Abstract
Studies on the paradigm of the preferred movement path are scarce, and as a result, many aspects of the paradigm remain elusive. It remains unknown, for instance, how muscle activity adapts when differences in joint kinematics, due to altered running conditions, are of low / high magnitudes. Therefore, the purpose of this work was to investigate changes in muscle activity of the lower extremities in runners with minimal (≤ 3°) or substantial (> 3°) mean absolute differences in the ankle and knee joint angle trajectories when subjected to different running footwear. Mean absolute differences in the integral of the muscle activity were quantified for the tibialis anterior (TA), peroneus longus (PL), gastrocnemius medialis (GM), soleus (SO), vastus lateralis (VL), and biceps femoris (BF) muscles during over ground running. In runners with minimal changes in 3D joint angle trajectories (≤ 3°), muscle activity was found to change drastically when comparing barefoot to shod running (TA: 35%; PL: 11%; GM: 17%; SO: 10%; VL: 27%; BF: 16%), and minimally when comparing shod to shod running (TA: 10%; PL: 9%; GM: 13%; SO: 8%; VL: 8%; BF: 12%). For runners who showed substantial changes in joint angle trajectories (> 3°), muscle activity changed drastically in barefoot to shod comparisons (TA: 39%; PL: 14%; GM: 16%; SO: 16%; VL: 25%; BF: 24%). It was concluded that a movement path can be maintained with small adaptations in muscle activation when running conditions are similar, while large adaptations in muscle activation are needed when running conditions are substantially different.
Highlights
In the last four decades, scientific discussions on running biomechanics and running injuries have been dominated by two paradigms: the “impact force” paradigm and the “pronation” paradigm [1]
These paradigms suggest that higher magnitudes of impact forces and / or pronation that may occur during running are harmful to the human body and may lead to the development of running injuries
Despite the vast financial investment in the development of these products, running injury rates have remained relatively unchanged [4,5,6]. This lack of epidemiological evidence led recent publications to question the validity of the these paradigms, arguing that they were derived from an inappropriate functional understanding of running biomechanics [7]
Summary
In the last four decades, scientific discussions on running biomechanics and running injuries have been dominated by two paradigms: the “impact force” paradigm and the “pronation” paradigm [1] These paradigms suggest that higher magnitudes of impact forces and / or pronation that may occur during running are harmful to the human body and may lead to the development of running injuries. Despite the vast financial investment in the development of these products, running injury rates have remained relatively unchanged [4,5,6]. This lack of epidemiological evidence led recent publications to question the validity of the these paradigms, arguing that they were derived from an inappropriate functional understanding of running biomechanics [7]. New paradigms have been proposed, aiming to redirect future studies to the functional
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
