Aerial and Terrestrial Patterns: A Novel Approach to Analyzing Human Running

Abstract

Biomechanical parameters are often analyzed independently, although running gait is a dynamic system wherein changes in one parameter are likely to affect another. Accordingly, the Volodalen® method provides a model for classifying running patterns into 2 categories, aerial and terrestrial, using a global subjective rating scoring system. We aimed to validate the Volodalen® method by verifying whether the aerial and terrestrial patterns, defined subjectively by a running coach, were associated with distinct objectively-measured biomechanical parameters. The running patterns of 91 individuals were assessed subjectively using the Volodalen® method by an expert running coach during a 10-min running warm-up. Biomechanical parameters were measured objectively using the OptojumpNext® during a 50-m run performed at 3.3, 4.2, and 5 m·s(-1) and were compared between aerial- and terrestrial-classified subjects. Longer contact times and greater leg compression were observed in the terrestrial compared to the aerial runners. The aerial runners exhibited longer flight time, greater center of mass displacement, maximum vertical force and leg stiffness than the terrestrial ones. The subjective categorization of running patterns was associated with distinct objectively-quantified biomechanical parameters. Our results suggest that a subjective holistic assessment of running patterns provides insight into the biomechanics of running gaits of individuals.
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Full text

IJSM/4752/1.10.2015/MPS Training & Testing
Gindre C et al. Aerial and Terrestrial Patterns. Int J Sports Med
Aerial and Terrestrial Patterns: A Novel Approach to
Analyzing Human Running
Authors C. Gindre1, T. Lussiana1, 2, K. Hebert-Losier3, L. Mourot2, 4
Aliations Aliation addresses are listed at the end of the article
Introduction
▼
The subjective appreciation of sports movements
is an important quality for any coach seeking to
improve athletic performance [22]. However, to
be eective, observations must be centered on
the essential parameters of the activity [29].
Interviews with expert sprint coaches emphasize
that posture, hip position (i. e., center of mass and
pelvis position), arm action, as well as ground
contact are key parameters in running perfor-
mance [29]. The scientic literature supports
most of these beliefs. For instance, contact time is
suggested to be the most important kinematic
parameter for generating dierences between
elite sprinters, whereby faster sprinters exhibit
shorter contact times [6] and develop greater
mass-specic forces during that time [30]. Even
in endurance runners, contact time has been
related to 5-km time-trial performances
(r = − 0.49, p < 0.05) [26]. Arm swing reduces the
energy cost of running [1], helping to minimize
trunk rotation and counterbalancing leg swing
[2]. In long-distance runners, the range of elbow
motion has been positively correlated to running
economy (r = 0.42, p < 0.25) [28], indicating value
in observing arm action while running.
Such biomechanical parameters, i. e., arm motion
and body posture, are usually assessed indepen-
dently. However, the running gait pattern is a
dynamic system in which the evolution of one
parameter is likely to aect another. For instance,
a decrease in contact time, without adjusting
step frequency, leads to an increase in ight time
that can promote vertical displacement of the
center of mass [9]. Alterations in step width and
arm motion has also been shown to alter running
gait, increasing the cost of running and challeng-
ing lateral balance [1]. Individuals with excessive
pronation demonstrate lower peak adduction
and greater peak exion at the knee during
stance, with rearfoot strikers also exhibiting
greater peak knee exion [16]. Taken together, all
biomechanical parameters generate a global run-
ning pattern or style that is specic to individuals
and can be used by coaches to dierentiate run-
ners from one another. It may even be possible
to categorize specic running styles in which
accepted after revision
June 26, 2015
Bibliography
DOI http://dx.doi.org/
10.1055/s-0035-1555931
Published online: 2015
Int J Sports Med
© Georg Thieme
Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York
ISSN 0172-4622
Correspondence
Thibault Lussiana
Laboratoire C3S Culture Sport
Santé Société
Université de Franche Comté
31, avenue de l'épitaphe
25000 Besançon
France
Tel.: + 33/632/424 343
Fax: + 33/383/355 288
thibault.lussiana@gmail.com
Key words
●
▶ training
●
▶ coaching
●
▶ biomechanics
●
▶ subjective scale
Abstract
▼
Biomechanical parameters are often analyzed
independently, although running gait is a
dynamic system wherein changes in one param-
eter are likely to aect another. Accordingly, the
Volodalen® method provides a model for classify-
ing running patterns into 2 categories, aerial and
terrestrial, using a global subjective rating scor-
ing system. We aimed to validate the Volodalen®
method by verifying whether the aerial and ter-
restrial patterns, dened subjectively by a run-
ning coach, were associated with distinct
objectively-measured biomechanical parame-
ters. The running patterns of 91 individuals were
assessed subjectively using the Volodalen®
method by an expert running coach during a
10-min running warm-up. Biomechanical
parameters were measured objectively using the
OptojumpNext® during a 50-m run performed at
3.3, 4.2, and 5 m · s − 1 and were compared between
aerial- and terrestrial-classied subjects. Longer
contact times and greater leg compression were
observed in the terrestrial compared to the aerial
runners. The aerial runners exhibited longer
ight time, greater center of mass displacement,
maximum vertical force and leg stiness than
the terrestrial ones. The subjective categorization
of running patterns was associated with distinct
objectively-quantied biomechanical parame-
ters. Our results suggest that a subjective holistic
assessment of running patterns provides insight
into the biomechanics of running gaits of indi-
viduals.
Downloaded by: IP-Proxy University of Utah, University of Utah. Copyrighted material.

IJSM/4752/1.10.2015/MPS
Training & Testing
Gindre C et al. Aerial and Terrestrial Patterns. Int J Sports Med
runners display similar movement patterns. For example,
McMahon et al. [20] termed running with excessive knee exion
"Groucho running", which is typically associated with increased
contact time and step length and decreased ight time and ver-
tical oscillation of the body. On the other hand, Ardense et al. [3]
investigated "Pose running", characterized by mid-forefoot
striking, short contact times and step lengths, and less knee ex-
ion during stance.
Our laboratory has been using a holistic approach, the Volodalen®
method, to classify running patterns subjectively for several
years. The Volodalen® method considers runners to be a global
and dynamic system. Running patterns are subdivided into 2
main groups according to 5 subjectively-evaluated criteria.
Using a standardized grid and rating system, coaches can classify
running patterns as being aerial or terrestrial to assist in better
understanding and training individuals. Overall, the aerial pat-
tern is characterized by a more spring-like vertical bouncing
gait, and the terrestrial pattern by a more grounded horizontal
gait. Considering the entire running pattern of individuals
allows coaches to adapt their instructions and address decien-
cies by implementing targeted exercise programs on the basis of
a holistic approach.
Thus, the purpose of this study was to validate the Volodalen®
method by verifying whether the 2 subjectively-classied run-
ning patterns are in fact associated with distinct objectively-
measured biomechanical parameters. We hypothesized that
aerial runners would exhibit shorter contact times, greater leg
stiness, and longer ight times than terrestrial runners.
Materials and Methods
▼
Subjects
91 active individuals in good self-reported general health
[mean ± standard deviation (SD): females (n = 14): age
31.9 ± 12.7 y, height 166.2 ± 6.3 cm, body mass 59.6 ± 8.6 kg, and
training time: 9.1 ± 4.6 h · week − 1; males (n = 77): age 29.2 ± 11.0 y,
height 178.0 ± 6.3 cm, body mass 71.9 ± 8.4 kg, and training time:
6.7 ± 4.3 h · week − 1] voluntarily participated in this study. All par-
ticipants were free from lower-extremity injuries and had been
injury-free for the previous year. The university’s Institutional
Review Board approved the study protocol prior to subject
recruitment, which was conducted in accordance with Interna-
tional Journal of Sports Medicine ethical standards [10].
Design
Each subject participated in an experimental session lasting
30 min. After providing written informed consent, subjects ran
for 10 min as a warm-up at a self-selected speed (range: 2.5–
3.5 m · s − 1). For testing, subjects then ran 3 × 50 m from stand-
still on an indoor athletic track at 3.3, 4.2, and 5 m · s − 1 in a rand-
omized order, interspersed with 2-min rest periods during
which participants were permitted to walk. Speed of trials was
monitored using photoelectric cells (Racetime2, MicroGate,
Timing and Sport, Bolzano, Italy) placed at the 20th and 40th
meter of the 50-m trial. A running trial was accepted when its
speed was within ± 5 % of the specied speed. Otherwise, it was
disregarded and repeated after a 2-min rest period, which
occurred in less than 20 % of the trials and no more than twice
per subject.
Subjective assessment
During the 10-min warm-up and independently of the objective
analysis, subjects’ running patterns were observed by an expert
running coach (coaching experience > 20 years at a national
level) and scored using the Volodalen® method (
●
▶ Fig. 1). The
coach, who was familiar with this method (more than 10 years of
use), focused on the global movement patterns of subjects with
particular attention given to 5 key elements (A–E in
●
▶ Fig. 1),
similar to those sourced by Thomson et al. [29]. Each element
was scored from 1 to 5. A global score (V®score) was then com-
puted by summing the individual scores of each element. A
V®score ≤ 15 indicated a terrestrial runner and > 15, an aerial
runner. The reliability of the Volodalen® method has been previ-
ously examined (unpublished data). Both intra- and inter-rater
(expert and novice regarding use of the Volodalen® method)
absolute reliabilities of V®scores were adequate, with coecient
of variations being 6.1 ± 7.0 % and 6.6 ± 6.5 %, respectively, with no
large systematic bias between V®scores detected (paired t-test:
p = 0.927 and 0.250, respectively).
Objective assessment
An optical measurement system (Optojump Next®, MicroGate
Timing and Sport, Bolzano, Italy) sampling at 1 000 Hz was used
to record contact (tc, ms) and ight (tf, ms) times for 20 m from
the 20th to the 40th meter of the 50-m running trials. As described
by Morin et al. [23], the spring-mass characteristics of the lower
extremity were estimated using a sine-wave model employing
tc, tf, velocity (v), body mass (m), and leg length (L, the distance
between the greater trochanter and the ground measured in
barefoot upright stance). Vertical stiness (kvert, kN · m − 1) was
calculated as the ratio between the maximal vertical force (Fmax,
kN) and center of mass displacement (Δz, m) using the following
equations:
kF
vert z
= ⋅Δ −
max
1
(1)
F mg tf
tc
max
=+
⎛
⎝
⎜⎞
⎠
⎟
π
2
1
(2)
(3)
Δ =− +
z
F
m
tc gtc
max
22
28
π
Fig. 1 Subjective grid of the Volodalen® method to assess the individual
running pattern. The asterisks ( * ) indicate a signicant dierence
(p < 0.05) between aerial and terrestrial running patterns.
AVertical oscillation
of the head Lo
wP
ronounced
By elbows
High and anteverted
Below the CG
Forefoot
Aerial runner
Terrestrial runner
12345
By shoulders
Low and retroverted
In front of the CG
Rearfoot
Arms movement
Pelvis position at
ground contact
Foot position at
ground contact
Strike pattern
B
C
D
E
Downloaded by: IP-Proxy University of Utah, University of Utah. Copyrighted material.

IJSM/4752/1.10.2015/MPS Training & Testing
Gindre C et al. Aerial and Terrestrial Patterns. Int J Sports Med
Leg stiness (kl eg, in kN · m − 1) was calculated as the ratio between
the Fmax and the maximal leg length deformation, i. e., leg spring
compression (ΔL, m), using the following equations:
kF
leg L
=⋅
−
max Δ1
(4)
ΔΔ
L=− − −
⎛
⎝
⎜⎞
⎠
⎟+LL vtc d
z
2
2
2 (5)
where d represents the distance of the point of force application
translation, estimated for each individual to equal 18 % of their
leg length [18].
Analysis
Descriptive statistics of the data are presented as mean ± SD val-
ues. Since all data were normally distributed on the basis of the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, parametric statistical methods were
employed for data analysis. Student t-tests were used to com-
pare the overall V®score, scores for each element of the V®score,
and baseline characteristics between aerial and terrestrial run-
ning groups. 2-way (running group × speed) repeated measures
analyses of variance, and Holm-Sidak procedures for post-hoc
pair-wise comparisons, were used to identify the main eect of
running group (aerial vs. terrestrial) on the biomechanical
parameters, considering interactions between running group
and speed. Statistical signicance was accepted when the overall
p-value was < 0.05, with all analyses performed in SigmaStat 12
for Windows (Systat Software Inc., San Jose, CA, USA).
Results
▼
Of the 91 subjects, 48 (n = 5 females) were categorized as being
aerial runners and 43 (n = 9 females) as terrestrial runners.
Accordingly, the former group had signicantly higher V®scores
than the latter group (18.4 ± 2.0 vs. 12.1 ± 2.3), as well as higher
scores in each of the 5 key elements assessed. In agreement with
the classication schemes presented in
●
▶ Fig. 1, rearfoot striking
(scale criteria E), foot-ground contact ahead of the centre of
gravity (criteria D), retroversed pelvis position (criteria C), arm
movement led by the shoulders (criteria B), and low vertical
oscillations (criteria A) were more readily observed in terrestrial
than aerial runners (
●
▶ Fig. 2). Otherwise, the 2 groups were simi-
lar in terms of baseline characteristics regarding age, height,
body mass, and training time (all p > 0.05).
Values of tc, tf, f, ΔL, Δz, Fmax, kvert and kleg are reported in
●
▶ Table 1,
and were not inuenced by the interaction eect (group × speed,
all p ≥ 0.569). On the other hand, group inuenced several
parameters. Aerial runners exhibited lower tc and ΔL with greater
tf, Δz, Fmax, and kleg than terrestrial runners.
Discussion
▼
The Volodalen® method is a practical tool used by running
coaches to classify the running patterns of individuals into aerial
or terrestrial ones according to visual observations. Here we
demonstrate that the subjective classication is in fact associ-
ated with specic biomechanical parameters at 3 dierent run-
ning speeds (3.3, 4.2, and 5 m · s − 1). According to our hypothesis,
running with an aerial pattern was associated with shorter con-
tact times, greater leg stiness, and longer ight times than with
a terrestrial pattern. The former running style also demon-
strated greater center of mass displacements and maximal verti-
cal forces than terrestrial runners. In the absence of tools that
objectively quantify running gait, the Volodalen® method may
provide coaches insight into the biomechanical preferences of
individuals (i. e., quick contact time with high leg stiness).
It is not always clear in the literature what biomechanical
parameters lead to a better running performance and economy,
especially when only one parameter is considered in isolation.
For instance, both short [26] and long [31] contact times have
been linked to enhanced running economy, while other studies
report no marked relationship between these variables [27].
Similarly, both rearfoot [25] and mid/forefoot [21] strike pat-
terns are suggested to be more economical. However, several
studies also report no marked dierences in running economy
between rearfoot and forefoot strikers [8], with self-selections of
running gait repeatedly reported as the most ecient [1, 8]. Dif-
ferences in running mechanics between studies and individuals
can be attributed to several factors [11], including running
speed, surface, and training level [11, 12]. Even amongst the top-
nishers of a race, stride mechanics dier. It is possible that
inherent characteristics of individuals, including neuromuscular
[19, 24] and architectural [19] attributes, contribute to dier-
ences in fundamental movement patterns and global motor
coordination of runners.
Using a simple, eld-based, subjective scale, the Volodalen®
method considers several criteria that seem independent (e. g.,
foot strike and arm swing) and combines them to classify run-
ning patterns into aerial and terrestrial. This approach agrees
with previous suggestions that a runner needs to be considered
as a dynamic system, wherein the alteration in one aspect of the
running gait is likely to alter another [21]. Pilot testing suggests
acceptable intra- and inter-experimenter reliability of the
V®score with a CV of 6.1 ± 7.0 % and 6.6 ± 6.5 %, respectively.
Although a more extensive reliability study is warranted to con-
rm results, it appears that the Volodalen® method can be reli-
ably used by both novice and expert coaches to better understand
and train runners on the basis of biomechanical observations. A
more detailed biomechanical analysis that investigates each of
the criteria presented in
●
▶ Fig. 1, their inter-dependence, and
their relationship to the Volodalen® classication system is also
warranted to further validate this approach. Then, the next step
would be to investigate whether coaches need to address the
entire running pattern of individuals (e. g., vertical oscillation of
Fig. 2 Subjective scores for each technical criteria included in the
Volodalen® method.
5.0
*****
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0 Vertical
oscillation
of the head
Arms
movement
Pelvis
position at
ground
contact
Foot
position at
ground
contact
Strike
pattern
Aerial runnersTerrestrial runners
Downloaded by: IP-Proxy University of Utah, University of Utah. Copyrighted material.

IJSM/4752/1.10.2015/MPS
Training & Testing
Gindre C et al. Aerial and Terrestrial Patterns. Int J Sports Med
the head, pelvis position, and foot strike) simultaneously and
base recommendations according the Volodalen® classication
system rather than focusing on a single parameter (e. g., foot
strike) to enhance performance.
The aerial pattern was objectively associated with a shorter con-
tact time and a higher leg stiness than the terrestrial pattern,
and subjectively associated with a mid-forefoot strike pattern.
All these characteristics are proposed to increase the ability of
the lower-extremity to store and release elastic energy via the
spring-mass model during running [7], engaging the plantar
arch and Achilles tendon dierently than when using a rearfoot
strike pattern [14]. Kyröläinen et al. [17] have suggested that
stier muscles around the ankles and the knees during touch-
down can enhance force potentiation during push-o, and
increase the mechanical eciency of runners. Theoretically, the
aerial pattern could rely on a better utilization of the stretch-
shortening cycle compared to the terrestrial pattern to optimize
running performance and reduce energy cost.
In contrast, the terrestrial pattern was objectively associated
with a shorter ight time, longer ground contact time, and a
higher leg compression than the aerial pattern, and subjectively
associated with a rearfoot strike pattern and a low vertical oscil-
lation. These parameters do not promote the store and release of
elastic energy through the mechanisms suggested above.
Instead, the mechanical eciency of terrestrial runners theo-
retically relies on their ability to generate forces over a longer
period of time and minimize vertical displacements. Indeed,
longer contact times permit forces to be generated over a longer
period of time, with an inverse relationship existing between
the energy cost of running and ground contact time [15]. Shorter
ight times are usually associated with decreased vertical oscil-
lations of the center of mass [13], which is recognized as being
more economical [9, 31]. In summary, the terrestrial pattern
could utilize energy to propel the body forward rather than
upward to a greater extent than the aerial pattern.
The above presents a paradox whereby aerial and terrestrial run-
ning both presents with advantages regarding running econo my
and performance. Based on biomechanical analysis, we hypoth-
esized that the aerial pattern relies on the stretch-shortening
cycle and the return of elastic energy to minimize energy
expenditure, whereas the terrestrial pattern minimizes energy
expenditure through reduced vertical oscillation and external
work. Consequently, we believe that there may be a generally
benecial set of mechanical parameters for aerial runners and
another for terrestrial runners.
Yet, in agreement with previous studies [1, 7], we also believe
that runners select movement patterns that optimize their own
running economy and that there may be an optimal set of
parameters at an individual level. To a certain extent, the
Volodalen® method can be perceived as a sliding scale, whereby
adjusting dierent parameters would lead to enhanced perfor-
mance based on preferred running style. Athletes and coaches
can use the Volodalen® method to evaluate and modify the run-
ning technique, favoring either the aerial or terrestrial pattern
depending on what might benet the athlete the most. Here, the
training prescription would rely on the subjective evaluation of
the coach, with the training aiming to either encourage certain
characteristics of an individual's pattern (e. g., promote forefoot
strike in aerial runners) or promote the alternate pattern when
characteristics are overly expressed (e. g., reduce vertical oscilla-
tion in an aerial runner with excessive vertical displacements).
Furthermore, it could be that aerial and terrestrial runners
respond preferentially to dierent types of training interven-
tions geared towards improving their performance. For instance,
integrating plyometric training in aerial runners might enhance
their running economy, but minimally inuence terrestrial run-
ners. In contrast, resistance training that improves leg strength
and power might further benet terrestrial rather than aerial
runners, which would need to be veried through a standard-
ized intervention study.
Age has been shown to inuence self-selected running strategies
and might have confounded our results. More precisely, Cavagna
et al. [5] observed that older vs. younger subjects (mean age:
73.6 vs. 20.8 years) run with lower vertical oscillations of the
center of mass and shorter ight times, implying lesser storage-
and-release of elastic energy during the gait cycle. According to
the Volodalen® classication, older individuals might preferen-
tially adopt a terrestrial running pattern, whereas younger indi-
viduals might self-select an aerial one. However, this assumption
requires a more precise investigation given that no dierence in
the mean age of our terrestrial and aerial runners was observed.
Contact and ight time were the only 2 parameters measured in
this study and employed to model the spring-mass variables.
Although the use of a force platform would have been desirable,
Morin et al. [23] have validated the computational approaches
that we employed here, reporting low bias (from 0.1 to 6.9 %)
between force platform and modeled values for leg stiness, ver-
tical stiness, leg length changes, maximal force, and centre of
gravity displacements during running. As such, we can be rela-
tively condent that our modeled results would approximate
those measured directly from a force platform. Another limita-
tion of this study was the focus on temporal and spring-mass
variables without quantication of joint biomechanics or ener-
getic cost. Of course, running economy and mechanics rely on
complex interactions between the metabolic, cardiorespiratory,
biomechanical, and neurological systems [4]. More comprehen-
Running
group
3.3 m · s−1 4.2 m · s− 1 5 m · s− 1 ANOVA running
groupeect
Aerial Terrestrial Aerial Terrestrial Aerial Terrestrial
tc (ms) 257 ± 18 273 ± 20 * 222 ± 16 236 ± 18 * 198 ± 13 209 ± 16 * < 0.001
tf (ms) 111 ± 19 91 ± 20 * 134 ± 17 116 ± 17 * 143 ± 17 127 ± 16 * < 0.001
f (step.s − 1) 2.73 ± 0.12 2.76 ± 0.17 2.81 ± 0.12 2.84 ± 0.17 2.95 ± 0.14 3.00 ± 0.21 NS
Δz (cm) 6.7 ± 0.6 6.3 ± 0.8 * 6.3 ± 0.5 6.2 ± 0.7 5.7 ± 0.5 5.6 ± 0.7 0.020
ΔL (cm) 13.5 ± 1.3 14.2 ± 1.8 14.5 ± 1.6 15.5 ± 2.0 * 15.0 ± 1.6 16.3 ± 2.2 * < 0.001
Fmax (kN) 1.54 ± 0.21 1.47 ± 0.22 * 1.73 ± 0.23 1.62 ± 0.23 * 1.86 ± 0.25 1.74 ± 0.23 * < 0.001
kvert (kN.m − 1) 23.3 ± 3.4 23.0 ± 3.5 27.6 ± 4.2 26.5 ± 3.8 31.4 ± 5.0 31.4 ± 4.7 NS
kleg (kN.m − 1) 11.6 ± 2.0 10.4 ± 2.0 * 12.2 ± 2.4 10.6 ± 2.0 * 12.6 ± 2.5 10.9 ± 1.8 * < 0.001
Values are mean ± SD. The asterisks ( * ) indicate a signicant dierence (p < 0.05) between aerial and terrestrial running patterns at a
given speed identied using Holm Sidak procedures during post-hoc analysis
Table 1 Contact (tc) and ight
(tf) times, step frequency (f),
displacement of the centre of
mass (Δz), leg compression during
stance (ΔL), maximal force (Fmax),
and vertical (kvert) and leg (kleg)
stiness in aerial and terrestrial
runners at the 3 speeds
investigated.
Downloaded by: IP-Proxy University of Utah, University of Utah. Copyrighted material.

IJSM/4752/1.10.2015/MPS Training & Testing
Gindre C et al. Aerial and Terrestrial Patterns. Int J Sports Med
sive biomechanical and bioenergetics investigations are needed
to validate the underlying premises to the Volodalen® method
and conrm whether subjective parameters of the classication
system (e. g., vertical head displacements) are associated with
objective biomechanical measures (e. g., measured head dis-
placement using linear transducers or motion analysis).
Conclusion
▼
The aerial and terrestrial patterns determined subjectively by an
expert coach using the Volodalen® method demonstrated dis-
tinct running biomechanics parameters, providing preliminary
validation of the usefulness of this method. The terrestrial pat-
tern was associated with a longer contact time and greater leg
compression than the aerial pattern, while the latter was associ-
ated with greater ight time, center of mass displacement, max-
imal vertical force, and leg stiness. These ndings highlight
that qualitative assessments of running patterns using a holistic
subjective approach provides insight into the biomechanics of
running gait of individuals in absence of objective measurement
tools. Understanding the running preference of individuals
might assist in individualizing their training programs.
Acknowledgements
▼
This study was supported by the University of Franche Comté
(France) and the Exercise, Performance, Health, and Innovation
platform of Besançon and Volodalen Company. The results of the
current study do not constitute endorsement of the product by
the authors or the journal. The authors thank the subjects for
their time and cooperation.
Conictof interest: The authors have no conict of interest to
declare.
Aliations
1 Research and Development department, Volodalen Compagny, Chaveria,
France
2 Research unit EA4660, Culture Sport Health Society and Exercise Perfor-
mance Health Innovation platform, Franche-Comté University, Besançon,
France.
3 National Sports Institute of Malaysia, National Sports Complex, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia
4 Clinical Investigation Centre, INSERM CIT 808, CHRU, Besançon, France
References
1 Arellano CJ, Kram R. The eects of step width and arm swing on ener-
getic cost and lateral balance during running. J Biomech 2011; 44:
1291–1295
2 Arellano CJ, Kram R. The metabolic cost of human running: is swinging
the arms worth it? J Exp Biol 2014; 217: 2456–2461
3 Arendse RE, Noakes TD, Azevedo LB, Romanov N, Schwellnus MP, Fletcher
G. Reduced eccentric loading of the knee with the pose running
method. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004; 36: 272–277
4 Barnes KR, Kilding AE. Strategies to improve running economy. Sports
Med 2015; 45: 37–56
5 Cavagna GA, Legramandi MA, Peyré-Tartaruga LA. Old men running:
mechanical work and elastic bounce. Proc Biol Sci 2008; 275: 411–418
6 Coh M, Milanović D, Kampmiller T. Morphologic and kinematic charac-
teristics of elite sprinters. Coll Antropol 2001; 25: 605–610
7 Dumke CL, Pfaenroth CM, McBride JM, McCauley GO. Relationship
between muscle strength, power and stiness and running economy
in trained male runners. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2010; 5: 249–261
8 Gruber AH, Umberger BR, Braun B, Hamill J. Economy and rate of car-
bohydrate oxidation during running with rearfoot and forefoot strike
patterns. J Appl Physiol 1985 2013; 115: 194–201
9 Halvorsen K, Eriksson M, Gullstrand L. Acute eects of reducing verti-
cal displacement and step frequency on running economy. J Strength
Cond Res 2012; 26: 2065–2070
10 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Ethical standards in sport and exercise science
research: 2014 update. Int J Sports Med 2013; 34: 1025–1028
11 Hatala KG, Dingwall HL, Wunderlich RE, Richmond BG. Variation in
foot strike patterns during running among habitually barefoot popula-
tions. PloS One 2013; 8: e52548
12 Hébert-Losier K, Jensen K, Mourot L, Holmberg H-C. The inuence of
surface on the running velocities of elite and amateur orienteer ath-
letes. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2014; 24: e448–e455
13 Hébert-Losier K, Mourot L, Holmberg H-C. Elite and amateur orien-
teers’ running biomechanics on three surfaces at three speeds. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 2015; 47: 381–389
14 Ker RF, Bennett MB, Bibby SR, Kester RC, Alexander RM. The spring in
the arch of the human foot. Nature 1987; 325: 147–149
15 Kram R, Taylor CR. Energetics of running: a new perspective. Nature
1990; 346: 265–267
16 Kulmala J-P, Avela J, Pasanen K, Parkkari J. Forefoot strikers exhibit
lower running-induced knee loading than rearfoot strikers. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 2013; 45: 2306–2313
17 Kyröläinen H, Belli A, Komi PV. Biomechanical factors aecting running
economy. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001; 33: 1330–1337
18 Lee CR, Farley CT. Determinants of the center of mass trajectory in
human walking and running. J Exp Biol 1998; 201: 2935–2944
19 Mangine GT, Fukuda DH, Townsend JR, Wells AJ, Gonzalez AM, Jajtner
AR, Bohner JD, LaMonica M, Homan JR, Fragala MS, Stout JR. Sprint-
ing performance on the Woodway Curve 3.0(TM) is related to muscle
architecture. Eur J Sport Sci 2014; 1–9
20 McMahon TA, Valiant G, Frederick EC. Groucho running. J Appl Physiol
1985 1987; 62: 2326–2337
21 Di Michele R, Merni F. The concurrent eects of strike pattern and
ground-contact time on running economy. J Sci Med Sport 2014; 17:
414–418
22 Moreno FJ, Reina R, Luis V, Sabido R. Visual search strategies in experi-
enced and inexperienced gymnastic coaches. Percept Mot Skills 2002;
95: 901–902
23 Morin JB, Dalleau G, Kyröläinen H, Jeannin T, Belli A. A simple method
for measuring stiness during running. J Appl Biomech 2005; 21:
167–180
24 Nummela AT, Paavolainen LM, Sharwood KA, Lambert MI, Noakes TD,
Rusko HK. Neuromuscular factors determining 5 km running per-
formance and running economy in well-trained athletes. Eur J Appl
Physiol 2006; 97: 1–8
25 Ogueta-Alday A, Rodríguez-Marroyo JA, García-López J. Rearfoot strik-
ing runners are more economical than midfoot strikers. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 2014; 46: 580–585
26 Paavolainen LM, Nummela AT, Rusko HK. Neuromuscular characteris-
tics and muscle power as determinants of 5-km running performance.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31: 124–130
27 Støren Ø, Helgerud J, Ho J. Running stride peak forces inversely deter-
mine running economy in elite runners. J Strength Cond Res 2011;
25: 117–123
28 Tartaruga MP, Brisswalter J, Peyré-Tartaruga LA, Avila AOV, Alberton
CL, Coertjens M, Cadore EL, Tiggemann CL, Silva EM, Kruel LFM. The
relationship between running economy and biomechanical variables
in distance runners. Res Q Exerc Sport 2012; 83: 367–375
29 Thompson A, Bezodis IN, Jones RL. An in-depth assessment of expert
sprint coaches’ technical knowledge. J Sports Sci 2009; 27: 855–861
30 Weyand PG, Sternlight DB, Bellizzi MJ, Wright S. Faster top running
speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg
movements. J Appl Physiol 1985 2000; 89: 1991–1999
31 Williams KR, Cavanagh PR. Relationship between distance running
mechanics, running economy, and performance. J Appl Physiol 1985
1987; 63: 1236–1245
Downloaded by: IP-Proxy University of Utah, University of Utah. Copyrighted material.