We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Ground reaction forces and kinematics in distance running in older-aged men.
PURPOSE: The biomechanics of distance running has not been studied before in older-aged runners but may be different than in younger-aged runners because of musculoskeletal degeneration at older age. This study aimed at determining whether the stance phase kinematics and ground reaction forces in running are different between younger- and older-aged men.
METHOD: Lower-extremity kinematics using three-dimensional motion analysis and ground reaction forces (GRF) using a force plate were assessed in 16 older-aged (55-65 yr) and 13 younger-aged (20-35 yr) well-trained male distance runners running at a self-selected (SRS) and a controlled (CRS) speed of 3.3 m.s-1.
RESULTS: The older subjects ran at significantly lower self-selected speeds than the younger subjects (mean 3.34 vs 3.77 m.s-1). In both speed conditions, the older runners exhibited significantly more knee flexion at heel strike and significantly less knee flexion and extension range of motion. No age group differences were present in subtalar joint motion. Impact peak force (1.91 vs 1.70 BW) and maximal initial loading rate (107.5 vs 85.5 BW.s-1) were significantly higher in the older runners at the CRS. Maximal peak vertical and anteroposterior forces and impulses were significantly lower in the older runners at the SRS.
CONCLUSION: The biomechanics of running is different between older- and younger-aged runners on several relevant parameters. The larger impact peak force and initial loading rate indicate a loss of shock-absorbing capacity in the older runners. This may increase their susceptibility to lower-extremity overuse injuries. Moreover, it emphasizes the focus on optimizing cushioning properties in the design and prescription of running shoes and suggests that older-aged runners should be cautious with running under conditions of high impact.
METHOD: Lower-extremity kinematics using three-dimensional motion analysis and ground reaction forces (GRF) using a force plate were assessed in 16 older-aged (55-65 yr) and 13 younger-aged (20-35 yr) well-trained male distance runners running at a self-selected (SRS) and a controlled (CRS) speed of 3.3 m.s-1.
RESULTS: The older subjects ran at significantly lower self-selected speeds than the younger subjects (mean 3.34 vs 3.77 m.s-1). In both speed conditions, the older runners exhibited significantly more knee flexion at heel strike and significantly less knee flexion and extension range of motion. No age group differences were present in subtalar joint motion. Impact peak force (1.91 vs 1.70 BW) and maximal initial loading rate (107.5 vs 85.5 BW.s-1) were significantly higher in the older runners at the CRS. Maximal peak vertical and anteroposterior forces and impulses were significantly lower in the older runners at the SRS.
CONCLUSION: The biomechanics of running is different between older- and younger-aged runners on several relevant parameters. The larger impact peak force and initial loading rate indicate a loss of shock-absorbing capacity in the older runners. This may increase their susceptibility to lower-extremity overuse injuries. Moreover, it emphasizes the focus on optimizing cushioning properties in the design and prescription of running shoes and suggests that older-aged runners should be cautious with running under conditions of high impact.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app