4.6 Article

Do habitual foot-strike patterns in running influence functional Achilles tendon properties during gait?

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
Volume 37, Issue 23, Pages 2735-2743

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2019.1663656

Keywords

Ultrasound; speed of sound; soft tissue; biomechanics; footfall

Categories

Funding

  1. Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, Queensland Government

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The capacity of foot-strike running patterns to influence the functional properties of the Achilles tendon is controversial. This study used transmission-mode ultrasound to investigate the influence of habitual running foot-strike pattern on Achilles tendon properties during barefoot walking and running. Fifteen runners with rearfoot (RFS) and 10 with a forefoot (FFS) foot-strike running pattern had ultrasound transmission velocity measured in the right Achilles tendon during barefoot walking (approximate to 1.1 ms(-1)) and running (approximate to 2.0 ms(-1)). Temporospatial gait parameters, ankle kinematics and vertical ground reaction force were simultaneously recorded. Statistical comparisons between foot-strike patterns were made using repeated measure ANOVAs. FFS was characterised by a significantly shorter stance duration (-4%), greater ankle dorsiflexion (+2 degrees), and higher peak vertical ground reaction force (+20% bodyweight) than RFS running (P < .05). Both groups adopted a RFS pattern during walking, with only the relative timing of peak dorsiflexion (3%), ground reaction force (1-2%) and peak vertical force loading rates (22-23%) differing between groups (P < .05). Peak ultrasound transmission velocity in the Achilles tendon was significantly higher in FFS during walking (approximate to 100 ms(-1)) and running (approximate to 130 ms(-1)) than RFS (P < .05). Functional Achilles tendon properties differ with habitual footfall patterns in recreational runners.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available