The effects of treadmill running on impact acceleration were examined together with the interaction between running surface and runner's fatigue state. Twenty recreational runners (11 men and 9 women) ran overground and on a treadmill (at 4.0 m/s) before and after a fatigue protocol consisting of a 30-minute run at 85% of individual maximal aerobic speed. Impact accelerations were analysed using two lightweight capacitive uniaxial accelerometers. A two-way repeated-measure analysis of variance showed that, in the pre-fatigue condition, the treadmill running decreased head and tibial peak impact accelerations and impact rates (the rate of change of acceleration), but no significant difference was observed between the two surfaces in shock attenuation. There was no significant difference in acceleration parameters between the two surfaces in the post-fatigue condition. There was a significant interaction between surface (treadmill and overground) and fatigue state (pre-fatigue and post-fatigue). In particular, fatigue when running overground decreased impact acceleration severity, but it had no such effect when running on the treadmill. The effects of treadmill running and the interaction need to be taken into account when interpreting the results of studies that use a treadmill in their experimental protocols, and when prescribing physical exercise.

Tibial accelerations have been associated with a number of running injuries. However, studies attaching the tibial accelerometer on the proximal section are as numerous as those attaching the accelerometer on the distal section. This study aimed to investigate whether accelerometer location influences acceleration parameters commonly reported in running literature. To fulfil this purpose, 30 athletes ran at 2.22, 2.78 and 3.33 m · s^–1 with three accelerometers attached with double-sided tape and tightened to the participants’ tolerance on the forehead, the proximal section of the tibia and the distal section of the tibia. Time-domain (peak acceleration, shock attenuation) and frequency-domain parameters (peak frequency, peak power, signal magnitude and shock attenuation in both the low and high frequency ranges) were calculated for each of the tibial locations. The distal accelerometer registered greater tibial acceleration peak and shock attenuation compared to the proximal accelerometer. With respect to the frequency-domain analysis, the distal accelerometer provided greater values of all the low-frequency parameters, whereas no difference was observed for the high-frequency parameters. These findings suggest that the location of the tibial accelerometer does influence the acceleration signal parameters, and thus, researchers should carefully consider the location they choose to place the accelerometer so that equivalent comparisons across studies can be made.