Volume 8, Issue 3 (12-2022)
J Sport Biomech 2022, 8(3): 232-246 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Soltani M, Fatahi A, Yousefian Molla R. The effect of increasing running speed on three-dimensional changes of lower limb joint angles in open motor chain and swing phase. J Sport Biomech 2022; 8 (3) :232-246
URL: http://biomechanics.iauh.ac.ir/article-1-282-en.html
URL: http://biomechanics.iauh.ac.ir/article-1-282-en.html
1- Department of Sports Biomechanics, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Islamic Azad University of Karaj, Karaj, Iran
2- Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Islamic Azad University of Karaj, Karaj, Iran
Full-Text [PDF 2095 kb]
(623 Downloads)
| Abstract (HTML) (941 Views)
Full-Text: (696 Views)
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
Running is known as one of the most popular sports and has no time or place limitations. There is a lot of evidence that running has many health benefits (1). On the other hand, the risk of injury is an important concern for runners. Biomechanical factors, such as peak moment, peak knee abduction, peak foot eversion, etc., have been shown to predict lower limb injury (2). Identifying the different effects of running speed on the movement variability of lower limb joints can yeild more detailed information about the effect of different running speeds on the joints. As the walking speed increases, the length of the swing phase gradually decreases from 62% to 31% and for running to 22% (3). Recently, due to lifestyle changes, the use of treadmills for walking and running has increased. However, the biomechanical differences in coordination between running on a treadmill or on the ground have not been adequately addressed (4). This study was conducted with the aim of investigating the effect of increasing the running speed on the three-dimensional changes of the joint angles of the lower limbs in the open chain of motion and the swing phase.
2. Methods
28 healthy male subjects who were selected through available sampling method participated in the study. This research was conducted in the Biomechanics and Movement Control Laboratory of the Federal University (UFABC) and was approved by the ethics committee of this university with the ethics code (53063315.7.0000.5594). Written consent was obtained from all subjects to participate in this research. The participants into the research included runners who ran more than 20 km per week, their minimum average running speed during the 10 km race was 1 km in 5 minutes and were familiar with running on a treadmill. Exclusion criteria included having any skeletal and neuromuscular movement disorders or using any assistive devices. In this research, 12 cameras with a resolution of 4 MB were used with Cortex 6 software and Santa Rosa motion analysis, which were located at a height of 2.8 meters from the ground. Normality and homogeneity of variance of dependent variables were tested using Bartlett and Leven’s tests. The repeated measure test was used to measure the angles of the hip, knee and ankle between the joints of the dominant lower limb in the swing phase of running. Statistical calculations were performed using SPSS software.
3. Results
Descriptive statistics were used to calculate the mean and standard deviation to evaluate the normality of data distribution. In inferential statistics according to the results of the follow-up test, the angles of the lower limb joints during running in the swing phase were studied in the sagittal, frontal and transverse planes of motion. The findings are as follows:
In the hip joint in the frontal plane around the sagittal (X) axis, there was a significant difference in the maximum, minimum and range of motion angles between all speeds. In the transverse plane around the vertical axis (Y) at the maximum angle, there was no significant difference between 2.5 and 4.5 speeds, as well as 3.5 and 4.5 speeds, but there was a significant difference between 2.5 and 3.5 speeds. There was also a significant difference in the minimum angle and range of motion between all speeds. In the sagittal plane around the frontal axis (Z), there was a significant difference in the maximum, minimum and range of motion angles between all speeds.
In the knee joint in the frontal plane around the sagittal (X) axis, there was a significant difference in the maximum angle and range of motion between all speeds, but there was no significant difference in the minimum angle. In the transverse plane around the vertical (Y) axis, there was a significant difference in the maximum, minimum and range of motion angles between all speeds. In the sagittal plane around the frontal axis (Z), there was a significant difference in the maximum angle and range of motion between all speeds, but no significant difference was observed in the minimum angle.
In the ankle joint in the frontal plane around the sagittal (X) axis, there was a significant difference in the maximum, minimum and range of motion angles between all speeds. In the transverse plane around the vertical axis (Y), there was a significant difference in the minimum angle and range of motion between all speeds, also there was a significant difference in the maximum angle between 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5 speeds; however, between 3.5 speeds and 4.5, there was no significant difference in the maximum angle. In the sagittal plane around the frontal axis (Z), there was a significant difference in the minimum angle and range of motion between all speeds, but there was no significant difference in the minimum angle (P<0.05).
4. Conclusion
In the examination of thigh abduction and adduction in the frontal plane during running in the swing phase, it was found that there was a significant difference in the hip joint angles in all three running speeds, and it could be argued that with increasing speed, the amount of joint changes and range of motion of the thigh in the frontal plane would increase. In the external rotation of the thigh in the transverse plane, there was no significant difference between the speeds of 2.5 and 4.5, as well as the speeds 5.3 and 5.4, but there was a significant difference between the speeds 2.5 and 5.3. In internal rotation, there was a significant difference between all speeds, and it can be stated that with the increase in speed, the amount of joint changes and the range of motion of the thigh in the transverse plane increased. There was a significant difference in thigh flexion and extension in the sagittal plane in all three running speeds, and we reached the conclusion that with increasing speed, the amount of joint angle changes and the range of motion of the thigh in the sagittal plane increased. This study is consistent with the research of Strozik et al. (6) and Aghaei Attabadi et al. (11) while it was inconsistent with the research of Tominaga et al. (12).
In the examination of knee abduction in the frontal plane, there was a significant difference in all speeds, but there was no significant difference in knee adduction in all three speeds, and we concluded that with increasing speed, the amount of joint angle changes and the range of motion in the frontal plane of the knee increased. There was a significant difference in external rotation and internal rotation of the knee in the transverse plane at all three speeds, and it can be said that with the increase in speed, the amount of joint angle changes and the range of motion of the knee in the transverse plane increased. There was a significant difference in knee flexion in the sagittal plane in all three running speeds, but there was no significant difference in knee extension in all three running speeds, and it can be argued that with increasing speed, the amount of joint angle changes and range of motion increased. In the investigation of inversion and eversion of the ankle in the frontal plane, there was a significant difference in all three speeds, and it can be said that with the increase in speed, the rate of changes in the joint angles and range of motion of the ankle in the frontal plane increased. This study was consistent with Cowan et al. (8) and Aghaei Attabadi et al. (11) and inconsistent with the research of Tominaga et al. (12).
In the analysis of ankle abduction in the transverse plane in all three speeds, except for 3.5 speed and 4.5 speed, there was a significant difference, but in ankle adduction in all three running speeds, there was a significant difference, and it implies that with increasing speed, the amount of changes in Joint and range of motion of the ankle in the transverse plane increased. There was no significant difference in ankle dorsiflexion in the sagittal plane in all three running speeds, but there was a significant difference in plantarflexion in all three running speeds, and it can be concluded that with increasing speed, the amount of joint angle changes and ankle range of motion in the sagittal plane would increase. This study was consistent with Quan et al. (8) and Strozik et al. (6) and inconsistent with Tominaga et al.'s (12) research.
Ethical Considerations
Compliance with ethical guidelines
There were no ethical considerations to be considered in this research.
Funding
This research did not receive any grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or non-profit sectors.
Authors' contributions
All authors equally contributed to preparing article.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
1. Introduction
Running is known as one of the most popular sports and has no time or place limitations. There is a lot of evidence that running has many health benefits (1). On the other hand, the risk of injury is an important concern for runners. Biomechanical factors, such as peak moment, peak knee abduction, peak foot eversion, etc., have been shown to predict lower limb injury (2). Identifying the different effects of running speed on the movement variability of lower limb joints can yeild more detailed information about the effect of different running speeds on the joints. As the walking speed increases, the length of the swing phase gradually decreases from 62% to 31% and for running to 22% (3). Recently, due to lifestyle changes, the use of treadmills for walking and running has increased. However, the biomechanical differences in coordination between running on a treadmill or on the ground have not been adequately addressed (4). This study was conducted with the aim of investigating the effect of increasing the running speed on the three-dimensional changes of the joint angles of the lower limbs in the open chain of motion and the swing phase.
2. Methods
28 healthy male subjects who were selected through available sampling method participated in the study. This research was conducted in the Biomechanics and Movement Control Laboratory of the Federal University (UFABC) and was approved by the ethics committee of this university with the ethics code (53063315.7.0000.5594). Written consent was obtained from all subjects to participate in this research. The participants into the research included runners who ran more than 20 km per week, their minimum average running speed during the 10 km race was 1 km in 5 minutes and were familiar with running on a treadmill. Exclusion criteria included having any skeletal and neuromuscular movement disorders or using any assistive devices. In this research, 12 cameras with a resolution of 4 MB were used with Cortex 6 software and Santa Rosa motion analysis, which were located at a height of 2.8 meters from the ground. Normality and homogeneity of variance of dependent variables were tested using Bartlett and Leven’s tests. The repeated measure test was used to measure the angles of the hip, knee and ankle between the joints of the dominant lower limb in the swing phase of running. Statistical calculations were performed using SPSS software.
3. Results
Descriptive statistics were used to calculate the mean and standard deviation to evaluate the normality of data distribution. In inferential statistics according to the results of the follow-up test, the angles of the lower limb joints during running in the swing phase were studied in the sagittal, frontal and transverse planes of motion. The findings are as follows:
In the hip joint in the frontal plane around the sagittal (X) axis, there was a significant difference in the maximum, minimum and range of motion angles between all speeds. In the transverse plane around the vertical axis (Y) at the maximum angle, there was no significant difference between 2.5 and 4.5 speeds, as well as 3.5 and 4.5 speeds, but there was a significant difference between 2.5 and 3.5 speeds. There was also a significant difference in the minimum angle and range of motion between all speeds. In the sagittal plane around the frontal axis (Z), there was a significant difference in the maximum, minimum and range of motion angles between all speeds.
In the knee joint in the frontal plane around the sagittal (X) axis, there was a significant difference in the maximum angle and range of motion between all speeds, but there was no significant difference in the minimum angle. In the transverse plane around the vertical (Y) axis, there was a significant difference in the maximum, minimum and range of motion angles between all speeds. In the sagittal plane around the frontal axis (Z), there was a significant difference in the maximum angle and range of motion between all speeds, but no significant difference was observed in the minimum angle.
In the ankle joint in the frontal plane around the sagittal (X) axis, there was a significant difference in the maximum, minimum and range of motion angles between all speeds. In the transverse plane around the vertical axis (Y), there was a significant difference in the minimum angle and range of motion between all speeds, also there was a significant difference in the maximum angle between 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5 speeds; however, between 3.5 speeds and 4.5, there was no significant difference in the maximum angle. In the sagittal plane around the frontal axis (Z), there was a significant difference in the minimum angle and range of motion between all speeds, but there was no significant difference in the minimum angle (P<0.05).
4. Conclusion
In the examination of thigh abduction and adduction in the frontal plane during running in the swing phase, it was found that there was a significant difference in the hip joint angles in all three running speeds, and it could be argued that with increasing speed, the amount of joint changes and range of motion of the thigh in the frontal plane would increase. In the external rotation of the thigh in the transverse plane, there was no significant difference between the speeds of 2.5 and 4.5, as well as the speeds 5.3 and 5.4, but there was a significant difference between the speeds 2.5 and 5.3. In internal rotation, there was a significant difference between all speeds, and it can be stated that with the increase in speed, the amount of joint changes and the range of motion of the thigh in the transverse plane increased. There was a significant difference in thigh flexion and extension in the sagittal plane in all three running speeds, and we reached the conclusion that with increasing speed, the amount of joint angle changes and the range of motion of the thigh in the sagittal plane increased. This study is consistent with the research of Strozik et al. (6) and Aghaei Attabadi et al. (11) while it was inconsistent with the research of Tominaga et al. (12).
In the examination of knee abduction in the frontal plane, there was a significant difference in all speeds, but there was no significant difference in knee adduction in all three speeds, and we concluded that with increasing speed, the amount of joint angle changes and the range of motion in the frontal plane of the knee increased. There was a significant difference in external rotation and internal rotation of the knee in the transverse plane at all three speeds, and it can be said that with the increase in speed, the amount of joint angle changes and the range of motion of the knee in the transverse plane increased. There was a significant difference in knee flexion in the sagittal plane in all three running speeds, but there was no significant difference in knee extension in all three running speeds, and it can be argued that with increasing speed, the amount of joint angle changes and range of motion increased. In the investigation of inversion and eversion of the ankle in the frontal plane, there was a significant difference in all three speeds, and it can be said that with the increase in speed, the rate of changes in the joint angles and range of motion of the ankle in the frontal plane increased. This study was consistent with Cowan et al. (8) and Aghaei Attabadi et al. (11) and inconsistent with the research of Tominaga et al. (12).
In the analysis of ankle abduction in the transverse plane in all three speeds, except for 3.5 speed and 4.5 speed, there was a significant difference, but in ankle adduction in all three running speeds, there was a significant difference, and it implies that with increasing speed, the amount of changes in Joint and range of motion of the ankle in the transverse plane increased. There was no significant difference in ankle dorsiflexion in the sagittal plane in all three running speeds, but there was a significant difference in plantarflexion in all three running speeds, and it can be concluded that with increasing speed, the amount of joint angle changes and ankle range of motion in the sagittal plane would increase. This study was consistent with Quan et al. (8) and Strozik et al. (6) and inconsistent with Tominaga et al.'s (12) research.
Ethical Considerations
Compliance with ethical guidelines
There were no ethical considerations to be considered in this research.
Funding
This research did not receive any grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or non-profit sectors.
Authors' contributions
All authors equally contributed to preparing article.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2022/02/10 | Accepted: 2022/09/28 | Published: 2022/12/21
Received: 2022/02/10 | Accepted: 2022/09/28 | Published: 2022/12/21
References
1. Fatahi A, Alizadeh R, Salehi M, Molavian R. Three planar Symmetry of Hip, Knee and Ankle Joints' moments during Running. Journal of Clinical Physiotherapy Research. 2021;6(3).
2. Dunn MD, Claxton DB, Fletcher G, Wheat JS, Binney DM. Effects of running retraining on biomechanical factors associated with lower limb injury. Hum Mov Sci. 2018;58:21-31. [DOI:10.1016/j.humov.2018.01.001] [PMID]
3. Mann RA, Hagy J. Biomechanics of walking, running, and sprinting. Am J Sports Med. 1980;8(5):345-50. [DOI:10.1177/036354658000800510] [PMID]
4. Abbasi A, Yazdanbakhsh F, Tazji MK, Aghaie Ataabadi P, Svoboda Z, Nazarpour K, et al. A comparison of coordination and its variability in lower extremity segments during treadmill and overground running at different speeds. Gait Posture. 2020;79:139-44. [DOI:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2020.04.022] [PMID]
5. Rottier TD, Allen SJ. The influence of swing leg technique on maximum running speed. J Biomech. 2021;126:110640. [DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110640] [PMID]
6. Struzik A, Konieczny G, Grzesik K, Stawarz M, Winiarski S, Rokita A. Relationship between lower limbs kinematic variables and effectiveness of sprint during maximum velocity phase. Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2015;17(4):131-8.
7. Wang W, Qu F, Li S, Wang L. Effects of motor skill level and speed on movement variability during running. J Biomech. 2021;127:110680. [DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110680] [PMID]
8. Quan W, Wang M, Liu G, Fekete G, Baker JS, Ren F, et al. Comparative Analysis of Lower Limb Kinematics between the Initial and Terminal Phase of 5km Treadmill Running. J Vis Exp. 2020;161:e61192. [DOI:10.3791/61192]
9. Knuesel H, Geyer H, Seyfarth A. Influence of swing leg movement on running stability. Hum Mov Sci. 2005;24(4):532-43. [DOI:10.1016/j.humov.2005.08.002] [PMID]
10. Blum Y, Lipfert SW, Rummel J, Seyfarth A. Swing leg control in human running. Bioinspir Biomim. 2010;5(2):026006. [DOI:10.1088/1748-3182/5/2/026006] [PMID]
11. Aghaie Ataabadi P, Sarvestan J, Alaei F, Yazdanbakhsh F, Abbasi A. Linear and non-linear analysis of lower limb joints angle variability during running at different speeds. Acta Gymnica. 2021. [DOI:10.5507/ag.2021.023]
12. Tominaga R, Ishii Y, Ueda T, Kurokawa T. The Effects of Running Speed on Ground Reaction Forces and Lower Limb Kinematics During Single-Leg Stop Movement. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(5):1224-30. [DOI:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000286] [PMID]
13. Nicola TL, Jewison DJ. The anatomy and biomechanics of running. Clin Sports Med. 2012;31(2):187-201. [DOI:10.1016/j.csm.2011.10.001] [PMID]
14. Folland JP, Allen SJ, Black MI, Handsaker JC, Forrester SE. Running Technique is an Important Component of Running Economy and Performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49(7):1412-23. [DOI:10.1249/MSS.0000000000001245] [PMID] [PMCID]
15. Park SK, Jeon HM, Lam WK, Stefanyshyn D, Ryu J. The effects of downhill slope on kinematics and kinetics of the lower extremity joints during running. Gait Posture. 2019;68:181-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.11.007] [PMID]
16. Takabayashi T, Edama M, Inai T, Kubo M. Differences in rearfoot, midfoot, and forefoot kinematics of normal foot and flatfoot during running. J Orthop Res. 2021;39(3):565-71. [DOI:10.1002/jor.24877] [PMID]
17. Christopher SM, McCullough J, Snodgrass SJ, Cook C. Do alterations in muscle strength, flexibility, range of motion, and alignment predict lower extremity injury in runners: a systematic review. Arch Physiother. 2019;9:2. [DOI:10.1186/s40945-019-0054-7] [PMID] [PMCID]
18. Fukuchi RK, Fukuchi CA, Duarte M. A public dataset of running biomechanics and the effects of running speed on lower extremity kinematics and kinetics. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3298. [DOI:10.7717/peerj.3298] [PMID] [PMCID]
19. Handsaker JC, Forrester SE, Folland JP, Black MI, Allen SJ. A kinematic algorithm to identify gait events during running at different speeds and with different footstrike types. J Biomech. 2016;49(16):4128-33. [DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.10.013] [PMID]
20. Genton L, Mareschal J, Norman K, Karsegard VL, Delsoglio M, Pichard C, et al. Association of phase angle and running performance. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2020;37:65-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.clnesp.2020.03.020] [PMID]
21. Smith L, Preece S, Mason D, Bramah C. A comparison of kinematic algorithms to estimate gait events during overground running. Gait Posture. 2015;41(1):39-43. [DOI:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.08.009] [PMID]
22. Wright WG, Ivanenko YP, Gurfinkel VS. Foot anatomy specialization for postural sensation and control. J Neurophysiol. 2012;107(5):1513-21. [DOI:10.1152/jn.00256.2011] [PMID] [PMCID]
23. Bischof JE, Abbey AN, Chuckpaiwong B, Nunley JA, Queen RM. Three-dimensional ankle kinematics and kinetics during running in women. Gait Posture. 2010;31(4):502-5. [DOI:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.02.010] [PMID]
24. Hamill J, Knutzen K, Derrick TR. Biomechanical Basis of Human Movement: Wolters Kluwer Health; 2015.
25. Oatis CA. Kinesiology: The Mechanics and Pathomechanics of Human Movement: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009.
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Journal of Sport Biomechanics
Department of Sport Biomechanics, Faculty of Humanities, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan Branch, Prof. Mousivand Blvd, Imam Khomeini Blvd, Hamedan, Iran.
Journal Tel: +98 81 34494042
Website: http://biomechanics.iauh.ac.ir
Email: sportbiomechanics@iauh.ac.ir
