Journal
MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
Volume 44, Issue 9, Pages 1756-1763Publisher
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318255a727
Keywords
OXYGEN CONSUMPTION; RUNNING MECHANICS; KINEMATIC; KINETIC; FLEXIBILITY
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
MOORE, I. S., A. M. JONES, and S. J. DIXON. Mechanisms for Improved Running Economy in Beginner Runners. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 44, No. 9, pp. 1756-1763, 2012. Controversy surrounds whether running mechanics make good predictors of running economy (RE) with little known about the development of an economical running gait. Purpose: The aim of this study was to identify if mechanical or physiological variables changed during 10 wk of running in beginners and whether these changes could account for any change in RE. Methods: A 10-wk running program (10wkRP) was completed by 10 female beginner runners. A bilateral three-dimensional kinematic and kinetic analysis, in addition to RE and lower body flexibility measurements, was performed before and after the 10wkRP. The Balke-Ware graded walking exercise test was performed before and after the 10wkRP to determine (V) over dotO(2max). Results: Seven kinematic and kinetic variables significantly changed from before to after training, in addition to a significant decrease in calf flexibility (27.3 degrees +/- 6.3 degrees +/- vs 23.9 degrees +/- 5.6 degrees, P < 0.05). A significant improvement was seen in RE (224 +/- 24 vs 205 +/- 27 mL-kg(-1).km(-1), P < 0.05) and treadmill time to exhaustion (16.4 +/- 3.2 vs 17.3 +/- 2.8 min, P < 0.05); however, (V) over dotO(2max) remained unchanged from before to after training (34.7 +/- 5.1 vs 34.3 +/- 5.6 mL.kg(-1).min(-1)). Stepwise regression analysis showed three kinematic variables to explain 94.3% of the variance in change in RE. They were a less extended knee at toe off (P = 0.004), peak dorsiflexion occurring later in stance (P = 0.001), and a slower eversion velocity at touchdown (P = 0.042). The magnitude of change for each variable was 1.5%, 4.7%, and 34.1%, respectively.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available