External loading of common training drills: Ranking drills to design progressive return-to-run programs.

Return-to-run protocols following lower extremity injuries commonly include a gradual training and loading progression to allow positive adaptation of musculoskeletal tissue. Before full return to running, training drills designed to provide a low to high external loading progression (i.e., vertical forces) may therefore minimize the risks of re-injury. However, the magnitude of external loading among various training drills has not yet been quantified. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to quantify peak vertical forces of multiple common training drills and rank each of them in order from lowest to highest peak vertical force. DESIGN: /Participants: 11 experienced runners completed five trials of 46 training drills while in-shoe vertical reaction force (vRF) was measured with wireless force insoles. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Average peak vRF was calculated for each drill across all participants. Drills were also grouped by vRF into four categories intended for use by clinicians as stages of rehabilitation. RESULTS: 46 training drills were ranked in order from least to greatest vRF. The drill with the highest average peak vRF was "Ladder Single Leg Hop Forward", at 2.80 BW. The drill with the lowest average peak vRF was "Squat Mini Jump", at 1.02 BW. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide valuable information for clinicians, coaches and pelvic floor practitioners when programming rehabilitation and return-to-run training progressions for runners coming back from lower extremity or pelvic injuries.

Energetics and Biomechanics of Uphill, Downhill and Level Running in Highly-Cushioned Carbon Fiber Midsole Plated Shoes.

Road-racing shoes recently experienced major changes. In the recent past, lightweight, thin midsole shoes were thought to help runners maximize their performance. But, in 2017, Nike released the Vaporfly shoe which transformed the thinking about racing shoe design. Incorporating a curved carbon fiber plate embedded in a thick, compliant and resilient midsole resulted in a reduced metabolic cost across a range of running speeds. We hypothesized the new style of shoes would be less effective uphill than downhill due to the larger ground reaction forces and hence greater elastic energy storage in the shoe during downhill running. Eighteen runners completed two days of testing, each comprising two trials of two shoe models (Saucony Endorphin Pro (EP) and Type A) and three grade conditions (uphill, level and downhill), i.e. 12 trials per day. Oxygen uptake, ground reaction forces, and lower-body kinematics were captured during each condition. Comparisons of the percent metabolic benefit were made between shoes for each grade. Stride rate, ground time, peak vertical force, and flight time were regressed with the percent metabolic benefit of the EP over the Type A shoe across grades. Metabolic benefits of the Endorphin Pro were similar across the three grade conditions (p = 0.778). No significant correlations were observed between how much benefit one runner got over another specific to grade. The new style of road-racing shoes effectively decreases metabolic cost equally across grades. Differences in running mechanics between runners did not explain greater individual metabolic benefits between shoe conditions during uphill or downhill running.

Running economy, mechanics, and marathon racing shoes.

The choice of marathon racing shoes can greatly affect performance. The purpose of this study is to metabolically and mechanically compare the consumer version of the Nike Vaporfly 4% shoe to two other popular marathon shoes, and determine differences in running economy. Nineteen subjects performed two 5-minute trials at 4.44m/s wearing the Adidas Adios Boost (AB), Nike Zoom Streak (ZS), and Nike Vaporfly 4% (VP) in random order. Oxygen uptake was recorded during minutes 3-5 and averaged across both shoe trials. On a second day, subjects wore reflective markers, and performed a 3-minute trial in each shoe. Motion and force data were collected over the final 30 seconds of each trial. VP oxygen uptake was 2.8% and 1.9% lower than the AB and ZS. Stride length, plantar flexion velocity, and center of mass vertical oscillation were significantly different in the VP. The percent benefit of the VP over AB shoe was predicted by subject ground time. These results indicate that use of the VP shoe results in improved running economy, partially due to differences in running mechanics. Subject variation in running economy improvement is only partially explained by variation in ground time.