Tag Archives: treadmill

Multi-segment foot kinematics and plantar fascia strain during treadmill and overground running.

Posted on December 31, 2014 | Comments Off on Multi-segment foot kinematics and plantar fascia strain during treadmill and overground running.

By Sinclair J1, Taylor PJ2 and Vincent H1pdflrg

The Foot and Ankle Online Journal 7 (4): 4

Although physiologically beneficial, running is known to be associated with a high incidence of chronic injuries. Excessive coronal and transverse plane motions of the foot segments and strain experienced by the plantar fascia are linked to the development of a number of chronic injuries. This study examined differences in multi-segment foot kinematics and plantar fascia strain during treadmill and overground running. Twelve male recreational runners ran at 4.0 m.s-1 in both treadmill and overground conditions. Multi-segment foot kinematics and plantar fascia strain were measured using an eight-camera motion analysis system and contrasted using paired samples t-tests. The results showed that plantar fascia strain was significantly greater in the overground condition (8.23 ± 2.77) compared to the treadmill (5.53 ± 2.25). Given the proposed relationship between excessive plantar fascia strain and the etiology of injury, overground running may be associated with a higher incidence of injury although further work is necessary before causation can be confirmed.

Keywords: Running, kinematics, treadmill, plantar fascia

ISSN 1941-6806
doi: 10.3827/faoj.2014.0704.0004

Address correspondence to: Dr. Paul John Taylor, School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, PR1 2HE.
E-mail: PJTaylor@uclan.ac.uk

1 Centre for Applied Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Central Lancashire
2 School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire

Running using the treadmill is now a common exercise modality [1]. Recent statistics provided by runners’ world indicate that in excess of 40 million people in the US perform their running training using a treadmill. Treadmills are also useful to researchers interested in the mechanics of human gait as they allow locomotion velocity and gradient to be controlled in a controlled environment [2]. The treadmill also allows a greater number of continuous gait cycles to be captured and may thus allow more natural movement patterns to be obtained [3].

Recreational running is associated with a number of physiological benefits [4]. However, etiological analyses which have studied the prevalence of running injuries indicate that chronic injuries are extremely common, with an incidence rate of around 70 % during the course of a year [5]. A large number of retrospective and prospective analyses have investigated the mechanisms by which chronic running injuries develop [6,7,8]. Mal-alignment of the foot segment has been linked to etiology of chronic pathologies [9]. Excessive coronal and transverse plane motions of the foot segments have been associated with the progression of various pathologies such as tibial stress syndrome and anterior knee pain [10]. In addition to this, abnormal foot mechanics have also been linked to the etiology of plantar fasciitis, which affects in access of 10% or recreational runners [11].

It is currently unknown whether using the treadmill for training, compared to traditional overground running, influences runners’ susceptibility to chronic injuries. Research investigating the differences in running mechanics has habitually used a single segment foot model, thus the current understanding regarding articulations of the foot segments, linked to the potential etiology of injuries during treadmill and overground running is limited. Differences between treadmill and overground running have been examined previously in walking studies using multi-segment foot models.    Tulchin et al., [12] observed small differences in rearfoot plantarflexion during first rocker, as well as peak forefoot eversion and abduction, although all differences were <3°. These results led to the conclusion that multi-segment foot mechanics were similar between overground and treadmill walking in healthy adults.

Given the popularity of the treadmill as an exercise and research tool there has been no published information regarding the differences in multi-segment foot kinematics and plantar fascia strain during overground and treadmill running. Therefore, the aim of the current investigation was to determine whether differences exist between running on the treadmill and overground in multi-segment foot mechanics and also the strain imposed on the plantar fascia.

Methods

Participants

Twelve experienced runners took part in the current investigation. All were free from musculoskeletal pathology at the time of data collection and provided written informed consent. The mean characteristics of the participants were: Age = 24.11 ± 1.35 years, Height = 1.74 ± 0.08 m, Mass = 69.16 ± 5.67 kg. The procedure utilized for this investigation was approved by the University of Central Lancashire, ethical committee.

Procedure

Kinematic information during overground and treadmill locomotion was captured at 250 Hz via an eight-camera motion analysis system (QualisysTM Medical AB, Goteburg, Sweden). Two identical motion capture systems were used. Calibration of each system was performed before each data collection session. Calibrations producing residuals <0.85 mm and points above 4000 in all cameras were considered acceptable.

In order to model the foot segments in six degrees of freedom the calibrated anatomical systems technique was utilized for modelling and tracking segments was [13]. Circular retroreflective markers (19 mm) were placed onto specific anatomical landmarks in accordance with the foot model developed by Leardini et al., [14]. This allowed the anatomical and technical frames of the rearfoot (Rear), midfoot (Mid) and forefoot (Fore) to be delineated. To define the tibial (Tib) segment additional markers were positioned onto the medial and lateral femoral epicondyles. A rigid carbon-fibre tracking cluster consisting of four non-linear markers was also positioned onto this segment. All participants were provided with the same experimental footwear (Asics 2160; Asics UK).

In the overground condition, five trials were undertaken over a 22 m walkway (Altrosports 6mm, Altro Ltd) at a velocity of 4.0m.s-1 ±5%. The velocity of running was quantified using infra-red timing gates (SmartSpeed Ltd UK). To collect treadmill data a WoodwayTM (ELG, Germany) treadmill was utilized. Participants were allowed a habitation period of 5-min, during which they ran at the required experimental velocity prior to data collection. Five trials were also collected for the treadmill locomotion. As force information was not available from the treadmill, footstrike and toe-off were determined in both conditions using kinematic information. Based on the recommendations of Fellin et al., [15], footstrike was determined as the point at which the vertical velocity of the calcaneus marker changed from negative to positive and toe-off was delineated using the second instance of peak knee extension.

Data processing

Data were digitized using Qualisys track manager and exported to Visual 3D (C-motion, Germantown USA). Marker trajectories were smoothed at 15 Hz using a low pass non-phase shift Butterworth filter. This frequency was selected based on residual analysis [16]. Cardan angles were used to calculate 3-D articulations of the foot segments. Foot angles were calculated using and XYZ cardan sequence of rotations between the calcaneus-tibia (Cal-Tib), midfoot-calcaneus (Mid-Cal), forefoot-midfoot (For-Mid) and forefoot-calcaneus (For-Rear). Discrete 3-D kinematic parameters that were extracted for statistical analysis were 1) angle at footstrike, 2) angle at toe-off, 3) range of motion from footstrike to toe-off during stance, 4) peak angle during stance and 5) relative range of motion (representing the angular displacement from footstrike to peak angle). Plantar fascia strain was quantified in accordance with the Ferber et al., [17] recommendations by determining the distance between the 1st metatarsal and calcaneus markers and calculated as the relative position of the markers was altered. Plantar fascia strain was calculated as the peak change in length during the stance phase divided by the original length.

F1

Figure 1 Multi-segment foot kinematics during running in the a. sagittal, b. coronal and c. transverse planes as a function of different conditions (Black = overground and grey = treadmill) (DF =dorsiflexion, IN = inversion, INT = internal) (Rear = rearfoot, Mid = midfoot, Fore = forefoot, Tib = tibia).

tab1

Table 1 Rearfoot-tibial kinematics during treadmill and overground running conditions.

tab2

Table 2 Midfoot-rearfoot kinematics during treadmill and overground running conditions.

tab3

Table 3 Forefoot-midfoot kinematics during treadmill and overground running conditions.

tab4

Table 4 Forefoot-rearfoot kinematics during treadmill and overground running conditions.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) were calculated for each running condition. Differences in the outcome multi-segment foot kinematic parameters and plantar fascia strain were contrasted using paired samples t-tests with significance accepted at the p≤0.05 level [18]. Effect sizes for all significant observations were calculated using a Cohen’s D statistic. The data were screened for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test. All statistical procedures were conducted using SPSS v22 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, USA).

Results

The results indicate that whilst the multi-segment foot kinematic waveforms measured during overground and treadmill running were quantitatively similar, significant differences were found to between the two running modalities. Figure 1 presents the 3-D multi-segment foot kinematics from the stance phase. Tables 1-5 present the results of the statistical analysis conducted on the measures of multi-segment foot kinematics.

Plantar fascia strain and stance time

Running overground was associated with significantly (t (11) = 2.71, p<0.05, D = 1.56) greater plantar fascia strain (8.23 ± 2.77) compared to running on the treadmill (5.53 ± 2.25). Stance time was shown to be significantly (t (11) = 3.45, p<0.05, D = 1.99) shorter in the overground condition (0.23 ± 0.05) compared to the treadmill (0.29 ± 0.03).

Rearfoot-tibia

Running overground was associated with significantly (t (11) = 2.37, p<0.05, D = 1.37) greater dorsiflexion at footstrike compared to running on the treadmill. In addition overground running was shown to be associated with a significantly (t (11) = 3.28, p<0.05, D = 1.89) larger sagittal plane ROM compared to the treadmill.

Midfoot-rearfoot

No significant (p>0.05) differences were observed.

Forefoot-midfoot

No significant (p>0.05) differences were observed.

Forefoot-rearfoot

No significant (p>0.05) differences were observed.

Discussion

Therefore, the aim of the current investigation was to determine whether differences exist between running on the treadmill and overground in multi-segment foot mechanics and also the strain imposed on the plantar fascia. This represents the first biomechanical examination to contrast both multi-segment foot kinematics and plantar fascia strain during treadmill and overground running.

The first key clinical observation from the current investigation is that plantar fascia strain was shown to be significantly greater in during treadmill running compared to overground. This finding may be clinically relevant with regards to the etiology and progression of plantar fasciitis, which is considered to be related to the magnitude of the strain imposed on the plantar fascia itself [19]. Currently, there is very little information regarding the different susceptibility of runners to chronic injuries during treadmill and overground running conditions. The results from the current study, therefore, provide insight into the biomechanical mechanisms that may affect injury susceptibility and suggest that running overground may place runners at increased risk from plantar fasciitis.

In addition to alterations in plantar fascia strain between conditions, a significantly different sagittal plane rearfoot angle was shown at footstrike between the two running conditions. Specifically, runners were shown to exhibit dorsiflexion during overground running and plantarflexion in the treadmill condition. This result is in agreement with the observations of Wank et al., [20] and Nigg et al., [21], who showed increased ankle plantarflexion at footstrike during treadmill running. Given the significant reduction in stance time, the change in rearfoot position relative to the tibial segment may relate to a shortened stride length. Both Chia et al., [22] and Schache et al., [2] noted reductions in stride distance during treadmill running in conjunction with increased stance times during treadmill running. This finding may also relate to a switch from a rearfoot to midfoot strike pattern, although without the presence of an instrumented treadmill with an integrated force platform, it is not possible to examine the vertical ground reaction force curves to fully ascertain this.

On the basis that increases in plantar fascia strain were noted during overground running, the results from the current may provide evidence to support the utilization of treadmill running to reduce runners’ susceptibility to injury. However it is important that these observations be contextualised by taking account the aforementioned increases in stride frequency that have been observed previously for treadmill running [2, 22]. Therefore, whilst increases in plantar fascia strain were noted for each foot contact when running overground, the amount of cumulative strain may not be altered between the two running modalities, as the total number of footfalls required to achieve required velocity is greater when running on the treadmill. There is currently no epidemiological data concerning the influence of cumulative and singular loads experienced by the musculoskeletal structures with regards to the etiology of chronic injuries. It is, therefore, strongly recommended that analyses prospectively investigate the effects of treadmill an overground running on the predisposition of recreational runners to chronic injuries.

A potential drawback to the current investigation was that the treadmill data did not feature an integrated force platform. Therefore, in addition to being unable to identify footstrike modifications this meant that footstrike and toe-off events were defined using kinematic methods. The identification of gait events using kinematic techniques has been shown to be repeatable, but they are not as accurate as the gold-standard method using force platform information [23]. Plantar fascia strain was calculated using markers placed onto the foot segment and the location of plantar fascial tissue was considered in this study to span from the calcaneus to the first metatarsal. This procedure has been adopted previously in order to model the strain experienced by the plantar fascia [17, 24] and the means strain values presented in this work closely correspond with previous values. Nonetheless, this represents a simplified technique and there is likely to be some error associated with this method. Future analyses should consider more accurate techniques, such as fluoroscopic imaging in conjunction with 3-D motion analysis, to provide a more accurate measurement of plantar fascia strain during different running conditions.

In conclusion, the current investigation adds to the current knowledge in the discipline of clinical biomechanics by providing a comprehensive evaluation of the 3-D multi-segment foot kinematics and plantar fascia strain observed when running on the treadmill and overground. This study demonstrated that plantar fascia strain was significantly reduced during treadmill running. This indicates that running on the treadmill may be associated with a reduced incidence of plantar fasciitis, although additional epidemiological research is required before specific conclusions regarding injury prevention can be made

Acknowledgements

Our thanks go to Glen Crook for his technical assistance.

References

  1. Sinclair J, Richards J, Taylor PJ, Edmundson CJ, Brooks D, Hobbs SJ. Three-dimensional kinematic comparison of treadmill and overground running. Sports Biomechanics 2013 12: 272-282. (Link)
  2. Schache AG, Blanch PD, Rath DA, Wrigley TV, Starr R, Bennell KL. A comparison of overground and treadmill running for measuring the three-dimensional kinematics of the lumbo-pelvic-hip complex. Clinical Biomechanics 2001 16: 667–680. (PubMed)
  3. Fellin RE, Manal K, Davis IS. Comparison of lower extremity kinematic curves during overground and treadmill running. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 2010 26: 407–414. (PubMed)
  4. Wen DY. Risk factors for overuse injuries in runners. Current Sports Medicine Reports 2007 6: 307–313. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17883966
  5. van Mechelen W. Running injuries. Sports Medicine 1992 14: 320-335. (PubMed)
  6. Taunton JE, Ryan MB, Clement DB, McKenzie DC, Lloyd-Smith DR, Zumbo, BD. A retrospective case-control analysis of 2002 running injuries. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2002 36: 95-101. (Link)
  7. van Gent BR, Siem DD, van Middelkoop M, van Os TA, Bierma-Zeinstra SS, Koes BB. Incidence and determinants of lower extremity running injuries in long distance runners: a systematic review. British journal of sports medicine 2007 41: 469-480. (Link)
  8. Taunton JE, Ryan MB, Clement DB, McKenzie DC, Lloyd-Smith DR, Zumbo, BD. A prospective study of running injuries: the Vancouver Sun Run “In Training” clinics. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2003 37: 239-244. (PubMed)
  9. Stergiou N, Bates BT, James SL. Asynchrony between subtalar and knee joint function during running. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 1999 31: 1645–55. (PubMed)
  10. McClay IS, Manal KT. Coupling parameters in runners with normal and excessive pronation. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 1997 13: 109-124. (Link)
  11. Lareau CR, Sawyer GA, Wang JH, DiGiovanni CW. Plantar and Medial Heel Pain: Diagnosis and Management. The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2014 22: 372–380. (PubMed)
  12. Tulchin K, Orendurff M, Karol L. A comparison of multi-segment foot kinematics during level overground and treadmill walking. Gait & posture 2010 31: 104-108. (PubMed)
  13. Cappozzo A, Catani F, Della Croce U, Leardini A. Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: anatomical frame definition and determination. Clinical Biomechanics 1995 10: 171–178. (PubMed)
  14. Leardini A, Benedetti M, Berti L, Bettinelli D, Nativo R, Giannini S. Rear-foot, mid-foot and fore-foot motion during the stance phase of gait. Gait & Posture 2007 25: 453-462. (Link)
  15. Fellin RE, Rose WC, Royer TD, Davis IS. Comparison of methods for kinematic identification of footstrike and toe-off during overground and treadmill running. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 2010 13: 646–650. (PubMed)
  16. Sinclair J, Taylor PJ, Hobbs SJ. Digital filtering of three-dimensional lower extremity kinematics: An assessment. Journal of human kinetics 2013 39: 25-36. (PubMed)
  17. Ferber R, Benson B. Changes in multi-segment foot biomechanics with a heat-mouldable semi-custom foot orthotic device. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2011 4: 1-8. (PubMed)
  18. Sinclair J, Taylor PJ Hobbs SJ. Alpha level adjustments for multiple dependent variable analyses and their applicability–A review. International Journal of Sport Science and Engineering 2013 7: 17-20.
  19. Pohl MB, Messenger N, Buckley JG. Forefoot, rearfoot and shank coupling: effect of variations in speed and mode of gait. Gait & Posture 2007 25: 295-302. (PubMed)
  20. Wank V, Frick U, Schmidtbleicher D. Kinematics and electromyography of lower limb muscles in overground and treadmill running. International Journal of Sports Medicine 1998 19: 455–461. (PubMed)
  21. Nigg BM, De Boer R, Fisher V. A kinematic comparison of overground and treadmill running. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 1995 27: 98–105. (PubMed)
  22. Chia LC, Licari MK, Guelfi KJ, Reid SL. Investigation of treadmill and overground running: Implications for the measurement of oxygen cost in children with developmental coordination disorder. Gait & Posture 2014 (EPub ahead of print). (PubMed)
  23. Sinclair J, Edmundson CJ, Brooks D, Hobbs SJ. Evaluation of kinematic methods of identifying gait Events during running. International Journal of Sports Science and Engineering 2011 5: 188-192.
  24. Tome J, Nawoczenski DA, Flemister A, Houck J. Comparison of foot kinematics between participants with posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction and healthy controls. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 2006 36: 635–644. (PubMed)

Comments Off on Multi-segment foot kinematics and plantar fascia strain during treadmill and overground running.

Tagged , , ,

Tibiocalcaneal kinematics during treadmill and overground running

Posted on June 30, 2014 | Comments Off on Tibiocalcaneal kinematics during treadmill and overground running

by Jonathan Sinclair1, Paul J Taylor2pdflrg

The Foot and Ankle Online Journal 7 (2): 8

Epidemiological studies analyzing the prevalence of running injuries suggest that overuse injuries are a prominent complaint for both recreational and competitive runners. Excessive coronal and transverse plane motions of the ankle and tibia are linked to the development of a number of chronic injuries. This study examined differences in tibiocalcaneal kinematics between treadmill and overground running. Ten participants ran at 4.0 m.s-1 in both treadmill and overground conditions. Tibiocalcaneal kinematics were measured using an eight-camera motion analysis system and compared using paired samples t-tests. Of the examined parameters; peak eversion, eversion velocity, tibial internal rotation and tibial internal rotation velocity were shown to be significantly greater in the treadmill condition. Therefore, it was determined treadmill runners may be at increased risk from chronic injury development.

Keywords: Biomechanics, treadmill, injury, running.

ISSN 1941-6806
doi: 10.3827/faoj.2014.0702.0008

Address correspondence to:2School of Psychology University of Central Lancashire,Preston, Lancashire, PR1 2HE.
E-mail: PJTaylor@uclan.ac.uk

1 Centre for Applied Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Central, Lancashire.

Epidemiological studies analyzing the prevalence of running injuries suggest that overuse injuries are a prominent complaint for both recreational and competitive runners [1]. Each year approximately 19.4-79.3 % of runners will experience a pathology related to running [2].

The treadmill is now recognized as a common mode of exercise, and is becoming more popular as a running modality [3]. Since the early 1980’s the sport of running has changed dramatically, with a significant increase in the number of treadmill runners [4]. Runners’ World suggests that 40 million people in the U.S alone run using treadmills. Traditionally, treadmills have been used in clinical and laboratory research, but are now used extensively in both fitness suites and homes.

Treadmills allow ambulation at a range of velocities whilst indoors in a safe controlled environment. It is not currently known, however, whether the incidence of injuries may be affected differently between treadmill and overground running.

Lower extremity kinematic motions of excessive eversion and tibial internal rotation have been connected with various running injuries [5,6,7]. Additionally, movement coupling between the foot and shin, which causes the tibia segment to rotate internally between touchdown and midstance, has also been linked to the etiology of injury [8,9,10]. The amount of the motion transfer from ankle eversion to tibial internal rotation has been shown to differ widely among individuals [8,11]. However, given the popularity of treadmill running, surprisingly few investigations have specifically examined 3-D kinematics of the tibia and ankle during running on the treadmill in comparison to when running overground. Therefore the aim of the current investigation was to determine whether differences in tibiocalcaneal kinematics exist between treadmill and overground running.

Methods

Participants

Ten male participants (age 29.39 ± 5.17 years, height 1.81 ± 0.11m and body mass 74.19 ± 7.98kg) volunteered to take part in the current investigation. All were free from musculoskeletal pathologies at the time of data collection and provided informed consent. All runners were considered to be rearfoot strikers as they exhibited a clear first peak in their vertical ground reaction force time-curve. Ethical approval was obtained from the University Ethics Committee and the procedures outlined in the declaration of Helsinki were followed.

Procedure

All kinematic data were captured at 250 Hz via an eight-camera motion analysis system (QualisysTM Medical AB, Goteburg, Sweden). Two identical camera systems were used to collect each mode of running. Calibration of the QualisysTM system was performed before each data collection session.

The current investigation used the calibrated anatomical systems technique (CAST) [12]. To define the anatomical frame of the right; foot and shin retroreflective markers were positioned unilaterally to the calcaneus, 1st and 5th metatarsal heads, medial and lateral malleoli and medial and lateral epicondyle of the femur. A tracking cluster was positioned onto the shin segment. The foot segment was tracked using the calcaneus, 1st and 5th metatarsal markers respectively. A static trial was conducted with the participant in the anatomical position in order for the positions of the anatomical markers to be referenced in relation to the tracking markers/ clusters, following which those not required for tracking were removed.

In the overground condition participants completed ten running trials over a 22m walkway (Altrosports 6mm, Altro Ltd, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, UK) at 4.0m.s-1±5% in the laboratory. Running velocity was monitored using infra-red timing gates (SmartSpeed Ltd UK). A successful trial was defined as one within the specified velocity range, where all tracking clusters were in view of the cameras and with no evidence of gait modification due to the experimental conditions. To collect treadmill information a WoodwayTM (ELG,Weil am Rhein, Germany) high-power treadmill was used throughout. Participants were given a 5-min habitation period, in which participants ran at the determined velocity prior to the collection of kinematic data. Ten trials were also collected for treadmill kinematics. As force information was not available for each running condition, footstrike and toe-off were determined using kinematic information as in previous research [3]. The order in which participants ran in each condition was counterbalanced.

Data processing

Running data were digitized using QualisysTM Track Manager in order to identify appropriate retroreflective markers then exported as C3D files. 3-D kinematics were quantified using Visual 3-D (C-Motion Inc, Germantown, MD, USA) after marker displacement data were smoothed using a low-pass Butterworth 4th order zero-lag filter at a cut off frequency of 15 Hz [13]. 3-D kinematics were calculated using an XYZ sequence of rotations (where X represents sagittal plane; Y represents coronal plane and Z represents transverse plane rotations) [14]. All kinematic waveforms were normalized to 100% of the stance phase then processed trials were averaged. Discrete 3-D kinematic measures from the ankle and tibia which were extracted for statistical analysis were 1) angle at footstrike, 2) angle at toe-off, 3) range of motion from footstrike to toe-off during stance, 4) peak eversion/ tibial internal rotation, 5) relative range of motion (ROM) (representing the angular displacement from footstrike to peak angle, 6) peak eversion/ tibial internal rotation velocity, 7) peak inversion/ tibial external rotation velocity, 8) eversion/ tibial internal (EV/TIR) ratio which was quantified in accordance with De Leo et al [15] as the relative eversion ROM / the relative tibial internal rotation ROM.

Statistical analysis

Means and standard deviations were calculated for each running condition. Differences in the outcome 3D kinematic parameters were examined using paired samples t-tests with significance accepted at the p≤0.05 level. Effect sizes for all significant observations were calculated using a Cohen’s D statistic. The data were screened for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test which confirmed that the normality assumption was met. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 21.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, USA).

Results

The results indicate that while the kinematic waveforms measured during overground and treadmill running were quantitatively similar, significant differences were found to between the two running modalities. Figure 2 presents the 3-D tibiocalcaneal angular motions from the stance phase. Tables 1 and 2 present the results of the statistical analysis conducted on the tibiocalcaneal measures.

In the coronal plane, treadmill runners were associated with significantly (t (9) = 5.66, p<0.05, D= 1.22) greater peak eversion in comparison to when running overground. In the transverse plane it was also shown that peak tibial internal rotation was significantly (t (9) = 5.71, p<0.05, D= 1.28) greater when running on the treadmill compared to when running overground. Finally, the EV/ TIR ratio was shown to be significantly higher when running on the treadmill compared to overground.

TIB_table1

Table 1 Tibiocalcaneal joint angles measured during treadmill and overground running (* = significant difference).

TIB_table2

Table 2 Tibiocalcaneal angular velocities measured during treadmill and overground running (* = significant difference).

TIB1

Figure 1 Tibiocalcaneal kinematics as a function of overground and treadmill conditions (Black = treadmill and Dash = overground) (a = ankle coronal plane angle, b = tibial internal rotation angle, c = ankle coronal plane velocity, d = tibial internal rotation velocity) (EV = eversion, INT = internal).

In the coronal plane, treadmill runners were associated with significantly (t (9) = 4.65, p<0.05, D= 1.06) greater peak eversion angular velocity in comparison to when running overground. In the transverse plane it was also shown that peak tibial internal rotation angular velocity was significantly (t (9) = 4.80, p<0.05, D= 1.10) greater when running on the treadmill compared to when running overground.

Discussion

This study aimed to determine whether differences in tibiocalcaneal kinematics exist between treadmill and overground running. This represents the first comparative investigation to consider the variations that may be present in tibiocalcaneal kinematics between these two running modalities.

The key observation from the current study is that treadmill running was associated with significantly greater eversion and tibial internal parameters in comparison to overground running. This finding may relate to the deformation characteristics of the surface during the treadmill condition and has potential clinical significance. These findings suggest that running on a treadmill may be associated with an increased risk from injury as rearfoot eversion and tibial internal rotation are implicated in the etiology of a number of overuse injuries [16,17,18,19]. Therefore treadmill runners may be at a greater risk from overuse syndromes such as tibial stress syndrome, Achilles tendinitis, patellar tendonitis, patellofemoral pain, iliotibial band syndrome and plantar fasciitis [16,17,18,19].

With respect to the potential differences in coupling between ankle and tibia it was observed that treadmill running showed a trend towards having a lower ankle eversion to tibial internal rotation ratio in comparison to overground. This suggests that differences between the two running modalities may exist in terms of the distal coupling mechanism between ankle and tibia. The EV/TIR is an important mechanism as it provides insight into where an injury is most likely to occur [8]. It is hypothesized that a greater EV/TIR ratio (i.e. relatively greater rearfoot eversion in relation to tibial internal rotation) may increase the stress placed on the foot and ankle [8,20] and are thus at greater risk for foot injuries. Conversely, those with lower EV/TIR ratios (relatively more tibial motion in relation to rearfoot eversion) are at greater risk from knee related injuries [10,20,21]. As such it appears that those who habitually run on a treadmill are susceptible to knee injuries and those who train overground may be most susceptible to foot injuries.

A limitation to the current investigation was the all-male sample. Sinclair et al [22] demonstrated that females exhibited significantly greater ankle eversion compared to age matched males. Therefore future work is required to determine the influence of different running modalities in female runners. Finally, this study quantified foot kinematics using markers positioned onto the shoe may serve as a limitation of the current analysis. There is likely to be movement of the foot within the shoe itself and thus it is questionable as to whether retro-reflective markers positioned on shoe provide comparable results to those placed on the skin of the foot [23,24]. However, as cutting holes in the experimental footwear in order to attach markers to skin compromises the structural integrity of the upper [24], it was determined that the utilization of the current technique was most appropriate.

Conclusions

In conclusion, although the mechanics of treadmill and overground running have been extensively studied, the degree in which tibiocalcaneal kinematics differs between the two modalities is limited. The present study adds to the current knowledge by providing a comprehensive evaluation of tibiocalcaneal kinematics during treadmill and overground running. Given the significant increases in eversion and tibial internal rotation observed in the treadmill condition, it was determined treadmill runners may be at increased risk from chronic injury development.

References

  1. Hreljac A. Impact and overuse injuries in runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36 (5): 845-9. – Pubmed
  2. Van gent RN, Siem D, Van middelkoop M et-al. Incidence and determinants of lower extremity running injuries in long distance runners: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2007;41 (8): 469-80. – Pubmed
  3. Sinclair J, Richards J, Taylor PJ et-al. Three-dimensional kinematic comparison of treadmill and overground running. Sports Biomech. 2013;12 (3): 272-82. – Pubmed
  4. Milgrom C, Finestone A, Segev S et-al. Are overground or treadmill runners more likely to sustain tibial stress fracture? Br J Sports Med. 2003;37 (2): 160-3. –Pubmed
  5. Clement DB, Taunton JE, Smart GW et-al. A survey of overuse running injuries. Phys Sport Med 1981 9: 47-58.
  6. Segesser B, Nigg BM, Morell F. Achillodynia and tibial insertion tendinoses. Med U Sport 1980 20: 79-83.
  7. Sinclair J, Hobbs SJ, Currigan G et-al. Tibiocalcaneal kinematics during barefoot and in barefoot-inspired shoes in comparison to conventional running footwear. Mov Sport Sci 2014 83: 67-75. – link
  8. Nigg BM, Cole GK, Nachbauer W. Effects of arch height of the foot on angular motion of the lower extremities in running. J Biomech. 1993;26 (8): 909-16. – Pubmed
  9. Stergiou N, Bates BT, James SL. Asynchrony between subtalar and knee joint function during running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999;31 (11): 1645-55.  – Pubmed
  10. McClay IS, Manal KT. Coupling parameters in runners with normal and excessive pronation. J App Biomech 1997 13: 109-124. – link
  11. Hintermann B, Nigg BM. The movement transfer between foot and leg in vitro. Sportverletzungen 1994 8: 60-66.
  12. Cappozzo A, Catani F, Croce UD et-al. Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: anatomical frame definition and determination. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1995;10 (4): 171-178. – Pubmed
  13. Sinclair J, Taylor PJ, Hobbs SJ. Digital Filtering of Three-Dimensional Lower Extremity Kinematics: an Assessment. J Human Kin 2013 39: 35-37. – link
  14. Sinclair J, Taylor PJ, Edmundson CJ, Brooks D, Hobbs SJ. Influence of the helical and six available Cardan sequences on 3D ankle joint kinematic parameters. Sports Biomech 2012 11: 430–437 – link
  15. Deleo AT, Dierks TA, Ferber R et-al. Lower extremity joint coupling during running: a current update. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2004;19 (10): 983-91. – Pubmed
  16. Willems TM, De clercq D, Delbaere K et-al. A prospective study of gait related risk factors for exercise-related lower leg pain. Gait Posture. 2006;23 (1): 91-8. – Pubmed
  17. Lee SY, Hertel J, Lee SC. Rearfoot eversion has indirect effects on plantar fascia tension by changing the amount of arch collapse. Foot (Edinb). 20 (2-3): 64-70.  – Pubmed
  18. Taunton JE, Ryan MB, Clement DB. A prospective study of running injuries: the Vancouver Sun Run “In training” clinics. B J Sports Med 2003 37: 239-244. – link
  19. Duffey MJ, Martin DF, Cannon DW et-al. Etiologic factors associated with anterior knee pain in distance runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32 (11): 1825-32. – Pubmed
  20. Nawoczenski DA, Saltzman CL, Cook TM. The effect of foot structure on the three-dimensional kinematic coupling behavior of the leg and rear foot. Phys Ther. 1998;78 (4): 404-16. – Pubmed
  21. Williams DS, McLay IS, Hamill J et-al. Lower extremity kinematic and kinetic differences in runners with high and low arches. J  App Biomech 2001 17: 153–163. – link
  22. Sinclair J, Greenhalgh A, Edmundson CJ, Brooks D, Hobbs SJ. Gender Differences in the Kinetics and Kinematics of Distance Running: Implications for Footwear Design. Int J Sports Sci Eng 2012 6: 118–128. – link
  23. Stacoff A, Kälin X, Stüssi E. The effects of shoes on the torsion and rearfoot motion in running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1991;23 (4): 482-90. – Pubmed
  24. Sinclair J, Greenhalgh A, Taylor PJ, Edmundson CJ, Brooks D, Hobbs SJ. Differences in tibiocalcaneal kinematics measured with skin and shoe-mounted markers. Human Movement 2013 14: 64– 69. – link

Comments Off on Tibiocalcaneal kinematics during treadmill and overground running

Tagged , , ,