1. sports
2. running and jogging

Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology
Running technique and injuries
Peter C. Raffalt
PhD student, MSc.
Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology
Neural Control of Movement Laboratory
University of Copenhagen
Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology
Content
Part 1
• What is running technique?
•
Why do we want to alter running technique?
•
How do we alter running technique?
•
Running technique and injuries
Part 2
• An alternative theoretical approach to running technique
and injuries
Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology
What is running technique?
•
•
•
When a skill is put into a sport it becomes a technique that
can be qualitatively evaluated
The technique should be optimized to improve performance
The possibilities and limitations of our body determines the
potential technique utilized
•
Running technique aims:
• At producing the highest possible speed
• At producing the most economical speed
•
Running technique is described by a number of different key
points related to the movements of the body parts during
the running stride
•
Qualitative and quantitative description
Bosch and Klomp 2001
Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology
Why do we want to alter running technique?
- and how do we do it?
•
Improve performance!
• Run faster
• Run more economically
• Run safer?
•
•
•
•
Structured technical training over long periods of time
Training of key elements in the movements during running
Training of lower body strength and joint flexibility
Biomechanical and anatomical arguments for the selected
key points
Bosch and Klomp 2001
Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology
Running technique alterations
– from practice to theory and back
Top To
runners
New theories
To
Old theories
To
Analysis and
Todescription
KeyTo
points
Implementation
To
Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology
Running technique and injuries
•
A number of isolated biomechanical parameters have been
related to lower extremity running injuries e.g.
• Rear foot angle (excessive rear foot motion) (James et al. 1978;
Tiberio 1987)
• Ground reaction force (Hreljac et al. 2000; Messier and Pittala 1998)
• Loading rate during the initial impact (Milner et al. 2006; Pohl et al. 2008)
• Knee adduction moment (Stefanyshyn et al. 2006)
•
These types of studies provide biomechanical evidence for
differences in movements between injured and injury-free
runners but do not lead to a clear understanding of the
injury mechanisms.
Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology
Running technique and injuries
•
New theories about the “perfect/naturally” way of running
have led to local or global alterations of the running
technique
•
•
•
•
•
Barefoot running
Minimalistic running shoes
Forefoot running
Namba Aruki – Japanese style of walking and running
Pose running
Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology
Running technique and injuries
•
•
•
•
A global well defined alteration of the technique
Control group
Registration of injuries
Exclude other sources potentially leading to injuries
•
One well defined alternative technique has been suggested:
• Pose running (by Nicholas Romanov)
• “Efficient, injury-free running taught through poses. Use
the Pose Method® of Running technique to prevent
injuries and to dramatically improve your running
performance.” (www.posetech.com)
• The biomechanical theory behind this running technique
has been strongly criticized.
Romanov and Fletcher
2007; Brodie et al. 2008
Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology
Running technique and injuries
•
Two studies on Pose running have
investigated running economy and joint
moments (indirect measure of joint
loading)
•
Same authors (incl. Nicholas Romanov)
of both studies
•
Showed increased cost of running with
Pose running technique (Dallam et al.
2005)
•
Showed lower eccentric work of the knee
joint and increased eccentric work of the
ankle joint (Arendse et al. 2004)
•
Conclusion: decreased performance and
redistributed joint load (potentially
changed injury location)
Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology
Running technique and injuries
Summery part 1
•
The traditional approach has provided limited consensus on
the causality between running technique and injuries.
•
Intuitively, any kind of running styles could potentially lead
to injuries.
•
But no global alteration has been shown to reduce the risk
of injuries.
Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology
An alternative theoretical approach to running
technique and injuries
•
The human body as a complex system consisting of many interacting parts
•
The motor control as mastering the redundant system of multiple functional
degrees of freedom through coordination of segments (Bernstein 1967; Turvey 1990)
•
Movement variability is induced in varies levels of the system (e.g. motor
output, muscle force, force transmission, range of motion) (Newell and Corcos 1993)
•
The movement variability has two characteristics of interest:
• The amount
• The temporal structure
(Stergiou (ed) 2004)
Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology
An alternative theoretical approach to running
technique and injuries
•
The amount of movement variability
was significant lower in runners with
patellofemoral pain for coordination of
thigh and shank coordination (Hamill et al.
1999; Heiderscheit et al. 2002)
•
Same pattern has been shown for
runners with lower back pain (Seay et al.
2011)
Hamill et al. 2012; Hamill et al. 1999
•
And for runners with a history of
iliotibial band syndrome (Miller et al. 2008)
•
However, too much variability could be
suggested as being equally “bad” (Hamill
et al. 2012)
Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology
An alternative theoretical approach to running
technique and injuries
Figure 1 Loss of complexity hypothesis based on the work of
Lipsitz and colleagues (2002) applied to injury or pathology.
Top and middle panels: over time reductions in effective
degrees of freedom, interacting components and synergies
become associated with a loss of variability in the system.
When these reductions in degrees of freedom and variability
reach a critical threshold, injury or disease may emerge
(bottom panel).
Hamill et al. 2012
Hamill et al. 2012
Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology
An alternative theoretical approach to running
technique and injuries
•
Movement variability across time has a structure depending on the
functionality of the system (Stergiou 2004)
Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology
An alternative theoretical approach to running
technique and injuries
•
Reduced or increased in number of functional degrees of
freedom will potentially change both the amount and the
temporal structure of movement variability
•
To much or to little variability can potentially increase the
risk of running injuries
•
Changed temporal structure towards either random or
periodic patterns can potentially decrease the adaptability
against external perturbations and increase the risk of
injuries
•
The number of functional degrees of freedom and
coordination determines both the amount and temporal
structure of the movement variability
Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology
Conclusion
•
An alternative approach to the mechanisms underlying
running injuries suggests a healthy stage of sufficient
movement variability with a chaotic structure is linked to a
lower risk of running injuries
•
It could be speculated that training of running coordination
skills and variations in running speed, running surface and
training load will ensure this optimal movement variability
•
In addition, specific training to prevent strength deficits,
strength imbalance and improper flexibility could ensure a
sufficient number of functional degrees of freedom.
Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology
Thank you
Questions?