Differences in Peak Impact Accelerations Among Foot Strike Patterns in Recreational Runners

Christopher Napier; Lauren Fridman; Paul Blazey; Nicholas Tran; Tom V Michie; Amy Schneeberg

doi:10.3389/fspor.2022.802019

Differences in Peak Impact Accelerations Among Foot Strike Patterns in Recreational Runners

Front Sports Act Living. 2022 Mar 4:4:802019. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2022.802019. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Christopher Napier^{1

2}, Lauren Fridman³, Paul Blazey^{1

2}, Nicholas Tran³, Tom V Michie^{1

4}, Amy Schneeberg⁵

Affiliations

¹ Centre for Hip Health & Mobility, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
² Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
³ Plantiga Technologies Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada.
⁴ Department of Biomedical Physiology & Kinesiology, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
⁵ Independent Researcher, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Abstract

Introduction: Running-related injuries (RRIs) occur from a combination of training load errors and aberrant biomechanics. Impact loading, measured by peak acceleration, is an important measure of running biomechanics that is related to RRI. Foot strike patterns may moderate the magnitude of impact load in runners. The effect of foot strike pattern on peak acceleration has been measured using tibia-mounted inertial measurement units (IMUs), but not commercially available insole-embedded IMUs. The aim of this study was to compare the peak acceleration signal associated with rearfoot (RFS), midfoot (MFS), and forefoot (FFS) strike patterns when measured with an insole-embedded IMU.

Materials and methods: Healthy runners ran on a treadmill for 1 min at three different speeds with their habitual foot strike pattern. An insole-embedded IMU was placed inside standardized neutral cushioned shoes to measure the peak resultant, vertical, and anteroposterior accelerations at impact. The Foot strike pattern was determined by two experienced observers and evaluated using high-speed video. Linear effect mixed-effect models were used to quantify the relationship between foot strike pattern and peak resultant, vertical, and anteroposterior acceleration.

Results: A total of 81% of the 187 participants exhibited an RFS pattern. An RFS pattern was associated with a higher peak resultant (0.29 SDs; p = 0.029) and vertical (1.19 SD; p < 0.001) acceleration when compared with an FFS running pattern, when controlling for speed and limb, respectively. However, an MFS was associated with the highest peak accelerations in the resultant direction (0.91 SD vs. FFS; p = 0.002 and 0.17 SD vs. RFS; p = 0.091). An FFS pattern was associated with the lowest peak accelerations in both the resultant and vertical directions. An RFS was also associated with a significantly greater peak acceleration in the anteroposterior direction (0.28 SD; p = 0.033) than an FFS pattern, while there was no difference between MFS and FFS patterns.

Conclusion: Our findings indicate that runners should be grouped by RFS, MFS, and FFS when comparing peak acceleration, rather than the common practice of grouping MFS and FFS together as non-RFS runners. Future studies should aim to determine the risk of RRI associated with peak accelerations from an insole-embedded IMU to understand whether the small observed differences in this study are clinically meaningful.

Keywords: accelerometer; biomechanics; gait; inertial measurement unit; running.