Comparison of vertical ground reaction forces during overground and treadmill running. A validation study

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Ida Buist²  Wiebren Zijlstra¹  Sjouke Zijlstra²  Steef W Bredeweg²  Bas Kluitenberg² 

[1]Institute of Movement and Sport Gerontology, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany

[2]Center for Sports Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen, GZ, 9713, The Netherlands

关键词: Overuse injuries;    Validity;    Biomechanics;    Kinetics;    Running;   

Others  :  1134409
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-13-235

 received in 2012-05-22, accepted in 2012-11-01,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

One major drawback in measuring ground-reaction forces during running is that it is time consuming to get representative ground-reaction force (GRF) values with a traditional force platform. An instrumented force measuring treadmill can overcome the shortcomings inherent to overground testing. The purpose of the current study was to determine the validity of an instrumented force measuring treadmill for measuring vertical ground-reaction force parameters during running.

Methods

Vertical ground-reaction forces of experienced runners (12 male, 12 female) were obtained during overground and treadmill running at slow, preferred and fast self-selected running speeds. For each runner, 7 mean vertical ground-reaction force parameters of the right leg were calculated based on five successful overground steps and 30 seconds of treadmill running data. Intraclass correlations (ICC_(3,1)) and ratio limits of agreement (RLOA) were used for further analysis.

Results

Qualitatively, the overground and treadmill ground-reaction force curves for heelstrike runners and non-heelstrike runners were very similar. Quantitatively, the time-related parameters and active peak showed excellent agreement (ICCs between 0.76 and 0.95, RLOA between 5.7% and 15.5%). Impact peak showed modest agreement (ICCs between 0.71 and 0.76, RLOA between 19.9% and 28.8%). The maximal and average loading-rate showed modest to excellent ICCs (between 0.70 and 0.89), but RLOA were higher (between 34.3% and 45.4%).

Conclusions

The results of this study demonstrated that the treadmill is a moderate to highly valid tool for the assessment of vertical ground-reaction forces during running for runners who showed a consistent landing strategy during overground and treadmill running. The high stride-to-stride variance during both overground and treadmill running demonstrates the importance of measuring sufficient steps for representative ground-reaction force values. Therefore, an instrumented treadmill seems to be suitable for measuring representative vertical ground-reaction forces during running.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Kluitenberg et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Kram R, Powell AJ: A treadmill-mounted force platform. J Appl Physiol 1989, 67(4):1692-1698.
• [2]Kram R, Griffin TM, Donelan JM, Chang YH: Force treadmill for measuring vertical and horizontal ground reaction forces. J Appl Physiol 1998, 85(2):764-769.
• [3]Riley PO, Dicharry J, Franz J, Della Croce U, Wilder RP, Kerrigan DC: A kinematics and kinetic comparison of overground and treadmill running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008, 40(6):1093-1100.
• [4]Bates B: Comment on ‘The Influence of Running Velocity and Midsole Hardness on External Impact Forces in Heel-Toe-Running’. J Biomech 1989, 22(8–9):963-965.
• [5]Hreljac A: Impact and overuse injuries in runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004, 36(5):845-849.
• [6]Williams KR: Biomechanics of running. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 1985, 13(1):389-441.
• [7]Munro CF, Miller DI, Fuglevand AJ: Ground reaction forces in running: a reexamination. J Biomech 1987, 20(2):147-155.
• [8]Elliott BC, Blanksby BA: A cinematographic analysis of overground and treadmill running by males and females. Med Sci Sports 1976, 8(2):84-87.
• [9]Schache AG, Blanch PD, Rath DA, Wrigley TV, Starr R, Bennell KL: A comparison of overground and treadmill running for measuring the three-dimensional kinematics of the lumbo-pelvic-hip complex. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2001, 16(8):667-680.
• [10]Nigg BM: Impact forces in running. Curr Opin Orthop 1997, 8(6):43-47.
• [11]Challis J: The variability in running gait caused by force plate targeting. J Appl Biomech 2001, 17(1):77-83.
• [12]Fleiss J: The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: John Wiley; 1986.
• [13]Bland J, Altman D: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 327(8476):307-310.
• [14]Nigg BM, De Boer RW, Fisher V: A kinematic comparison of overground and treadmill running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995, 27(1):98-105.
• [15]Savelberg H, Vorstenbosch M, Kamman E, Weijer J, Schambardt H: Intra-stride belt-speed variation affects treadmill locomotion. Gait Posture 1998, 7(1):26-34.
• [16]Pugh L: Oxygen intake in track and treadmill running with observations on the effect of air resistance. J Physiol (Lond) 1970, 207(3):823-835.
• [17]van Ingen Schenau GJ: Some fundamental aspects of the biomechanics of overground versus treadmill locomotion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1980, 12(4):257-261.
• [18]Ferris D, Liang K, Farley C: Runners adjust leg stiffness for their first step on a new running surface. J Biomech 1999, 8:787-794.
• [19]Dixon S, Collop A, Batt M: Surface effects on ground reaction forces and lower extremity kinematics in running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000, 32(11):1919-1926.
• [20]Bates BT, Osternig LR, Sawhill JA, James SL: An assessment of subject variability, subject-shoe interaction, and the evaluation of running shoes using ground reaction force data. J Biomech 1983, 16(3):181-191.
• [21]Morin J, Samozino P, Millet G: Changes in running kinematics, kinetics, and spring-mass behavior over a 24-h run. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011, 43(5):829-836.