Search

Introduction and purpose Running is currently one of the most popular physical activities practiced by people around the world, and the number of runners has been growing significantly for many years. The incidence of running-related lower limb injuries in runners ranges between 19.4% and 79.3% [1]. The paper presents research results on the main types of injuries of the musculoskeletal system of the lower limb in runners, their risk factors, methods of treatment and prevention. The results indicate a significant relationship between regular training and the occurrence of injuries, and also emphasize the importance of prevention through rest, appropriate running technique and the selection of footwear. The work provides practical tips for runners and coaches that can help reduce the risk of injuries and improve the quality of training. Materials and methods The review was conducted by searching PubMed and other scientific databases focusing on currently available publications. The literature available in the PubMed database was reviewed using the following keywords: “running”, “running injuries”, “tendinopathy”, "running related injuries”, “running biomechanics”, “musculoskeletal injuries”. The analysis of 38 articles published between 2014-2024 was used to write the paper. Conclusions Running has many health benefits, but unfortunately it can also have a negative effect. The development of medical literature regarding appropriate prevention, knowledge of risk factors and treatment methods improves the prognosis of injuries in runners. Evolving diagnostic imaging, body monitoring, prevention, and adequate rest between activities are essential to long-term success in preventing running-related injuries.

Abstract Background Running retraining is commonly used in the management of medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS) but evidence for its effectiveness is lacking. The primary aim of this study is to determine if the addition of running retraining to best standard care is beneficial in the management of runners with MTSS. Methods This study is an assessor‐blinded and participant‐blinded, parallel‐group, randomised controlled trial. The trial will recruit 64 participants aged between 18 and 45 years, with a clinical diagnosis of MTSS that has affected their running participation for at least four weeks. Participants will be randomised to receive best standard care (control) or running retraining and best standard care (intervention group) over an 8‐week period. Best standard care will consist of load management advice, symptom management advice, footwear advice and a strengthening program. Running retraining will consist of a cue to reduce running step length. Outcomes will be measured at weeks 1, 2, 4 and 8. The primary outcome measure will be the University of Wisconsin Running Injury and Recovery Index at week 4. Secondary outcome measures include: (i) Exercise Induced Leg Pain Questionnaire—British Version, (ii) global rating of change scale, (iii) worst pain experienced during a run, (iv) weekly run volume, (v) reactive strength index score, (vi) single leg hop test, (vii) soleus single leg maximum voluntary isometric contraction, (viii) gastrocnemius single leg maximum voluntary isometric contraction, (ix) single leg plantar flexor endurance test, (x) running step length, and (xi) running step rate. Data will be analysed using the intention‐to‐treat principle. Discussion This randomised controlled trial will evaluate if reducing running step length provides additional benefit to best standard care in the management of runners with MTSS over an 8‐week period. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12624000230550.

Abstract Background Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is among the most common injuries in runners. While multiple risk factors for patellofemoral pain have been investigated, the interactions of variables contributing to this condition have not been explored. This study aimed to classify runners with patellofemoral pain using a combination of factors including biomechanical, anthropometric, and demographic factors through a Classification and Regression Tree analysis. Results Thirty-eight runners with PFP and 38 healthy controls (CON) were selected with mean (standard deviation) age 33 (16) years old and body mass index 22.3 (2.6) kg/m2. Each ran at self-selected speed, but no between-group difference was identified (PFP = 2.54 (0.2) m/s x CON = 2.55 (0.1) m/s, P = .660). Runners with patellofemoral pain had different patterns of interactions involving braking ground reaction force impulse, contact time, vertical average loading rate, and age. The classification and regression tree model classified 84.2% of runners with patellofemoral pain, and 78.9% of healthy controls. The prevalence ratios ranged from 0.06 (95% confidence interval: 0.02–0.23) to 9.86 (95% confidence interval: 1.16–83.34). The strongest model identified runners with patellofemoral pain as having higher braking ground reaction force impulse, lower contact times, higher vertical average loading rate, and older age. The receiver operating characteristic curve demonstrated high accuracy at 0.83 (95% confidence interval: 0.74–0.93; standard error: 0.04; P

Previous research has predominantly focused on the biomechanical effects of anterior–posterior foot motion during running, with comparatively less attention given to medial–lateral foot motion and its impact on lower limb biomechanical characteristics. We recruited 18 healthy runners who wore five different types of running shoes: regular shoes (NS), those with a 6 mm and 9 mm medial–lateral height difference in the forefoot (M6, M9), and those with a 6 mm and 9 mm lateral–medial height difference (L6, L9). Biomechanical parameters of lower limb joints during the stance phase of running, including range of motion, peak angular velocity, peak moment, power, and work, were analyzed. We used paired-sample t-tests and one-dimensional statistical parametric mapping (SPM1D) to compare joint biomechanics between shoes with varying height differences and NS. Under the L6 condition, notable differences occurred in the hip and knee flexion–extension moments during landing and push-off, accompanied by a significant increase in ankle dorsiflexion work and a significant decrease in inversion–eversion work. In contrast, the M9 condition resulted in decreased hip flexion–extension peak moment, power, and work in the sagittal plane. These findings indicate that varying forefoot medial–lateral height differences in running shoes significantly impact lower limb joint dynamics during the stance phase, particularly the L6 condition, potentially reducing knee injury risk and aiding gait improvement for overpronators. The findings offer valuable insights for sports injury prevention and athletic footwear design. However, further research is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms and practical implications for sports injury prevention and performance enhancement.

Background: Fatigue is associated with increased injury risk along with changes in balance control and task performance. Musculoskeletal injury rates in runners are high and often result from an inability to adapt to the demands of exercise and a breakdown in the interaction among different biological systems. This study aimed to investigate whether changes in balance dynamics during a single-leg squat task following a high-intensity run could distinguish groups of recreational runners who did and did not sustain a running-related injury within 6 months.Methods: Thirty-one healthy recreational runners completed 60 s of single-leg squat before and after a high-intensity run. Six months after the assessment, this cohort was separated into two groups of 13 matched individuals with one group reporting injury within this period and the other not. Task performance was assessed by the number of repetitions, cycle time, amplitude, and speed. To evaluate balance dynamics, the regularity and temporal correlation structure of the center of mass (CoM) displacements in the transverse plane was analyzed. The interaction between groups (injury, non-injured) and time (pre, post) was assessed through a two-way ANOVA. Additionally, a one-way ANOVA investigated the percent change difference of each group across time.Results: The injured group presented more regular (reduced entropy; 15.6%) and diffusive (increased short-term persistence correlation; 5.6%) CoM displacements after a high-intensity run. No changes were observed in the non-injured group. The within-subject percent change was more sensitive in demonstrating the effects of fatigue and distinguishing the groups, compared to group absolute values. No differences were observed in task performance.Discussion: Runners who were injured in the future demonstrate changes in balance dynamics compared to runners who remain injury-free after fatigue. The single-leg squat test adopted appears to be a potential screening protocol that provides valuable information about balance dynamics for identifying a diminished ability to respond to training and exercise.

In recent years, the surge in sport and exercise participation, particularly in running, has coincided with the widespread adoption of running-related technology, such as fitness trackers. This study investigates the correlation between the use of running-related technology and running-related injuries among recreational and elite long-distance runners. We conducted a quantitative, cross-sectional online survey of 282 adult runners. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Participants, with an average age of 37.4 years, reported varied running experience, with 90.07% utilizing running-related technology during their runs to some degree, primarily smartwatches like Garmin and Apple Watch. Running-related technology users showed a higher likelihood of experiencing running-related injuries compared to non-users (OR = 0.31, p < 0.001). However, those who utilized the metrics obtained from running-related technology to guide their training decisions did not exhibit a higher risk of injury. This nuanced relationship highlights the importance of considering individual training behaviors and the potential psychological impacts of technology on running practices. The study underscores the need for future research integrating biomechanical and psychosocial factors into running-related technology to enhance injury prevention strategies.

Iliotibial band syndrome (ITBS) is one of the most common overuse syndromes causing knee pain; it is especially prevalent in runners and also common in cyclists, rowers, and field athletes, with occasional cases occurring in non-athletes too. ITBS symptoms can negatively affect not only knee function, but also mental and physical aspects of health-related quality of life. Although various conservative treatment options have been investigated and discussed, there is still no consensus on a standard of care for ITBS. Moreover, the literature on the etiology and risk factors of ITBS, which could help in selecting appropriate treatment methods, is conflicting and inconclusive. The role of individual treatment modalities such as stretching and releasing techniques has not been extensively studied and remains unclear. In this article, we will critically review the available evidence for the benefits of ITB stretching and “release” methods in the treatment of ITBS. In addition to the direct evidence (clinical studies examining the effects of ITB stretching and other methods that purportedly stretch or “release” the ITB), we present several additional lines of reasoning that discuss the rationale for ITB stretching/releasing in terms of the etiology of ITBS, the mechanical properties and behavior of the ITB, and the risk factors for ITBS development. We conclude that the current literature provides some evidence for the inclusion of stretching or other “release” methods in the early rehabilitation of ITBS. Long-term interventions typically include ITB stretching; however, it remains unclear to what extent stretching within a multimodal treatment actually contributes to resolving the symptoms. At the same time, there is no direct evidence to suggest that stretching and “release” methods have any negative effects.

Recent studies have suggested that 95% of modern runners land with a rearfoot strike (RFS) pattern. However, we hypothesize that running with an RFS pattern is indicative of an evolutionary mismatch that can lead to musculoskeletal injury. This perspective is predicated on the notion that our ancestors evolved to run barefoot and primarily with a forefoot strike (FFS) pattern. We contend that structures of the foot and ankle are optimized for forefoot striking which likely led to this pattern in our barefoot state. We propose that the evolutionary mismatch today has been driven by modern footwear that has altered our footstrike pattern. In this paper, we review the differences in foot and ankle function during both a RFS and FFS running pattern. This is followed by a discussion of the interaction of footstrike and footwear on running mechanics. We present evidence supporting the benefits of forefoot striking with respect to common running injuries such as anterior compartment syndrome and patellofemoral pain syndrome. We review the importance of a gradual shift to FFS running to reduce transition-related injuries. In sum, we will make an evidence-based argument for the use of minimal footwear with a FFS pattern to optimize foot strength and function, minimize ground reaction force impacts and reduce injury risk.

This study investigated the effectiveness of an 8-week foot-core exercise training program on foot-ankle kinematics during running and also on running kinetics (impact loads), with particular interest in biomechanical outcomes considered risk factors for running-related injuries in recreational runners. A single-blind, randomized, controlled trial was conducted with 87 recreational runners randomly allocated to either the control (CG) or intervention (IG) group and assessed at baseline and after 8 weeks. The IG underwent foot-core training 3 times/week, while the CG followed a placebo lower-limb stretching protocol. The participants ran on a force-instrumented treadmill at a self-selected speed while foot-segment motion was captured simultaneously with kinetic measurements. After the intervention, there were statistically significant changed in foot biomechanics, such as: IG participants strike the ground with a more inverted calcaneus and a less dorsiflexed midfoot than those in the CG; at midstance, ran with a less plantarflexed and more adducted forefoot and a more abducted hallux; and at push-off, ran with a less dorsiflexed midfoot and a less adducted and more dorsiflexed hallux. The IG runners also had significantly decreased medial longitudinal arch excursion (p = 0.024) and increased rearfoot inversion (p = 0.037). The 8-week foot-core exercise program had no effect on impact (p = 0.129) and breaking forces (p = 0.934) or on vertical loading rate (p = 0.537), but it was positively effective in changing foot-ankle kinematic patterns.”

We investigated how midfoot stiffness of running shoes influences foot segment kinematics and ground reaction force (GRF) during heel-toe running. Nineteen male rearfoot strike runners performed overground heel-toe running at 3.3 m/s when wearing shoes with different midfoot bending stiffnesses (low, medium, and high) in a randomized order. A synchronized motion capture system (200 Hz) and force plate (1000 Hz) were used to collect the foot-marker trajectories and GRF data. Foot kinematics, including rearfoot-lab, midfoot-rearfoot, forefoot-rearfoot, and forefoot-midfoot interactions, and kinetics, including GRF characteristics, were analyzed. Our results indicated that high midfoot stiffness shoes reduced the forefoot-rearfoot range of motion (mean ± SD; high stiffness, 7.8 ± 2.0°, low stiffness, 8.7 ± 2.1°; p < 0.05) and forefoot-midfoot range of motion (mean ± SD; high stiffness, 4.2 ± 1.1°, medium stiffness, 4.6 ± 0.9°; p < 0.05) in the frontal plane. No differences were found in the GRF characteristics among the shoe conditions. These findings suggest that an increase in midsole stiffness only in the midfoot region can reduce intersegmental foot medial-lateral movements during the stance phase of running. This may further decrease the tension of the foot muscles and tendons during prolonged exercises.

Background: Six experts in the field of running-related research have critically addressed a proposal to abandon the paradigms of ‘impact force’ and ‘pronation control’ when investigating running shoes, running injury, and running performance. Further, these experts have commented on the suggestion of the new paradigms of ‘muscle tuning’ and the ‘preferred movement path’ that can be used to investigate questions related to running injuries and performance as well running shoe design and comfort. This publication synthesizes and addresses the main criticisms of the experts and describes future directions to further develop the ‘muscle tuning and ‘preferred movement’ paradigms.

Abstract Background Medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS) is a lower leg injury with a reported incidence rate of up to 35% in active individuals. Although numerous prospective studies have tried to identify risk factors for developing MTSS, managing the syndrome remains difficult. One risk factor yet to be extensively explored in MTSS development is reduced lower leg girth. Further investigation of reduced lower leg girth is required due to the important role lower leg musculature plays in attenuating ground reaction forces during the gait cycle. Therefore, the primary aim of this study is to ascertain whether lower leg muscle morphology and function contribute to the development of MTSS. Our ultimate aim is to identify potential risk factors for MTSS that can be targeted in future studies to better manage the injury or, preferably, prevent individuals developing MTSS. Methods This study will be prospective in design and will recruit asymptomatic distance runners. All participants will be tested at base line and participants will have their training data longitudinally tracked over the following 12 months to assess any individuals who develop MTSS symptoms. At base line, outcome measures will include bilateral measures of lower limb anthropometry; cross sectional area (CSA) and thickness of the tibialis anterior, peroneals, flexor digitorum longus, flexor hallucis longus and thickness of soleus, medial and lateral head of gastrocnemius. Tibial bone speed of sound, ankle dorsiflexion range of motion, strength of the six previously described muscles, foot alignment and ankle plantar flexor endurance will also be assessed. Participants will also complete a treadmill running protocol where three-dimensional kinematics, plantar pressure distribution and electromyography data will be collected. Discussion This study will aim to identify characteristics of individuals who develop MTSS and, in turn, identify modifiable risk factors that can be targeted to prevent individuals developing this injury.

Background/Objective: It is important to understand the factors that influence the impact force observed during running, since the impact force is likely to be related to overuse injuries. The purpose of this study was to compare the impact force during running when participants were instructed to use different foot strike patterns: obvious heel strike (Obvious-HS), subtle heel strike (Subtle-HS), midfoot strike (Mid-FS), and fore foot strike (Fore-FS) patterns. Methods: Participants (n = 10, 25 ± 5.7 years, 70.2 ± 12.1 kg, 174.6 ± 7.2 cm) completed four foot strike patterns while running over ground: Obvious-HS, Subtle-HS, Mid-FS, and Fore-FS. Speed was controlled between conditions (random order). Vertical ground reaction forces were recorded (1000 Hz) along with the impact force, peak force, and stance time for analysis. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare each variable across foot strike instructions, with post hoc comparisons contrasting Obvious-HS to each of the other conditions. Results: Impact force was influenced by foot strike instructions, with Obvious-HS being greater than Subtle-HS and Fore-FS (p 0.05). The peak force was not influenced by foot strike instructions (p > 0.05); stance time was longer during Obvious-HS than during Mid-FS or Fore-FS (p 0.05). Conclusion: The unique observation of this study was that impact force was different when participants were instructed to run with either an Obvious-HS or a Subtle-HS at contact. Both these foot strike patterns would have been considered rear foot strike patterns, suggesting that something other than which specific part of the foot strikes the ground initially influenced impact force.

It has been suggested that increasing muscle strength could help reducing the frequency of running injuries and that a top-down approach using an increase in hip muscle strength will result in a reduced range of movement and reduced external moments at the knee and ankle level. This paper suggests, that a bottom-up approach using an increase of strength of the small muscles crossing the ankle joint, should reduce movement and loading at the ankle, knee and hip. This bottom-up approach is discussed in detail in this paper from a conceptional point of view. The ankle joint has two relatively “large” extrinsic muscles and seven relatively small extrinsic muscles. The large muscles have large levers for plantar-dorsi flexion but small levers for pro-supination. In the absence of strong small muscles the large muscles are loaded substantially when providing balancing with respect to pro-supination. Specifically, the Achilles tendon will be loaded in this situation asymmetrically with high local stresses. Furthermore, a mechanical model with springs shows that (a) the amplitude of the displacement with the strong small springs is smaller and (b) that the loading in the joints of the springs is substantially smaller for the model with the strong small springs. Additionally, strong and active small muscles crossing the ankle joint provide stability for the ankle joint (base). If they are weak, forces in the ankle, knee and hip joint increase substantially due to multiple co-contractions at the joints. Finally, movement transfer between foot and tibia is high for movements induced from the bottom and small for movements induced from the top. Based on these considerations one should speculate that the bottom-up approach may be substantially more effective in preventing running injuries than the top down approach. Various possible strategies to strengthen the small muscles of the ankle joint are presented.

The purpose of this study was to determine those risk factors that may cause running injuries in general, and particularly damage to the muscle mass, and the tendon. Twenty six male and female Galician runners were evaluated about their lower limb flexibility and length, knee Q angle, explosive power and training features such as kilometers and sessions per week, level of competition, shoes, surface, injuries last year, use of insoles, athletic specially, age, weight and height. During next 12 weeks runners continued training as they had been doing regularly and we recorded all injuries that appeared in this period. After that and from the liner regression we obtained different models that explained the variability of general injuries, tendon injuries and damages to the muscle mass. We also find positive correlations between previous injuries and training volume, and these with the dependent variable «injuries in 12 weeks». In regard to tendinopathy and muscle mass injuries, we observed that the synthetic material present in the track is a risk factor for these muscle injuries. Meanwhile, the increasing age and the Q angle, increments the occurrence of tendon injuries.

Abstract Background While minimalist running shoes may have an influence on running biomechanics and on the incidence of overuse injuries, the term “minimalist” is currently used without standardisation. The objectives of this study were to reach a consensus on a standard definition of minimalist running shoes, and to develop and validate a rating scale that could be used to determine the degree of minimalism of running shoes, the Minimalist Index (MI). Methods For this modified Delphi study, 42 experts from 11 countries completed four electronic questionnaires on an optimal definition of minimalist shoes and on elements to include within the MI. Once MI was developed following consensus, 85 participants subjectively ranked randomly assigned footwear models from the most to the least minimalist and rated their degree of minimalism using visual analog scales (VAS), before evaluating the same footwear models using MI. A subsample of thirty participants reassessed the same shoes on another occasion. Construct validity and inter‐ and intra‐rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC]; Gwet's AC1) of MI were evaluated. Results The following definition of minimalist shoes was agreed upon by 95 % of participants: “Footwear providing minimal interference with the natural movement of the foot due to its high flexibility, low heel to toe drop, weight and stack height, and the absence of motion control and stability devices”. Characteristics to be included in MI were weight, flexibility, heel to toe drop, stack height and motion control/stability devices, each subscale carrying equal weighing (20 %) on final score. Total MI score was highly correlated with VAS (r = 0.91). A significant rank effect (p