Impact Of Different Striking Patterns On Biomechanical Features Of Lower Limbs

Objective: Running is one of the most popular sports, however, running related injuries rates which remain relatively high these years cause the reduction and stoppage in running activities. Running striking patterns include forefoot strike, mid-foot strike and rearfoot strike. This research is trying to make comparison between different striking patterns, and find out the impact of different striking patterns on biomechanical features of lower limbs.Methods: 10 habitual forefoot strikers and 13 habitual rear foot strikers were recruited in this research, they did not suffer from any running related injuries in recent 6 months. 8 cameras infrared motion analysis system(Motion Analysis Raptor-4,USA,200Hz) and three-dimentional forece plates(Kistler 9281 CA,Switzerland,1000Hz)were synchronized to collect kinetic and kinematic data of their running gaits. The habitual rear foot strikers were asked to make an actute alternation to display forefoot strikes, and then they participated in an one-week Pose method training program. kinetic and kinematic data of their running gaits were collected as above. Independent-samples T test and paired-samples T test were performed to analysis four foot strikes, they had significant difference when p≤0.05.Results:(1) Compared with habitural forefoot strikers, habitual rear foot strikers had higher knee extension moments, joint net force loading rates and vertical ground reaction force loading rates, lower ankle plantarflexion moments, higher peak knee flexion angle and lower plantarflexion angle. 2) Compared with habitual forefoot strikers, acute alternation strikes had no significant differences on knee extension moments and ankle plantarflexion moments, they had lower joint net force loading rates, vertical ground reaction force loading rates, and higher peak knee flexion angle; compared with habitual rear foot strikers, they had lower knee extension moments and joint net force loading rates and vertical ground reaction force loading rates, higher ankle plantarflexion moments, higher peak hip and knee flexion angle and plantarflexion angle; 3) Compared with habitual forefoot strikers, POSE method running strikes had no significant differences on knee extension moments, ankle plantarflexion moments and vertical ground reaction force loading rates and lower joint net force and loading rates, higher peak knee flexion angle and lower plantarklexion angle; compared with habitual rear foot strikers, POSE method running strikes had lower knee extension moments, joint net force loading rates and vertical ground reaction force loading rates and higher ankle plantarflexion moments, higher peak hip flexion angle; compared with acute alternation strikes, POSE method running strikes had higher joint net force loading rates and vertical ground reaction force loading rates, they had no difference on knee extension moments and ankle plantarflexion moments,higher peak hip flexion angle and lower plantarflexion angle.Conclusion:(1) Compared with forefoot strikes, rear foot strikes had higher hip and knee loads and lower ankle loads, they had differences in the kinematic parameters;(2) Compared with forefoot strikers, acute changes had lower hip load and less injury risks, they had differences in the kinematic parameters;(3) Compared with forefoot strikers, POSE method running strikers had less knee loads, although rthey had differences in the kinematic parameters, the differences decreased;(4) Rear foot striker can change to forefoot strikers easily, but when compared with acute changes, POSE method running stikers had less differences with forefoot strikers.