Elsevier

Gait & Posture

Volume 23, Issue 3, April 2006, Pages 282-287
Gait & Posture

Repeatability of lower extremity kinetics and kinematics for standardized and self-selected running speeds

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2005.03.007Get rights and content

Abstract

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of self-selected versus standardized running speeds on within-day and between-day repeatability of lower extremity kinematics and kinetics for running gait.

Methods

Subjects (six female, six male, age 18–35) were recreational athletes with no lower extremity injuries. The following study variables were analyzed using the coefficient of variation (CV): the peak angles for knee internal rotation, external rotation, varus, valgus, flexion, and extension; peak angles for ankle dorsiflexion and plantar flexion; peak impact force and propulsive force; and peak anterior, posterior, medial, and lateral ground reaction forces (GRFs). Data for the entire stance phase were analyzed using the coefficient of multiple correlation (CMC) for the following variables: anterior–posterior, medial–lateral, and vertical GRF; the angles and angular velocities for knee internal-external rotation, valgus–varus, flexion–extension, and ankle dorsiflexion–plantar flexion. Each variable was analyzed using a 2 × 2 (speed × day) repeated measures ANOVA (α = 0.05).

Results

The within-day repeatability for all of the significantly different variables was greater than the between-day repeatability. For variables with a significant difference based on speed, the standardized running speed had greater repeatability.

Conclusions

Within-day repeatability is generally greater than between-day repeatability. Running speed had little effect on the repeatability of any study variable. Having subjects run at a standardized speed may not be as important as previously thought.

Introduction

Over the past two decades running has become one of the most popular forms of exercise and research related to running mechanics has increased to reflect this trend. Previous running research has indicated that alterations in running gait occur as running speed increases from jogging to running, and from running to sprinting. With an increase in running speed, changes occur with both lower extremity kinetics and kinematics [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. The importance of standardizing running speed, therefore, has been debated within the literature. Some researchers suggest that running speed should be standardized for all subjects [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], while others believe that running speed should be standardized within a subject [14], [15]. Running speed is easily standardized if the subjects are running on a treadmill. Quite a few running studies have used a treadmill to standardize running speed between 2.5 m/s (5.59 mph) and 3.8 m/s (8.5 mph) [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Only one study was identified in which subjects run outside that range, running at 4 m/s (8.95 mph) and 6 m/s (13.42 mph) [16]. While using a treadmill is a valid means of standardizing running speed, some problems exist when trying to collect kinetic data as well as alterations in gait patterns that may occur when subjects run on a treadmill [16], [17].

The most common method of standardizing running speed for over-ground running involves using photocells [14], [15], [16], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Nilsson and Thorstensson [19] used photocells in combination with pacer lights to standardize running speed. The pacer lights illuminated sequentially at different frequencies, which corresponded to the running speed that the subject was supposed to match and the photocells were used to determine if the subject matched the desired speed. The acceptable over-ground running speed controlled by photocells in running studies has ranged from 1.5 m/s (3.36 mph) to 6 m/s (13.42 mph), with an average running speed of approximately 4 m/s (8.95 mph) [14], [15], [16], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. In most studies subjects were asked to maintain a running speed within 5%–8% of a predetermined speed for acceptable trials [14], [15].

Relatively few studies have been conducted to assess the repeatability of lower extremity kinematics and kinetics for running gait. The repeatability of 24 kinematic and kinetic variables were examined by Diss [28] for standardized running speeds between 3.5 m/s (7.83 mph) and 4.0 m/s (8.95 mph). The results indicated that all variables had acceptable between-day and between-trial repeatability, with coefficient of multiple correlation (CMC) values being greater than 0.70 [28]. Ferber et al. [31] compared the within- and between-day repeatability of discrete kinematic and kinetic data for subjects who ran at a standardized speed of 3.65 m/s (8.17 mph) ± 5%. Their results indicated that within-day comparisons were more repeatable than between-day data. The between-day repeatability of the sagittal plane kinematic and kinetic variables also was more repeatable than frontal plane or transverse plane data [31]. The between-day repeatability of ground reaction force (GRF) data was greater than the between-day repeatability for the other kinetic and kinematic variables. Both Diss [28] and Ferber et al. [31] assessed the repeatability of measurement of discrete points, however, the waveform patterns of each variable during the running gait cycle could provide more information about the reproducibility of continuous measures, or similarities between movement patterns. Previous investigators have also reported that the repeatability of the spatial and temporal parameters are more variable at slower walking speeds [32], [33]. The repeatability of kinetics and kinematics, therefore, may vary with different running conditions. No investigators have, however, compared the repeatability of kinematic and kinetic variables for running gait between self-selected and standardized speeds.

While studies have been conducted to determine the within-day and between-day repeatability of different kinematic and kinetic variables at a standardized speed, no investigations have determined the repeatability of gait variables for running at a self-selected speed. This study, therefore, focuses on comparing the effects of standardized and self-selected running speeds on 20 discrete variables and 15 continuous variables. The discrete variable repeatability was determined using the coefficient of variation (CV), while the repeatability of the continuous variables was determined using the CMC [34]. We hypothesized that the repeatability of data would be improved when subjects were constrained to running at a self-selected speed compared to running at a standardized speed selected by investigators.

Section snippets

Subjects

Twelve subjects participated in this study, with an equal number of men and women. Each subject was tested using the Asics Gel Cumulus running shoe to eliminate differences based on differing shoe properties. The six female subjects had an average age of 24.7 ± 3 years, an average mass of 57.2 ± 6.6 kg, and an average height of 1.68 ± 0.04 m. The six male subjects had an average age of 25.3 ± 6 years, an average mass of 72.5 ± 8.4 kg, and an average height of 1.78 ± 0.02 m. All subjects were recreational

Results

The ANOVA procedures for the CV analyses indicated a speed by day interaction existed for peak knee extension (Table 1). For both the standardized and the self-selected speeds within-day repeatability was greater than between-day repeatability. In addition, significant main effects existed for speed and day. The CV values for the standardized versus the self-selected speeds appear in the electronic addendum. Of these 20 study variables, only the peak impact vGRF had a statistically significant

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of running at standardized and self-selected speeds on both within- and between-day repeatability. This study was designed to examine the repeatability of discrete as well as continuous kinetic and kinematic running data. The results of this study indicate that the majority of variables of interest exhibited acceptable repeatability for trials within a testing session and between testing sessions conducted on 2 days.

In previous studies

References (41)

  • D. Winter

    Kinematic and kinetic patterns in human gait: variability and compensating effects

    Hum Movement Sci

    (1984)
  • P.R. Cavanagh

    The biomechanics of lower extremity action in distance running

    Foot Ankle

    (1987)
  • R.A. Mann et al.

    Comparative electromyography of the lower extremity in jogging, running, and sprinting

    Am J Sports Med

    (1986)
  • S. Ounpuu

    The biomechanics of running: a kinematic and kinetic analysis

  • J. Mercer

    Relationship between shock attenuation and stride length during running at different velocities

    Eur J Appl Physiol

    (2002)
  • K. Karamanidis et al.

    Symmetry and reproducibility of kinematic parameters during various running techniques

    Med Sci Sports Exercise

    (2003)
  • B.T. Bates

    Lower Extremity function during the support phase of running

  • T.E. Clarke et al.

    The effects of shoe design parameters on rearfoot control in running

    Med Sci Sports Exercise

    (1983)
  • U. Jorgensen

    Body load in heel strike running: the effect of a firm heel counter

    Am J Sports Med

    (1990)
  • McNair PJ, Marshall RN. Kinematic and kinetic parameters associated with running in different shoes. Br J Sports Med...
  • Cited by (78)

    • Agreement between spatiotemporal parameters from a photoelectric system with different filter settings and high-speed video analysis during running on a treadmill at comfortable velocity

      2019, Journal of Biomechanics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Then, running velocity was fixed (i.e. self-selected comfortable running velocity: 11.7 ± 1.3 km h−1). The use of a self-selected velocity is common in running biomechanics studies (Queen et al., 2006; Willy et al., 2016) in order to avoid the potential influence of individual responses to an imposed running pace. Since previous studies (Lavcanska et al., 2005; Schieb, 1986) on human locomotion have shown that accommodation to running on a treadmill occurs in ∼6–8 min, an 8 min accommodation program was performed at that velocity.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text