4.6 Article

Mechanisms for Improved Running Economy in Beginner Runners

期刊

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
卷 44, 期 9, 页码 1756-1763

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318255a727

关键词

OXYGEN CONSUMPTION; RUNNING MECHANICS; KINEMATIC; KINETIC; FLEXIBILITY

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据