Lucinda Peng1, Amanda N Seay2, Cindy Montero3, Leslie L Barnes4, Kevin R Vincent5, Bryan P Conrad6, Cong Chen7, Heather K Vincent8. 1. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Interdisciplinary Center for Musculoskeletal Training and Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL(∗). 2. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Interdisciplinary Center for Musculoskeletal Training and Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL† 3. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Interdisciplinary Center for Musculoskeletal Training and Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL(‡). 4. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Interdisciplinary Center for Musculoskeletal Training and Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL(§). 5. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Interdisciplinary Center for Musculoskeletal Training and Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL(¶). 6. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Interdisciplinary Center for Musculoskeletal Training and Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL(#). 7. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Interdisciplinary Center for Musculoskeletal Training and Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL(∗∗). 8. Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Division of Research, University of Florida Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine Institute, Gainesville, FL(††). Electronic address: vincehk@ortho.ufl.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether runners recovering from a lower body musculoskeletal injury have different metabolic, cardiopulmonary, and gait responses compared with healthy runners. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Research laboratory at an academic institution. METHODS: Healthy runners (n = 50) were compared with runners who were recently injured but had returned to running (n = 50). Both groups were participating in similar cross-training modalities such as swimming, weight training, biking, and yoga. Running gait was analyzed on a treadmill using 3-dimensional motion capture, and metabolic and cardiopulmonary measures were captured simultaneously with a portable metabolic analyzer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of oxygen consumption, heart rate, ventilation, carbohydrate and fat oxidation values, gait temporospatial parameters and range of motion measures (ROM) in the sagittal plane, energy expenditure, and vertical displacement of the body's center of gravity (COG). RESULTS: The self-selected running speed was different between the injured and healthy runners (9.7 ± 1.1 km/h and 10.6 ± 1.1 km/h, respectively; P = .038). No significant group differences were noted in any metabolic or cardiopulmonary variable while running at the self-selected or standard speed (13.6 km/h). The vertical displacement of the COG was less in the injured group (8.4 ± 1.4 cm and 8.9 ± 1.4, respectively; P = .044). ROM about the right ankle in the sagittal plane at the self-selected running speed during the gait cycle was less in the injured runners compared with the healthy runners (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Runners with a recent lower body injury who have returned to running have similar cardiopulmonary and metabolic responses to running as healthy runners at the self-selected and standard speeds; this finding may be due in part to participation in cross-training modes that preserve cardiopulmonary and metabolic adaptations. Injured runners may conserve motion by minimizing COG displacement and ankle joint ROM during a gait cycle.
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether runners recovering from a lower body musculoskeletal injury have different metabolic, cardiopulmonary, and gait responses compared with healthy runners. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Research laboratory at an academic institution. METHODS: Healthy runners (n = 50) were compared with runners who were recently injured but had returned to running (n = 50). Both groups were participating in similar cross-training modalities such as swimming, weight training, biking, and yoga. Running gait was analyzed on a treadmill using 3-dimensional motion capture, and metabolic and cardiopulmonary measures were captured simultaneously with a portable metabolic analyzer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of oxygen consumption, heart rate, ventilation, carbohydrate and fat oxidation values, gait temporospatial parameters and range of motion measures (ROM) in the sagittal plane, energy expenditure, and vertical displacement of the body's center of gravity (COG). RESULTS: The self-selected running speed was different between the injured and healthy runners (9.7 ± 1.1 km/h and 10.6 ± 1.1 km/h, respectively; P = .038). No significant group differences were noted in any metabolic or cardiopulmonary variable while running at the self-selected or standard speed (13.6 km/h). The vertical displacement of the COG was less in the injured group (8.4 ± 1.4 cm and 8.9 ± 1.4, respectively; P = .044). ROM about the right ankle in the sagittal plane at the self-selected running speed during the gait cycle was less in the injured runners compared with the healthy runners (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Runners with a recent lower body injury who have returned to running have similar cardiopulmonary and metabolic responses to running as healthy runners at the self-selected and standard speeds; this finding may be due in part to participation in cross-training modes that preserve cardiopulmonary and metabolic adaptations. Injured runners may conserve motion by minimizing COG displacement and ankle joint ROM during a gait cycle.
Authors: R N van Gent; D Siem; M van Middelkoop; A G van Os; S M A Bierma-Zeinstra; B W Koes Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Maarten P van der Worp; Nick van der Horst; Anton de Wijer; Frank J G Backx; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden Journal: Sports Med Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Anthony G Schache; Peter D Blanch; Tim W Dorn; Nicholas A T Brown; Doug Rosemond; Marcus G Pandy Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Adam S Tenforde; Lauren C Sayres; Mary L McCurdy; Hervé Collado; Kristin L Sainani; Michael Fredericson Journal: PM R Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Samir R Ginde; Allan Geliebter; Frederick Rubiano; Analiza M Silva; Jack Wang; Stanley Heshka; Steven B Heymsfield Journal: Obes Res Date: 2005-07