Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Biomecacircnica do correr
Ana de David
Universidade de Brasiacutelia
Articulaccedilotildees nos tornozelos e peacutes
Articulaccedilatildeo talocrural (tornozelo) Realiza movimentos de dorsiflexatildeo e flexatildeo plantar Envolve a extremidade inferior da tiacutebia e seu maleacuteolo medial o maleacuteolo lateral da fiacutebula e o corpo do talus Articulaccedilatildeo subtalar (talocalcacircnea) Articulaccedilatildeo localizada entre a face interior do talus e a face superior do calcacircneo A articulaccedilatildeo subtalar permite ao peacute trecircs eixos de rotaccedilatildeo Permite essencialmente dois movimentos inversatildeo e eversatildeo do peacute Articulaccedilatildeo transversa do tarso (mediopeacute) A articulaccedilatildeo permite movimentos da parte anterior do peacute com referecircncia agrave parte posterior O movimento em torno desse eixo permite que o peacute se adapte a uma variedade de orientaccedilotildees da superfiacutecie durante a locomoccedilatildeo
Arco plantar
Neutro
Baixo
Alto
Iacutendice do arco plantar
Cavanagh e Rodgers (1987) classificaram o peacute dividindo em trecircs partes iguais exceto os dedos O iacutendice do Arco foi obtido atraveacutes da razatildeo entre a aacuterea do terccedilo meacutedio do peacute pela sua aacuterea total
Classificaccedilatildeo Peacutes Cavos (PC) - Iacutendice do Arco Plantar le 021 Peacutes Normais (PN) - Iacutendice do Arco Plantar entre 021 e 026 (021 lt IAP lt 026) Peacutes Planos (PP) - Iacutendice do Arco Plantar ge 026
Biomecacircnica da corrida
Universidade Federal do Paranaacute
Luis Antonio Bauer
httpswwwyoutubecomwatchv=-B5seWJ-nj4
A maioria da populaccedilatildeo tem pisada pronada depois neutra e por uacuteltimo (raros) supinada
Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur = 1230 normal
Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur lt 1230 valgo (peacute pronado) Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur gt 1230 varo (peacute supinado)
Biomecacircnica da corrida
Unipampa ndash Universidade Federal do Pampa
Felipe Carpes
httpswwwyoutubecomwatchv=AmnoN3ScHIo
Kinematic and kinetic comparison of running in standard and minimalist shoes Willy RW Davis ISMed Sci Sports Exerc 46(2) 318-23 2014 Feb Resumo PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to determine whether running in a minimalist shoe results in a reduction in ground reaction forces and alters kinematics over standard shoe running The secondary purpose of this study was to determine whether within-session accommodation to a novel minimalist shoe occurs METHODS Subjects were 14 male rearfoot striking runners who had never run in a minimalist shoe Subjects were tested while running 335 mmiddots(-1) for 10 min on an instrumented treadmill in a minimalist and a standard shoe as three-dimensional lower extremity kinematics and kinetics were evaluated Data were collected at minute 1 and then again after 10 min of running in both shoe conditions to evaluate accommodation to the shoe conditions RESULTS Shoe-time interactions were not found for any of the variables of interest Minimalist shoe running resulted in no changes in step length (P = 0967) or in step rate (P = 0230) At footstrike greater knee flexion (P = 0001) and greater dorsiflexion angle (P = 0025) were noted in the minimalist shoe Vertical impact peak (P = 0017) and average vertical loading rate (P lt 0000) were greater during minimalist shoe running There were main effects of time as dorsiflexion angle decreased (P = 0035) foot inclination at footstrike decreased (P = 0048) and knee flexion at footstrike increased (P = 0002) yet the vertical impact peak (P = 0002) and average vertical loading rate (P lt 0000) increased CONCLUSIONS Running in a minimalist shoe appears to at least in the short term increase loading of the lower extremity over standard shoe running The accommodation period resulted in less favorable landing mechanics in both shoes These findings bring into question whether minimal shoes will provide enough feedback to induce an alteration that is similar to barefoot running
Running in a minimalist and lightweight shoe is not the same as running barefoot a biomechanical study Bonacci J Saunders PU Hicks A Rantalainen T Vicenzino BG Spratford WBr J Sports Med 47(6) 387-92 2013 Apr Resumo AIM The purpose of this study was to determine the changes in running mechanics that occur when highly trained runners run barefoot and in a minimalist shoe and specifically if running in a minimalist shoe replicates barefoot running METHODS Ground reaction force data and kinematics were collected from 22 highly trained runners during overground running while barefoot and in three shod conditions (minimalist shoe racing flat and the athletes regular shoe) Three-dimensional net joint moments and subsequent net powers and work were computed using Newton-Euler inverse dynamics Joint kinematic and kinetic variables were statistically compared between barefoot and shod conditions using a multivariate analysis of variance for repeated measures and standardised mean differences calculated RESULTS There were significant differences between barefoot and shod conditions for kinematic and kinetic variables at the knee and ankle with no differences between shod conditions Barefoot running demonstrated less knee flexion during midstance an 11 decrease in the peak internal knee extension and abduction moments and a 24 decrease in negative work done at the knee compared with shod conditions The ankle demonstrated less dorsiflexion at initial contact a 14 increase in peak power generation and a 19 increase in the positive work done during barefoot running compared with shod conditions CONCLUSIONS Barefoot running was different to all shod conditions Barefoot running changes the amount of work done at the knee and ankle joints and this may have therapeutic and performance implications for runners
Ana de David
Lower Extremity Loads during Walking and Running at Different
Speeds
- Preliminary results -
Walking and running are popular forms of physical activity Chronic injuries can occur by overuse phenomena or improper loads during walking and running Loads in lower extremity joints are speed dependent (Stoquart et
al 2009)
Linear relationship was found for four joint moment parameters studied in children during walking The others four parameters were sufficiently described by a quadratic regression (Lelas et al 2003)
Self-selected comfortable speed is considered most efficient locomotion form when considering mechanical work and metabolic cost (Alexander 1998)
Investigations about joint moments during running comparing to walking at different speeds were not found in the literature
Purpose
To describe joint moments loads in knee and ankle during running and walking at different speeds Running Slow running Self-selected walking Self-selected fast walking
Methods 16 subjects (12M 4F) 2411 plusmn 26 yrs Height = 175 plusmn 008 m Weight = 716 plusmn 821 kg Kinematic data - eight high speed cameras at 240 Hz (Motion Analysis Inc) Kinetic data - force plate at 2400Hz (Kistler Inc)
3-D kinematics and kinetics (right side) 5 trials per condition (control shoes) running (4 ms plusmn 10) slow running 30 slower than running (28 ms plusmn 10) self-selected comfortable walking self-selected fast walking
Speed (ms) Normalized speed (msheight)
406 plusmn 016
29 plusmn 009
200 plusmn 017 163 plusmn 017
232 plusmn 016
166 plusmn 007
117 plusmn 009
092 plusmn 006
Ankle PlantarFlexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Extension Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Flexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
Articulaccedilotildees nos tornozelos e peacutes
Articulaccedilatildeo talocrural (tornozelo) Realiza movimentos de dorsiflexatildeo e flexatildeo plantar Envolve a extremidade inferior da tiacutebia e seu maleacuteolo medial o maleacuteolo lateral da fiacutebula e o corpo do talus Articulaccedilatildeo subtalar (talocalcacircnea) Articulaccedilatildeo localizada entre a face interior do talus e a face superior do calcacircneo A articulaccedilatildeo subtalar permite ao peacute trecircs eixos de rotaccedilatildeo Permite essencialmente dois movimentos inversatildeo e eversatildeo do peacute Articulaccedilatildeo transversa do tarso (mediopeacute) A articulaccedilatildeo permite movimentos da parte anterior do peacute com referecircncia agrave parte posterior O movimento em torno desse eixo permite que o peacute se adapte a uma variedade de orientaccedilotildees da superfiacutecie durante a locomoccedilatildeo
Arco plantar
Neutro
Baixo
Alto
Iacutendice do arco plantar
Cavanagh e Rodgers (1987) classificaram o peacute dividindo em trecircs partes iguais exceto os dedos O iacutendice do Arco foi obtido atraveacutes da razatildeo entre a aacuterea do terccedilo meacutedio do peacute pela sua aacuterea total
Classificaccedilatildeo Peacutes Cavos (PC) - Iacutendice do Arco Plantar le 021 Peacutes Normais (PN) - Iacutendice do Arco Plantar entre 021 e 026 (021 lt IAP lt 026) Peacutes Planos (PP) - Iacutendice do Arco Plantar ge 026
Biomecacircnica da corrida
Universidade Federal do Paranaacute
Luis Antonio Bauer
httpswwwyoutubecomwatchv=-B5seWJ-nj4
A maioria da populaccedilatildeo tem pisada pronada depois neutra e por uacuteltimo (raros) supinada
Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur = 1230 normal
Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur lt 1230 valgo (peacute pronado) Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur gt 1230 varo (peacute supinado)
Biomecacircnica da corrida
Unipampa ndash Universidade Federal do Pampa
Felipe Carpes
httpswwwyoutubecomwatchv=AmnoN3ScHIo
Kinematic and kinetic comparison of running in standard and minimalist shoes Willy RW Davis ISMed Sci Sports Exerc 46(2) 318-23 2014 Feb Resumo PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to determine whether running in a minimalist shoe results in a reduction in ground reaction forces and alters kinematics over standard shoe running The secondary purpose of this study was to determine whether within-session accommodation to a novel minimalist shoe occurs METHODS Subjects were 14 male rearfoot striking runners who had never run in a minimalist shoe Subjects were tested while running 335 mmiddots(-1) for 10 min on an instrumented treadmill in a minimalist and a standard shoe as three-dimensional lower extremity kinematics and kinetics were evaluated Data were collected at minute 1 and then again after 10 min of running in both shoe conditions to evaluate accommodation to the shoe conditions RESULTS Shoe-time interactions were not found for any of the variables of interest Minimalist shoe running resulted in no changes in step length (P = 0967) or in step rate (P = 0230) At footstrike greater knee flexion (P = 0001) and greater dorsiflexion angle (P = 0025) were noted in the minimalist shoe Vertical impact peak (P = 0017) and average vertical loading rate (P lt 0000) were greater during minimalist shoe running There were main effects of time as dorsiflexion angle decreased (P = 0035) foot inclination at footstrike decreased (P = 0048) and knee flexion at footstrike increased (P = 0002) yet the vertical impact peak (P = 0002) and average vertical loading rate (P lt 0000) increased CONCLUSIONS Running in a minimalist shoe appears to at least in the short term increase loading of the lower extremity over standard shoe running The accommodation period resulted in less favorable landing mechanics in both shoes These findings bring into question whether minimal shoes will provide enough feedback to induce an alteration that is similar to barefoot running
Running in a minimalist and lightweight shoe is not the same as running barefoot a biomechanical study Bonacci J Saunders PU Hicks A Rantalainen T Vicenzino BG Spratford WBr J Sports Med 47(6) 387-92 2013 Apr Resumo AIM The purpose of this study was to determine the changes in running mechanics that occur when highly trained runners run barefoot and in a minimalist shoe and specifically if running in a minimalist shoe replicates barefoot running METHODS Ground reaction force data and kinematics were collected from 22 highly trained runners during overground running while barefoot and in three shod conditions (minimalist shoe racing flat and the athletes regular shoe) Three-dimensional net joint moments and subsequent net powers and work were computed using Newton-Euler inverse dynamics Joint kinematic and kinetic variables were statistically compared between barefoot and shod conditions using a multivariate analysis of variance for repeated measures and standardised mean differences calculated RESULTS There were significant differences between barefoot and shod conditions for kinematic and kinetic variables at the knee and ankle with no differences between shod conditions Barefoot running demonstrated less knee flexion during midstance an 11 decrease in the peak internal knee extension and abduction moments and a 24 decrease in negative work done at the knee compared with shod conditions The ankle demonstrated less dorsiflexion at initial contact a 14 increase in peak power generation and a 19 increase in the positive work done during barefoot running compared with shod conditions CONCLUSIONS Barefoot running was different to all shod conditions Barefoot running changes the amount of work done at the knee and ankle joints and this may have therapeutic and performance implications for runners
Ana de David
Lower Extremity Loads during Walking and Running at Different
Speeds
- Preliminary results -
Walking and running are popular forms of physical activity Chronic injuries can occur by overuse phenomena or improper loads during walking and running Loads in lower extremity joints are speed dependent (Stoquart et
al 2009)
Linear relationship was found for four joint moment parameters studied in children during walking The others four parameters were sufficiently described by a quadratic regression (Lelas et al 2003)
Self-selected comfortable speed is considered most efficient locomotion form when considering mechanical work and metabolic cost (Alexander 1998)
Investigations about joint moments during running comparing to walking at different speeds were not found in the literature
Purpose
To describe joint moments loads in knee and ankle during running and walking at different speeds Running Slow running Self-selected walking Self-selected fast walking
Methods 16 subjects (12M 4F) 2411 plusmn 26 yrs Height = 175 plusmn 008 m Weight = 716 plusmn 821 kg Kinematic data - eight high speed cameras at 240 Hz (Motion Analysis Inc) Kinetic data - force plate at 2400Hz (Kistler Inc)
3-D kinematics and kinetics (right side) 5 trials per condition (control shoes) running (4 ms plusmn 10) slow running 30 slower than running (28 ms plusmn 10) self-selected comfortable walking self-selected fast walking
Speed (ms) Normalized speed (msheight)
406 plusmn 016
29 plusmn 009
200 plusmn 017 163 plusmn 017
232 plusmn 016
166 plusmn 007
117 plusmn 009
092 plusmn 006
Ankle PlantarFlexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Extension Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Flexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
Arco plantar
Neutro
Baixo
Alto
Iacutendice do arco plantar
Cavanagh e Rodgers (1987) classificaram o peacute dividindo em trecircs partes iguais exceto os dedos O iacutendice do Arco foi obtido atraveacutes da razatildeo entre a aacuterea do terccedilo meacutedio do peacute pela sua aacuterea total
Classificaccedilatildeo Peacutes Cavos (PC) - Iacutendice do Arco Plantar le 021 Peacutes Normais (PN) - Iacutendice do Arco Plantar entre 021 e 026 (021 lt IAP lt 026) Peacutes Planos (PP) - Iacutendice do Arco Plantar ge 026
Biomecacircnica da corrida
Universidade Federal do Paranaacute
Luis Antonio Bauer
httpswwwyoutubecomwatchv=-B5seWJ-nj4
A maioria da populaccedilatildeo tem pisada pronada depois neutra e por uacuteltimo (raros) supinada
Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur = 1230 normal
Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur lt 1230 valgo (peacute pronado) Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur gt 1230 varo (peacute supinado)
Biomecacircnica da corrida
Unipampa ndash Universidade Federal do Pampa
Felipe Carpes
httpswwwyoutubecomwatchv=AmnoN3ScHIo
Kinematic and kinetic comparison of running in standard and minimalist shoes Willy RW Davis ISMed Sci Sports Exerc 46(2) 318-23 2014 Feb Resumo PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to determine whether running in a minimalist shoe results in a reduction in ground reaction forces and alters kinematics over standard shoe running The secondary purpose of this study was to determine whether within-session accommodation to a novel minimalist shoe occurs METHODS Subjects were 14 male rearfoot striking runners who had never run in a minimalist shoe Subjects were tested while running 335 mmiddots(-1) for 10 min on an instrumented treadmill in a minimalist and a standard shoe as three-dimensional lower extremity kinematics and kinetics were evaluated Data were collected at minute 1 and then again after 10 min of running in both shoe conditions to evaluate accommodation to the shoe conditions RESULTS Shoe-time interactions were not found for any of the variables of interest Minimalist shoe running resulted in no changes in step length (P = 0967) or in step rate (P = 0230) At footstrike greater knee flexion (P = 0001) and greater dorsiflexion angle (P = 0025) were noted in the minimalist shoe Vertical impact peak (P = 0017) and average vertical loading rate (P lt 0000) were greater during minimalist shoe running There were main effects of time as dorsiflexion angle decreased (P = 0035) foot inclination at footstrike decreased (P = 0048) and knee flexion at footstrike increased (P = 0002) yet the vertical impact peak (P = 0002) and average vertical loading rate (P lt 0000) increased CONCLUSIONS Running in a minimalist shoe appears to at least in the short term increase loading of the lower extremity over standard shoe running The accommodation period resulted in less favorable landing mechanics in both shoes These findings bring into question whether minimal shoes will provide enough feedback to induce an alteration that is similar to barefoot running
Running in a minimalist and lightweight shoe is not the same as running barefoot a biomechanical study Bonacci J Saunders PU Hicks A Rantalainen T Vicenzino BG Spratford WBr J Sports Med 47(6) 387-92 2013 Apr Resumo AIM The purpose of this study was to determine the changes in running mechanics that occur when highly trained runners run barefoot and in a minimalist shoe and specifically if running in a minimalist shoe replicates barefoot running METHODS Ground reaction force data and kinematics were collected from 22 highly trained runners during overground running while barefoot and in three shod conditions (minimalist shoe racing flat and the athletes regular shoe) Three-dimensional net joint moments and subsequent net powers and work were computed using Newton-Euler inverse dynamics Joint kinematic and kinetic variables were statistically compared between barefoot and shod conditions using a multivariate analysis of variance for repeated measures and standardised mean differences calculated RESULTS There were significant differences between barefoot and shod conditions for kinematic and kinetic variables at the knee and ankle with no differences between shod conditions Barefoot running demonstrated less knee flexion during midstance an 11 decrease in the peak internal knee extension and abduction moments and a 24 decrease in negative work done at the knee compared with shod conditions The ankle demonstrated less dorsiflexion at initial contact a 14 increase in peak power generation and a 19 increase in the positive work done during barefoot running compared with shod conditions CONCLUSIONS Barefoot running was different to all shod conditions Barefoot running changes the amount of work done at the knee and ankle joints and this may have therapeutic and performance implications for runners
Ana de David
Lower Extremity Loads during Walking and Running at Different
Speeds
- Preliminary results -
Walking and running are popular forms of physical activity Chronic injuries can occur by overuse phenomena or improper loads during walking and running Loads in lower extremity joints are speed dependent (Stoquart et
al 2009)
Linear relationship was found for four joint moment parameters studied in children during walking The others four parameters were sufficiently described by a quadratic regression (Lelas et al 2003)
Self-selected comfortable speed is considered most efficient locomotion form when considering mechanical work and metabolic cost (Alexander 1998)
Investigations about joint moments during running comparing to walking at different speeds were not found in the literature
Purpose
To describe joint moments loads in knee and ankle during running and walking at different speeds Running Slow running Self-selected walking Self-selected fast walking
Methods 16 subjects (12M 4F) 2411 plusmn 26 yrs Height = 175 plusmn 008 m Weight = 716 plusmn 821 kg Kinematic data - eight high speed cameras at 240 Hz (Motion Analysis Inc) Kinetic data - force plate at 2400Hz (Kistler Inc)
3-D kinematics and kinetics (right side) 5 trials per condition (control shoes) running (4 ms plusmn 10) slow running 30 slower than running (28 ms plusmn 10) self-selected comfortable walking self-selected fast walking
Speed (ms) Normalized speed (msheight)
406 plusmn 016
29 plusmn 009
200 plusmn 017 163 plusmn 017
232 plusmn 016
166 plusmn 007
117 plusmn 009
092 plusmn 006
Ankle PlantarFlexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Extension Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Flexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
Iacutendice do arco plantar
Cavanagh e Rodgers (1987) classificaram o peacute dividindo em trecircs partes iguais exceto os dedos O iacutendice do Arco foi obtido atraveacutes da razatildeo entre a aacuterea do terccedilo meacutedio do peacute pela sua aacuterea total
Classificaccedilatildeo Peacutes Cavos (PC) - Iacutendice do Arco Plantar le 021 Peacutes Normais (PN) - Iacutendice do Arco Plantar entre 021 e 026 (021 lt IAP lt 026) Peacutes Planos (PP) - Iacutendice do Arco Plantar ge 026
Biomecacircnica da corrida
Universidade Federal do Paranaacute
Luis Antonio Bauer
httpswwwyoutubecomwatchv=-B5seWJ-nj4
A maioria da populaccedilatildeo tem pisada pronada depois neutra e por uacuteltimo (raros) supinada
Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur = 1230 normal
Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur lt 1230 valgo (peacute pronado) Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur gt 1230 varo (peacute supinado)
Biomecacircnica da corrida
Unipampa ndash Universidade Federal do Pampa
Felipe Carpes
httpswwwyoutubecomwatchv=AmnoN3ScHIo
Kinematic and kinetic comparison of running in standard and minimalist shoes Willy RW Davis ISMed Sci Sports Exerc 46(2) 318-23 2014 Feb Resumo PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to determine whether running in a minimalist shoe results in a reduction in ground reaction forces and alters kinematics over standard shoe running The secondary purpose of this study was to determine whether within-session accommodation to a novel minimalist shoe occurs METHODS Subjects were 14 male rearfoot striking runners who had never run in a minimalist shoe Subjects were tested while running 335 mmiddots(-1) for 10 min on an instrumented treadmill in a minimalist and a standard shoe as three-dimensional lower extremity kinematics and kinetics were evaluated Data were collected at minute 1 and then again after 10 min of running in both shoe conditions to evaluate accommodation to the shoe conditions RESULTS Shoe-time interactions were not found for any of the variables of interest Minimalist shoe running resulted in no changes in step length (P = 0967) or in step rate (P = 0230) At footstrike greater knee flexion (P = 0001) and greater dorsiflexion angle (P = 0025) were noted in the minimalist shoe Vertical impact peak (P = 0017) and average vertical loading rate (P lt 0000) were greater during minimalist shoe running There were main effects of time as dorsiflexion angle decreased (P = 0035) foot inclination at footstrike decreased (P = 0048) and knee flexion at footstrike increased (P = 0002) yet the vertical impact peak (P = 0002) and average vertical loading rate (P lt 0000) increased CONCLUSIONS Running in a minimalist shoe appears to at least in the short term increase loading of the lower extremity over standard shoe running The accommodation period resulted in less favorable landing mechanics in both shoes These findings bring into question whether minimal shoes will provide enough feedback to induce an alteration that is similar to barefoot running
Running in a minimalist and lightweight shoe is not the same as running barefoot a biomechanical study Bonacci J Saunders PU Hicks A Rantalainen T Vicenzino BG Spratford WBr J Sports Med 47(6) 387-92 2013 Apr Resumo AIM The purpose of this study was to determine the changes in running mechanics that occur when highly trained runners run barefoot and in a minimalist shoe and specifically if running in a minimalist shoe replicates barefoot running METHODS Ground reaction force data and kinematics were collected from 22 highly trained runners during overground running while barefoot and in three shod conditions (minimalist shoe racing flat and the athletes regular shoe) Three-dimensional net joint moments and subsequent net powers and work were computed using Newton-Euler inverse dynamics Joint kinematic and kinetic variables were statistically compared between barefoot and shod conditions using a multivariate analysis of variance for repeated measures and standardised mean differences calculated RESULTS There were significant differences between barefoot and shod conditions for kinematic and kinetic variables at the knee and ankle with no differences between shod conditions Barefoot running demonstrated less knee flexion during midstance an 11 decrease in the peak internal knee extension and abduction moments and a 24 decrease in negative work done at the knee compared with shod conditions The ankle demonstrated less dorsiflexion at initial contact a 14 increase in peak power generation and a 19 increase in the positive work done during barefoot running compared with shod conditions CONCLUSIONS Barefoot running was different to all shod conditions Barefoot running changes the amount of work done at the knee and ankle joints and this may have therapeutic and performance implications for runners
Ana de David
Lower Extremity Loads during Walking and Running at Different
Speeds
- Preliminary results -
Walking and running are popular forms of physical activity Chronic injuries can occur by overuse phenomena or improper loads during walking and running Loads in lower extremity joints are speed dependent (Stoquart et
al 2009)
Linear relationship was found for four joint moment parameters studied in children during walking The others four parameters were sufficiently described by a quadratic regression (Lelas et al 2003)
Self-selected comfortable speed is considered most efficient locomotion form when considering mechanical work and metabolic cost (Alexander 1998)
Investigations about joint moments during running comparing to walking at different speeds were not found in the literature
Purpose
To describe joint moments loads in knee and ankle during running and walking at different speeds Running Slow running Self-selected walking Self-selected fast walking
Methods 16 subjects (12M 4F) 2411 plusmn 26 yrs Height = 175 plusmn 008 m Weight = 716 plusmn 821 kg Kinematic data - eight high speed cameras at 240 Hz (Motion Analysis Inc) Kinetic data - force plate at 2400Hz (Kistler Inc)
3-D kinematics and kinetics (right side) 5 trials per condition (control shoes) running (4 ms plusmn 10) slow running 30 slower than running (28 ms plusmn 10) self-selected comfortable walking self-selected fast walking
Speed (ms) Normalized speed (msheight)
406 plusmn 016
29 plusmn 009
200 plusmn 017 163 plusmn 017
232 plusmn 016
166 plusmn 007
117 plusmn 009
092 plusmn 006
Ankle PlantarFlexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Extension Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Flexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
Biomecacircnica da corrida
Universidade Federal do Paranaacute
Luis Antonio Bauer
httpswwwyoutubecomwatchv=-B5seWJ-nj4
A maioria da populaccedilatildeo tem pisada pronada depois neutra e por uacuteltimo (raros) supinada
Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur = 1230 normal
Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur lt 1230 valgo (peacute pronado) Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur gt 1230 varo (peacute supinado)
Biomecacircnica da corrida
Unipampa ndash Universidade Federal do Pampa
Felipe Carpes
httpswwwyoutubecomwatchv=AmnoN3ScHIo
Kinematic and kinetic comparison of running in standard and minimalist shoes Willy RW Davis ISMed Sci Sports Exerc 46(2) 318-23 2014 Feb Resumo PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to determine whether running in a minimalist shoe results in a reduction in ground reaction forces and alters kinematics over standard shoe running The secondary purpose of this study was to determine whether within-session accommodation to a novel minimalist shoe occurs METHODS Subjects were 14 male rearfoot striking runners who had never run in a minimalist shoe Subjects were tested while running 335 mmiddots(-1) for 10 min on an instrumented treadmill in a minimalist and a standard shoe as three-dimensional lower extremity kinematics and kinetics were evaluated Data were collected at minute 1 and then again after 10 min of running in both shoe conditions to evaluate accommodation to the shoe conditions RESULTS Shoe-time interactions were not found for any of the variables of interest Minimalist shoe running resulted in no changes in step length (P = 0967) or in step rate (P = 0230) At footstrike greater knee flexion (P = 0001) and greater dorsiflexion angle (P = 0025) were noted in the minimalist shoe Vertical impact peak (P = 0017) and average vertical loading rate (P lt 0000) were greater during minimalist shoe running There were main effects of time as dorsiflexion angle decreased (P = 0035) foot inclination at footstrike decreased (P = 0048) and knee flexion at footstrike increased (P = 0002) yet the vertical impact peak (P = 0002) and average vertical loading rate (P lt 0000) increased CONCLUSIONS Running in a minimalist shoe appears to at least in the short term increase loading of the lower extremity over standard shoe running The accommodation period resulted in less favorable landing mechanics in both shoes These findings bring into question whether minimal shoes will provide enough feedback to induce an alteration that is similar to barefoot running
Running in a minimalist and lightweight shoe is not the same as running barefoot a biomechanical study Bonacci J Saunders PU Hicks A Rantalainen T Vicenzino BG Spratford WBr J Sports Med 47(6) 387-92 2013 Apr Resumo AIM The purpose of this study was to determine the changes in running mechanics that occur when highly trained runners run barefoot and in a minimalist shoe and specifically if running in a minimalist shoe replicates barefoot running METHODS Ground reaction force data and kinematics were collected from 22 highly trained runners during overground running while barefoot and in three shod conditions (minimalist shoe racing flat and the athletes regular shoe) Three-dimensional net joint moments and subsequent net powers and work were computed using Newton-Euler inverse dynamics Joint kinematic and kinetic variables were statistically compared between barefoot and shod conditions using a multivariate analysis of variance for repeated measures and standardised mean differences calculated RESULTS There were significant differences between barefoot and shod conditions for kinematic and kinetic variables at the knee and ankle with no differences between shod conditions Barefoot running demonstrated less knee flexion during midstance an 11 decrease in the peak internal knee extension and abduction moments and a 24 decrease in negative work done at the knee compared with shod conditions The ankle demonstrated less dorsiflexion at initial contact a 14 increase in peak power generation and a 19 increase in the positive work done during barefoot running compared with shod conditions CONCLUSIONS Barefoot running was different to all shod conditions Barefoot running changes the amount of work done at the knee and ankle joints and this may have therapeutic and performance implications for runners
Ana de David
Lower Extremity Loads during Walking and Running at Different
Speeds
- Preliminary results -
Walking and running are popular forms of physical activity Chronic injuries can occur by overuse phenomena or improper loads during walking and running Loads in lower extremity joints are speed dependent (Stoquart et
al 2009)
Linear relationship was found for four joint moment parameters studied in children during walking The others four parameters were sufficiently described by a quadratic regression (Lelas et al 2003)
Self-selected comfortable speed is considered most efficient locomotion form when considering mechanical work and metabolic cost (Alexander 1998)
Investigations about joint moments during running comparing to walking at different speeds were not found in the literature
Purpose
To describe joint moments loads in knee and ankle during running and walking at different speeds Running Slow running Self-selected walking Self-selected fast walking
Methods 16 subjects (12M 4F) 2411 plusmn 26 yrs Height = 175 plusmn 008 m Weight = 716 plusmn 821 kg Kinematic data - eight high speed cameras at 240 Hz (Motion Analysis Inc) Kinetic data - force plate at 2400Hz (Kistler Inc)
3-D kinematics and kinetics (right side) 5 trials per condition (control shoes) running (4 ms plusmn 10) slow running 30 slower than running (28 ms plusmn 10) self-selected comfortable walking self-selected fast walking
Speed (ms) Normalized speed (msheight)
406 plusmn 016
29 plusmn 009
200 plusmn 017 163 plusmn 017
232 plusmn 016
166 plusmn 007
117 plusmn 009
092 plusmn 006
Ankle PlantarFlexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Extension Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Flexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
A maioria da populaccedilatildeo tem pisada pronada depois neutra e por uacuteltimo (raros) supinada
Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur = 1230 normal
Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur lt 1230 valgo (peacute pronado) Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur gt 1230 varo (peacute supinado)
Biomecacircnica da corrida
Unipampa ndash Universidade Federal do Pampa
Felipe Carpes
httpswwwyoutubecomwatchv=AmnoN3ScHIo
Kinematic and kinetic comparison of running in standard and minimalist shoes Willy RW Davis ISMed Sci Sports Exerc 46(2) 318-23 2014 Feb Resumo PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to determine whether running in a minimalist shoe results in a reduction in ground reaction forces and alters kinematics over standard shoe running The secondary purpose of this study was to determine whether within-session accommodation to a novel minimalist shoe occurs METHODS Subjects were 14 male rearfoot striking runners who had never run in a minimalist shoe Subjects were tested while running 335 mmiddots(-1) for 10 min on an instrumented treadmill in a minimalist and a standard shoe as three-dimensional lower extremity kinematics and kinetics were evaluated Data were collected at minute 1 and then again after 10 min of running in both shoe conditions to evaluate accommodation to the shoe conditions RESULTS Shoe-time interactions were not found for any of the variables of interest Minimalist shoe running resulted in no changes in step length (P = 0967) or in step rate (P = 0230) At footstrike greater knee flexion (P = 0001) and greater dorsiflexion angle (P = 0025) were noted in the minimalist shoe Vertical impact peak (P = 0017) and average vertical loading rate (P lt 0000) were greater during minimalist shoe running There were main effects of time as dorsiflexion angle decreased (P = 0035) foot inclination at footstrike decreased (P = 0048) and knee flexion at footstrike increased (P = 0002) yet the vertical impact peak (P = 0002) and average vertical loading rate (P lt 0000) increased CONCLUSIONS Running in a minimalist shoe appears to at least in the short term increase loading of the lower extremity over standard shoe running The accommodation period resulted in less favorable landing mechanics in both shoes These findings bring into question whether minimal shoes will provide enough feedback to induce an alteration that is similar to barefoot running
Running in a minimalist and lightweight shoe is not the same as running barefoot a biomechanical study Bonacci J Saunders PU Hicks A Rantalainen T Vicenzino BG Spratford WBr J Sports Med 47(6) 387-92 2013 Apr Resumo AIM The purpose of this study was to determine the changes in running mechanics that occur when highly trained runners run barefoot and in a minimalist shoe and specifically if running in a minimalist shoe replicates barefoot running METHODS Ground reaction force data and kinematics were collected from 22 highly trained runners during overground running while barefoot and in three shod conditions (minimalist shoe racing flat and the athletes regular shoe) Three-dimensional net joint moments and subsequent net powers and work were computed using Newton-Euler inverse dynamics Joint kinematic and kinetic variables were statistically compared between barefoot and shod conditions using a multivariate analysis of variance for repeated measures and standardised mean differences calculated RESULTS There were significant differences between barefoot and shod conditions for kinematic and kinetic variables at the knee and ankle with no differences between shod conditions Barefoot running demonstrated less knee flexion during midstance an 11 decrease in the peak internal knee extension and abduction moments and a 24 decrease in negative work done at the knee compared with shod conditions The ankle demonstrated less dorsiflexion at initial contact a 14 increase in peak power generation and a 19 increase in the positive work done during barefoot running compared with shod conditions CONCLUSIONS Barefoot running was different to all shod conditions Barefoot running changes the amount of work done at the knee and ankle joints and this may have therapeutic and performance implications for runners
Ana de David
Lower Extremity Loads during Walking and Running at Different
Speeds
- Preliminary results -
Walking and running are popular forms of physical activity Chronic injuries can occur by overuse phenomena or improper loads during walking and running Loads in lower extremity joints are speed dependent (Stoquart et
al 2009)
Linear relationship was found for four joint moment parameters studied in children during walking The others four parameters were sufficiently described by a quadratic regression (Lelas et al 2003)
Self-selected comfortable speed is considered most efficient locomotion form when considering mechanical work and metabolic cost (Alexander 1998)
Investigations about joint moments during running comparing to walking at different speeds were not found in the literature
Purpose
To describe joint moments loads in knee and ankle during running and walking at different speeds Running Slow running Self-selected walking Self-selected fast walking
Methods 16 subjects (12M 4F) 2411 plusmn 26 yrs Height = 175 plusmn 008 m Weight = 716 plusmn 821 kg Kinematic data - eight high speed cameras at 240 Hz (Motion Analysis Inc) Kinetic data - force plate at 2400Hz (Kistler Inc)
3-D kinematics and kinetics (right side) 5 trials per condition (control shoes) running (4 ms plusmn 10) slow running 30 slower than running (28 ms plusmn 10) self-selected comfortable walking self-selected fast walking
Speed (ms) Normalized speed (msheight)
406 plusmn 016
29 plusmn 009
200 plusmn 017 163 plusmn 017
232 plusmn 016
166 plusmn 007
117 plusmn 009
092 plusmn 006
Ankle PlantarFlexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Extension Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Flexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur = 1230 normal
Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur lt 1230 valgo (peacute pronado) Acircngulo da linha meacutedia do fecircmur e colo do fecircmur gt 1230 varo (peacute supinado)
Biomecacircnica da corrida
Unipampa ndash Universidade Federal do Pampa
Felipe Carpes
httpswwwyoutubecomwatchv=AmnoN3ScHIo
Kinematic and kinetic comparison of running in standard and minimalist shoes Willy RW Davis ISMed Sci Sports Exerc 46(2) 318-23 2014 Feb Resumo PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to determine whether running in a minimalist shoe results in a reduction in ground reaction forces and alters kinematics over standard shoe running The secondary purpose of this study was to determine whether within-session accommodation to a novel minimalist shoe occurs METHODS Subjects were 14 male rearfoot striking runners who had never run in a minimalist shoe Subjects were tested while running 335 mmiddots(-1) for 10 min on an instrumented treadmill in a minimalist and a standard shoe as three-dimensional lower extremity kinematics and kinetics were evaluated Data were collected at minute 1 and then again after 10 min of running in both shoe conditions to evaluate accommodation to the shoe conditions RESULTS Shoe-time interactions were not found for any of the variables of interest Minimalist shoe running resulted in no changes in step length (P = 0967) or in step rate (P = 0230) At footstrike greater knee flexion (P = 0001) and greater dorsiflexion angle (P = 0025) were noted in the minimalist shoe Vertical impact peak (P = 0017) and average vertical loading rate (P lt 0000) were greater during minimalist shoe running There were main effects of time as dorsiflexion angle decreased (P = 0035) foot inclination at footstrike decreased (P = 0048) and knee flexion at footstrike increased (P = 0002) yet the vertical impact peak (P = 0002) and average vertical loading rate (P lt 0000) increased CONCLUSIONS Running in a minimalist shoe appears to at least in the short term increase loading of the lower extremity over standard shoe running The accommodation period resulted in less favorable landing mechanics in both shoes These findings bring into question whether minimal shoes will provide enough feedback to induce an alteration that is similar to barefoot running
Running in a minimalist and lightweight shoe is not the same as running barefoot a biomechanical study Bonacci J Saunders PU Hicks A Rantalainen T Vicenzino BG Spratford WBr J Sports Med 47(6) 387-92 2013 Apr Resumo AIM The purpose of this study was to determine the changes in running mechanics that occur when highly trained runners run barefoot and in a minimalist shoe and specifically if running in a minimalist shoe replicates barefoot running METHODS Ground reaction force data and kinematics were collected from 22 highly trained runners during overground running while barefoot and in three shod conditions (minimalist shoe racing flat and the athletes regular shoe) Three-dimensional net joint moments and subsequent net powers and work were computed using Newton-Euler inverse dynamics Joint kinematic and kinetic variables were statistically compared between barefoot and shod conditions using a multivariate analysis of variance for repeated measures and standardised mean differences calculated RESULTS There were significant differences between barefoot and shod conditions for kinematic and kinetic variables at the knee and ankle with no differences between shod conditions Barefoot running demonstrated less knee flexion during midstance an 11 decrease in the peak internal knee extension and abduction moments and a 24 decrease in negative work done at the knee compared with shod conditions The ankle demonstrated less dorsiflexion at initial contact a 14 increase in peak power generation and a 19 increase in the positive work done during barefoot running compared with shod conditions CONCLUSIONS Barefoot running was different to all shod conditions Barefoot running changes the amount of work done at the knee and ankle joints and this may have therapeutic and performance implications for runners
Ana de David
Lower Extremity Loads during Walking and Running at Different
Speeds
- Preliminary results -
Walking and running are popular forms of physical activity Chronic injuries can occur by overuse phenomena or improper loads during walking and running Loads in lower extremity joints are speed dependent (Stoquart et
al 2009)
Linear relationship was found for four joint moment parameters studied in children during walking The others four parameters were sufficiently described by a quadratic regression (Lelas et al 2003)
Self-selected comfortable speed is considered most efficient locomotion form when considering mechanical work and metabolic cost (Alexander 1998)
Investigations about joint moments during running comparing to walking at different speeds were not found in the literature
Purpose
To describe joint moments loads in knee and ankle during running and walking at different speeds Running Slow running Self-selected walking Self-selected fast walking
Methods 16 subjects (12M 4F) 2411 plusmn 26 yrs Height = 175 plusmn 008 m Weight = 716 plusmn 821 kg Kinematic data - eight high speed cameras at 240 Hz (Motion Analysis Inc) Kinetic data - force plate at 2400Hz (Kistler Inc)
3-D kinematics and kinetics (right side) 5 trials per condition (control shoes) running (4 ms plusmn 10) slow running 30 slower than running (28 ms plusmn 10) self-selected comfortable walking self-selected fast walking
Speed (ms) Normalized speed (msheight)
406 plusmn 016
29 plusmn 009
200 plusmn 017 163 plusmn 017
232 plusmn 016
166 plusmn 007
117 plusmn 009
092 plusmn 006
Ankle PlantarFlexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Extension Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Flexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
Biomecacircnica da corrida
Unipampa ndash Universidade Federal do Pampa
Felipe Carpes
httpswwwyoutubecomwatchv=AmnoN3ScHIo
Kinematic and kinetic comparison of running in standard and minimalist shoes Willy RW Davis ISMed Sci Sports Exerc 46(2) 318-23 2014 Feb Resumo PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to determine whether running in a minimalist shoe results in a reduction in ground reaction forces and alters kinematics over standard shoe running The secondary purpose of this study was to determine whether within-session accommodation to a novel minimalist shoe occurs METHODS Subjects were 14 male rearfoot striking runners who had never run in a minimalist shoe Subjects were tested while running 335 mmiddots(-1) for 10 min on an instrumented treadmill in a minimalist and a standard shoe as three-dimensional lower extremity kinematics and kinetics were evaluated Data were collected at minute 1 and then again after 10 min of running in both shoe conditions to evaluate accommodation to the shoe conditions RESULTS Shoe-time interactions were not found for any of the variables of interest Minimalist shoe running resulted in no changes in step length (P = 0967) or in step rate (P = 0230) At footstrike greater knee flexion (P = 0001) and greater dorsiflexion angle (P = 0025) were noted in the minimalist shoe Vertical impact peak (P = 0017) and average vertical loading rate (P lt 0000) were greater during minimalist shoe running There were main effects of time as dorsiflexion angle decreased (P = 0035) foot inclination at footstrike decreased (P = 0048) and knee flexion at footstrike increased (P = 0002) yet the vertical impact peak (P = 0002) and average vertical loading rate (P lt 0000) increased CONCLUSIONS Running in a minimalist shoe appears to at least in the short term increase loading of the lower extremity over standard shoe running The accommodation period resulted in less favorable landing mechanics in both shoes These findings bring into question whether minimal shoes will provide enough feedback to induce an alteration that is similar to barefoot running
Running in a minimalist and lightweight shoe is not the same as running barefoot a biomechanical study Bonacci J Saunders PU Hicks A Rantalainen T Vicenzino BG Spratford WBr J Sports Med 47(6) 387-92 2013 Apr Resumo AIM The purpose of this study was to determine the changes in running mechanics that occur when highly trained runners run barefoot and in a minimalist shoe and specifically if running in a minimalist shoe replicates barefoot running METHODS Ground reaction force data and kinematics were collected from 22 highly trained runners during overground running while barefoot and in three shod conditions (minimalist shoe racing flat and the athletes regular shoe) Three-dimensional net joint moments and subsequent net powers and work were computed using Newton-Euler inverse dynamics Joint kinematic and kinetic variables were statistically compared between barefoot and shod conditions using a multivariate analysis of variance for repeated measures and standardised mean differences calculated RESULTS There were significant differences between barefoot and shod conditions for kinematic and kinetic variables at the knee and ankle with no differences between shod conditions Barefoot running demonstrated less knee flexion during midstance an 11 decrease in the peak internal knee extension and abduction moments and a 24 decrease in negative work done at the knee compared with shod conditions The ankle demonstrated less dorsiflexion at initial contact a 14 increase in peak power generation and a 19 increase in the positive work done during barefoot running compared with shod conditions CONCLUSIONS Barefoot running was different to all shod conditions Barefoot running changes the amount of work done at the knee and ankle joints and this may have therapeutic and performance implications for runners
Ana de David
Lower Extremity Loads during Walking and Running at Different
Speeds
- Preliminary results -
Walking and running are popular forms of physical activity Chronic injuries can occur by overuse phenomena or improper loads during walking and running Loads in lower extremity joints are speed dependent (Stoquart et
al 2009)
Linear relationship was found for four joint moment parameters studied in children during walking The others four parameters were sufficiently described by a quadratic regression (Lelas et al 2003)
Self-selected comfortable speed is considered most efficient locomotion form when considering mechanical work and metabolic cost (Alexander 1998)
Investigations about joint moments during running comparing to walking at different speeds were not found in the literature
Purpose
To describe joint moments loads in knee and ankle during running and walking at different speeds Running Slow running Self-selected walking Self-selected fast walking
Methods 16 subjects (12M 4F) 2411 plusmn 26 yrs Height = 175 plusmn 008 m Weight = 716 plusmn 821 kg Kinematic data - eight high speed cameras at 240 Hz (Motion Analysis Inc) Kinetic data - force plate at 2400Hz (Kistler Inc)
3-D kinematics and kinetics (right side) 5 trials per condition (control shoes) running (4 ms plusmn 10) slow running 30 slower than running (28 ms plusmn 10) self-selected comfortable walking self-selected fast walking
Speed (ms) Normalized speed (msheight)
406 plusmn 016
29 plusmn 009
200 plusmn 017 163 plusmn 017
232 plusmn 016
166 plusmn 007
117 plusmn 009
092 plusmn 006
Ankle PlantarFlexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Extension Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Flexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
Kinematic and kinetic comparison of running in standard and minimalist shoes Willy RW Davis ISMed Sci Sports Exerc 46(2) 318-23 2014 Feb Resumo PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to determine whether running in a minimalist shoe results in a reduction in ground reaction forces and alters kinematics over standard shoe running The secondary purpose of this study was to determine whether within-session accommodation to a novel minimalist shoe occurs METHODS Subjects were 14 male rearfoot striking runners who had never run in a minimalist shoe Subjects were tested while running 335 mmiddots(-1) for 10 min on an instrumented treadmill in a minimalist and a standard shoe as three-dimensional lower extremity kinematics and kinetics were evaluated Data were collected at minute 1 and then again after 10 min of running in both shoe conditions to evaluate accommodation to the shoe conditions RESULTS Shoe-time interactions were not found for any of the variables of interest Minimalist shoe running resulted in no changes in step length (P = 0967) or in step rate (P = 0230) At footstrike greater knee flexion (P = 0001) and greater dorsiflexion angle (P = 0025) were noted in the minimalist shoe Vertical impact peak (P = 0017) and average vertical loading rate (P lt 0000) were greater during minimalist shoe running There were main effects of time as dorsiflexion angle decreased (P = 0035) foot inclination at footstrike decreased (P = 0048) and knee flexion at footstrike increased (P = 0002) yet the vertical impact peak (P = 0002) and average vertical loading rate (P lt 0000) increased CONCLUSIONS Running in a minimalist shoe appears to at least in the short term increase loading of the lower extremity over standard shoe running The accommodation period resulted in less favorable landing mechanics in both shoes These findings bring into question whether minimal shoes will provide enough feedback to induce an alteration that is similar to barefoot running
Running in a minimalist and lightweight shoe is not the same as running barefoot a biomechanical study Bonacci J Saunders PU Hicks A Rantalainen T Vicenzino BG Spratford WBr J Sports Med 47(6) 387-92 2013 Apr Resumo AIM The purpose of this study was to determine the changes in running mechanics that occur when highly trained runners run barefoot and in a minimalist shoe and specifically if running in a minimalist shoe replicates barefoot running METHODS Ground reaction force data and kinematics were collected from 22 highly trained runners during overground running while barefoot and in three shod conditions (minimalist shoe racing flat and the athletes regular shoe) Three-dimensional net joint moments and subsequent net powers and work were computed using Newton-Euler inverse dynamics Joint kinematic and kinetic variables were statistically compared between barefoot and shod conditions using a multivariate analysis of variance for repeated measures and standardised mean differences calculated RESULTS There were significant differences between barefoot and shod conditions for kinematic and kinetic variables at the knee and ankle with no differences between shod conditions Barefoot running demonstrated less knee flexion during midstance an 11 decrease in the peak internal knee extension and abduction moments and a 24 decrease in negative work done at the knee compared with shod conditions The ankle demonstrated less dorsiflexion at initial contact a 14 increase in peak power generation and a 19 increase in the positive work done during barefoot running compared with shod conditions CONCLUSIONS Barefoot running was different to all shod conditions Barefoot running changes the amount of work done at the knee and ankle joints and this may have therapeutic and performance implications for runners
Ana de David
Lower Extremity Loads during Walking and Running at Different
Speeds
- Preliminary results -
Walking and running are popular forms of physical activity Chronic injuries can occur by overuse phenomena or improper loads during walking and running Loads in lower extremity joints are speed dependent (Stoquart et
al 2009)
Linear relationship was found for four joint moment parameters studied in children during walking The others four parameters were sufficiently described by a quadratic regression (Lelas et al 2003)
Self-selected comfortable speed is considered most efficient locomotion form when considering mechanical work and metabolic cost (Alexander 1998)
Investigations about joint moments during running comparing to walking at different speeds were not found in the literature
Purpose
To describe joint moments loads in knee and ankle during running and walking at different speeds Running Slow running Self-selected walking Self-selected fast walking
Methods 16 subjects (12M 4F) 2411 plusmn 26 yrs Height = 175 plusmn 008 m Weight = 716 plusmn 821 kg Kinematic data - eight high speed cameras at 240 Hz (Motion Analysis Inc) Kinetic data - force plate at 2400Hz (Kistler Inc)
3-D kinematics and kinetics (right side) 5 trials per condition (control shoes) running (4 ms plusmn 10) slow running 30 slower than running (28 ms plusmn 10) self-selected comfortable walking self-selected fast walking
Speed (ms) Normalized speed (msheight)
406 plusmn 016
29 plusmn 009
200 plusmn 017 163 plusmn 017
232 plusmn 016
166 plusmn 007
117 plusmn 009
092 plusmn 006
Ankle PlantarFlexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Extension Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Flexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
Running in a minimalist and lightweight shoe is not the same as running barefoot a biomechanical study Bonacci J Saunders PU Hicks A Rantalainen T Vicenzino BG Spratford WBr J Sports Med 47(6) 387-92 2013 Apr Resumo AIM The purpose of this study was to determine the changes in running mechanics that occur when highly trained runners run barefoot and in a minimalist shoe and specifically if running in a minimalist shoe replicates barefoot running METHODS Ground reaction force data and kinematics were collected from 22 highly trained runners during overground running while barefoot and in three shod conditions (minimalist shoe racing flat and the athletes regular shoe) Three-dimensional net joint moments and subsequent net powers and work were computed using Newton-Euler inverse dynamics Joint kinematic and kinetic variables were statistically compared between barefoot and shod conditions using a multivariate analysis of variance for repeated measures and standardised mean differences calculated RESULTS There were significant differences between barefoot and shod conditions for kinematic and kinetic variables at the knee and ankle with no differences between shod conditions Barefoot running demonstrated less knee flexion during midstance an 11 decrease in the peak internal knee extension and abduction moments and a 24 decrease in negative work done at the knee compared with shod conditions The ankle demonstrated less dorsiflexion at initial contact a 14 increase in peak power generation and a 19 increase in the positive work done during barefoot running compared with shod conditions CONCLUSIONS Barefoot running was different to all shod conditions Barefoot running changes the amount of work done at the knee and ankle joints and this may have therapeutic and performance implications for runners
Ana de David
Lower Extremity Loads during Walking and Running at Different
Speeds
- Preliminary results -
Walking and running are popular forms of physical activity Chronic injuries can occur by overuse phenomena or improper loads during walking and running Loads in lower extremity joints are speed dependent (Stoquart et
al 2009)
Linear relationship was found for four joint moment parameters studied in children during walking The others four parameters were sufficiently described by a quadratic regression (Lelas et al 2003)
Self-selected comfortable speed is considered most efficient locomotion form when considering mechanical work and metabolic cost (Alexander 1998)
Investigations about joint moments during running comparing to walking at different speeds were not found in the literature
Purpose
To describe joint moments loads in knee and ankle during running and walking at different speeds Running Slow running Self-selected walking Self-selected fast walking
Methods 16 subjects (12M 4F) 2411 plusmn 26 yrs Height = 175 plusmn 008 m Weight = 716 plusmn 821 kg Kinematic data - eight high speed cameras at 240 Hz (Motion Analysis Inc) Kinetic data - force plate at 2400Hz (Kistler Inc)
3-D kinematics and kinetics (right side) 5 trials per condition (control shoes) running (4 ms plusmn 10) slow running 30 slower than running (28 ms plusmn 10) self-selected comfortable walking self-selected fast walking
Speed (ms) Normalized speed (msheight)
406 plusmn 016
29 plusmn 009
200 plusmn 017 163 plusmn 017
232 plusmn 016
166 plusmn 007
117 plusmn 009
092 plusmn 006
Ankle PlantarFlexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Extension Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Flexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
Ana de David
Lower Extremity Loads during Walking and Running at Different
Speeds
- Preliminary results -
Walking and running are popular forms of physical activity Chronic injuries can occur by overuse phenomena or improper loads during walking and running Loads in lower extremity joints are speed dependent (Stoquart et
al 2009)
Linear relationship was found for four joint moment parameters studied in children during walking The others four parameters were sufficiently described by a quadratic regression (Lelas et al 2003)
Self-selected comfortable speed is considered most efficient locomotion form when considering mechanical work and metabolic cost (Alexander 1998)
Investigations about joint moments during running comparing to walking at different speeds were not found in the literature
Purpose
To describe joint moments loads in knee and ankle during running and walking at different speeds Running Slow running Self-selected walking Self-selected fast walking
Methods 16 subjects (12M 4F) 2411 plusmn 26 yrs Height = 175 plusmn 008 m Weight = 716 plusmn 821 kg Kinematic data - eight high speed cameras at 240 Hz (Motion Analysis Inc) Kinetic data - force plate at 2400Hz (Kistler Inc)
3-D kinematics and kinetics (right side) 5 trials per condition (control shoes) running (4 ms plusmn 10) slow running 30 slower than running (28 ms plusmn 10) self-selected comfortable walking self-selected fast walking
Speed (ms) Normalized speed (msheight)
406 plusmn 016
29 plusmn 009
200 plusmn 017 163 plusmn 017
232 plusmn 016
166 plusmn 007
117 plusmn 009
092 plusmn 006
Ankle PlantarFlexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Extension Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Flexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
Walking and running are popular forms of physical activity Chronic injuries can occur by overuse phenomena or improper loads during walking and running Loads in lower extremity joints are speed dependent (Stoquart et
al 2009)
Linear relationship was found for four joint moment parameters studied in children during walking The others four parameters were sufficiently described by a quadratic regression (Lelas et al 2003)
Self-selected comfortable speed is considered most efficient locomotion form when considering mechanical work and metabolic cost (Alexander 1998)
Investigations about joint moments during running comparing to walking at different speeds were not found in the literature
Purpose
To describe joint moments loads in knee and ankle during running and walking at different speeds Running Slow running Self-selected walking Self-selected fast walking
Methods 16 subjects (12M 4F) 2411 plusmn 26 yrs Height = 175 plusmn 008 m Weight = 716 plusmn 821 kg Kinematic data - eight high speed cameras at 240 Hz (Motion Analysis Inc) Kinetic data - force plate at 2400Hz (Kistler Inc)
3-D kinematics and kinetics (right side) 5 trials per condition (control shoes) running (4 ms plusmn 10) slow running 30 slower than running (28 ms plusmn 10) self-selected comfortable walking self-selected fast walking
Speed (ms) Normalized speed (msheight)
406 plusmn 016
29 plusmn 009
200 plusmn 017 163 plusmn 017
232 plusmn 016
166 plusmn 007
117 plusmn 009
092 plusmn 006
Ankle PlantarFlexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Extension Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Flexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
Linear relationship was found for four joint moment parameters studied in children during walking The others four parameters were sufficiently described by a quadratic regression (Lelas et al 2003)
Self-selected comfortable speed is considered most efficient locomotion form when considering mechanical work and metabolic cost (Alexander 1998)
Investigations about joint moments during running comparing to walking at different speeds were not found in the literature
Purpose
To describe joint moments loads in knee and ankle during running and walking at different speeds Running Slow running Self-selected walking Self-selected fast walking
Methods 16 subjects (12M 4F) 2411 plusmn 26 yrs Height = 175 plusmn 008 m Weight = 716 plusmn 821 kg Kinematic data - eight high speed cameras at 240 Hz (Motion Analysis Inc) Kinetic data - force plate at 2400Hz (Kistler Inc)
3-D kinematics and kinetics (right side) 5 trials per condition (control shoes) running (4 ms plusmn 10) slow running 30 slower than running (28 ms plusmn 10) self-selected comfortable walking self-selected fast walking
Speed (ms) Normalized speed (msheight)
406 plusmn 016
29 plusmn 009
200 plusmn 017 163 plusmn 017
232 plusmn 016
166 plusmn 007
117 plusmn 009
092 plusmn 006
Ankle PlantarFlexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Extension Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Flexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
Purpose
To describe joint moments loads in knee and ankle during running and walking at different speeds Running Slow running Self-selected walking Self-selected fast walking
Methods 16 subjects (12M 4F) 2411 plusmn 26 yrs Height = 175 plusmn 008 m Weight = 716 plusmn 821 kg Kinematic data - eight high speed cameras at 240 Hz (Motion Analysis Inc) Kinetic data - force plate at 2400Hz (Kistler Inc)
3-D kinematics and kinetics (right side) 5 trials per condition (control shoes) running (4 ms plusmn 10) slow running 30 slower than running (28 ms plusmn 10) self-selected comfortable walking self-selected fast walking
Speed (ms) Normalized speed (msheight)
406 plusmn 016
29 plusmn 009
200 plusmn 017 163 plusmn 017
232 plusmn 016
166 plusmn 007
117 plusmn 009
092 plusmn 006
Ankle PlantarFlexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Extension Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Flexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
Methods 16 subjects (12M 4F) 2411 plusmn 26 yrs Height = 175 plusmn 008 m Weight = 716 plusmn 821 kg Kinematic data - eight high speed cameras at 240 Hz (Motion Analysis Inc) Kinetic data - force plate at 2400Hz (Kistler Inc)
3-D kinematics and kinetics (right side) 5 trials per condition (control shoes) running (4 ms plusmn 10) slow running 30 slower than running (28 ms plusmn 10) self-selected comfortable walking self-selected fast walking
Speed (ms) Normalized speed (msheight)
406 plusmn 016
29 plusmn 009
200 plusmn 017 163 plusmn 017
232 plusmn 016
166 plusmn 007
117 plusmn 009
092 plusmn 006
Ankle PlantarFlexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Extension Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Flexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
3-D kinematics and kinetics (right side) 5 trials per condition (control shoes) running (4 ms plusmn 10) slow running 30 slower than running (28 ms plusmn 10) self-selected comfortable walking self-selected fast walking
Speed (ms) Normalized speed (msheight)
406 plusmn 016
29 plusmn 009
200 plusmn 017 163 plusmn 017
232 plusmn 016
166 plusmn 007
117 plusmn 009
092 plusmn 006
Ankle PlantarFlexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Extension Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Flexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
Speed (ms) Normalized speed (msheight)
406 plusmn 016
29 plusmn 009
200 plusmn 017 163 plusmn 017
232 plusmn 016
166 plusmn 007
117 plusmn 009
092 plusmn 006
Ankle PlantarFlexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Extension Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Flexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
Ankle PlantarFlexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Extension Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Flexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
Knee Extension Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Flexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
Knee Flexion Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
Knee Abduction Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
Ankle Inversion Moment Peak (Nm) N=13
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
Knee External Rotation Moment Peak (Nm) N=14
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
J Sports Sci 201533(4)391-7 doi 101080026404142014946074 Epub 2014 Aug 8 Effects of changing speed on knee and ankle joint load during walking and running de David AC1 Carpes FP Stefanyshyn D Abstract Joint moments can be used as an indicator of joint loading and have potential application for sports performance and injury prevention The effects of changing walking and running speeds on joint moments for the different planes of motion still are debatable Here we compared knee and ankle moments during walking and running at different speeds Data were collected from 11 recreational male runners to determine knee and ankle joint moments during different conditions Conditions include walking at a comfortable speed (self-selected pacing) fast walking (fastest speed possible) slow running (speed corresponding to 30 slower than running) and running (at 4 m middot s(-1) plusmn 10) A different joint moment pattern was observed between walking and running We observed a general increase in joint load for sagittal and frontal planes as speed increased while the effects of speed were not clear in the transverse plane moments Although differences tend to be more pronounced when gait changed from walking to running the peak moments in general increased when speed increased from comfortable walking to fast walking and from slow running to running mainly in the sagittal and frontal planes Knee flexion moment was higher in walking than in running due to larger knee extension Results suggest caution when recommending walking over running in an attempt to reduce knee joint loading The different effects of speed increments during walking and running should be considered with regard to the prevention of injuries and for rehabilitation purposes KEYWORDS ankle injury inverse dynamics joint moment kinetic knee
