Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
LER are reporting: Impact frequency data suggest unique risks for forefoot strikers
Quote:
The frequency content of vertical ground reaction forces generated during running differ among forefoot strikers and rearfoot strikers, and this may have implications for injury risk, according to findings from the University of Massachusetts presented in June at the ACSM meeting
.
Quote:
Because the body attenuates shock differently at different frequencies, the findings could suggest that even forefoot strikers (including most barefoot runners) may be at risk for certain injuries despite lacking an impact peak.
Re: Impact frequency data suggest unique risks for forefoot strikers
Here is the abstract from the meeting: Frequency Content of the Vertical Ground Reaction Force Component During Rearfoot and Forefoot Running Patterns
Allison H. Gruber, Irene S. Davis, Joseph Hamill
Quote:
The forefoot (FF) footfall pattern has been advocated to reduce running overuse injuries due to the lack of the impact peak in the vertical ground reaction force component (vGRF). Although the vertical impact peak has been associated with running overuse injuries, the frequency content of vGRF may provide more insight into injury mechanisms. Previous studies have found passive mechanisms, such as the deformation of bone and articular cartilage, are responsible for attenuating high frequency signals. Conversely, active mechanisms, such as eccentric muscle contractions and kinematic adjustments, attenuate low frequencies. The lack of the vertical impact peak during FF running may alter the frequency content of the vGRF therefore altering how the body tissues attenuate impact shock. PURPOSE: To determine the frequency content of the vGRF during rearfoot (RF) and FF running. We hypothesize RF running will result in greater amplitudes at higher frequencies whereas FF running will result in greater amplitudes at low frequencies.
METHODS: Seven natural RF runners and 7 natural FF runners performed 10 trials over ground with each footfall pattern. Running speed was restricted to ±5% of the subjects preferred speed. GRFs were collected at 1200Hz. vGRFs from the stance phase were zero padded to equal 2048 data points. An FFT was performed on each trial then normalized to 1 Hz bins. A mixed factor ANOVA with subjects nested within footfall pattern was performed to assess differences in amplitude at frequencies 1 - 50 Hz (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: RF running resulted in significantly greater amplitudes for frequencies 13 - 39 Hz (p<0.05; sum of amplitudes 13-39 Hz: RF = 462 N; FF = 166 N; percent difference = 94.7%). FF running resulted in significantly greater amplitudes for frequencies ranges 5 - 7 Hz (p<0.05; sum of amplitudes 5-7 Hz: RF = 436 N, FF = 542 N; percent difference = 21.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: The frequency content of the vGRF suggests RF running necessitates a greater reliance on passive mechanisms to attenuate impacts whereas FF running relies on active mechanisms. The results suggest there may be a difference in impact related injury mechanisms between running footfall patterns. The RF footfall pattern may contribute to bone related injuries whereas the FF footfall pattern may contribute to injuries such as muscle strain and tendonitis.
Re: Impact frequency data suggest unique risks for forefoot strikers
That kinda make sense.
Heel strike --> greater impact loads at the heel
Forefoot strike --> greater loads on achilles and greater forefoot dorsiflexion moments of the forefoot on the rearfoot
Re: Impact frequency data suggest unique risks for forefoot strikers
Here is another related report from LER: Foot strike patterns do not predict impact loading rates while running
Quote:
Just because a runner’s foot strike pattern changes as a result of switching from shod to barefoot running doesn’t necessarily mean that runner will experience lower impact loading rates
Quote:
“Claims regarding the relative merits of one foot strike pattern versus another should be interpreted with caution, because it’s really dependent on the individual,” Becker said.
Re: Impact frequency data suggest unique risks for forefoot strikers
That's quiet interesting. Even though the passive mechanisms undergo greater stress during FF strike, is this level of stress actually injurious? Surely the stress threshold between bone and soft tissue varies under differing loads? Perhaps consideration also needs to be given to the manner in which soft tissue behaves during different strike patterns and whether or not that influences stress threshold i.e. concentric vs eccentric contraction
Impact frequency data suggest unique risks for forefoot strikers
Linear Mode
