0.5 to 9.5]; low), knee flexion at footstrike (MD - 2.3° [- 3.6 to - 1.1]; low), and ankle sagittal plane internal joint moment (MD - 0.4 Nm/kg [- 0.7 to - 0.2]; low) were longer/higher, when pooled across overground surfaces. Conflicting findings were reported for amplitude of muscle activity.ConclusionsSpatiotemporal, kinematic, kinetic, muscle activity, and muscle-tendon outcome measures are largely comparable between motorized treadmill and overground running. Considerations should, however, particularly be given to sagittal plane kinematic differences at footstrike when extrapolating treadmill running biomechanics to overground running. Protocol registration CRD42018083906 (PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).