The degree to which standard laboratory gait assessments accurately reflect impact loading in an outdoor running environment is currently unknown. Purpose: To compare tibial shock between treadmill and road marathon conditions. Methods: One hundred ninety-two runners (men/women, 105/87; age, 44.9 ± 10.8 yr) completed a treadmill gait assessment while wearing a tibial-mounted inertial measurement unit, several days before completing a marathon race. Participants ran at 90% of their projected race speed and 30 s of tibial shock data were collected. Participants then wore the sensors during the race and tibial shock was averaged over the 12th, 23rd, and 40th kilometers. One-way analysis of covariance and correlation coefficients were used to compare vertical/resultant tibial shock between treadmill and marathon conditions. Analyses were adjusted for differences in running speed between conditions. Results: A significant main effect of condition was found for mean vertical and resultant tibial shock (P < 0.001). Early in the marathon (12-km point), runners demonstrated higher mean tibial shock adjusted for speed compared with the treadmill data (vertical = +24.3% and resultant = +30.3%). Mean differences decreased across the course of the marathon. Vertical tibial shock at the 40th kilometer of the race was similar to treadmill data, and resultant shock remained higher. Vertical and resultant tibial shock were significantly correlated between treadmill and the 12th kilometer of the race (r _s = 0.64–0.65, P < 0.001), with only 40% to 42% of the variance in outdoor tibial shock explained by treadmill measures. Correlations for tibial shock showed minimal changes across stages of the marathon. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that measures of impact loading in an outdoor running environment are not fully captured on a treadmill.

Despite its positive influence on physical and mental wellbeing, running is associated with a high incidence of musculoskeletal injury. Potential modifiable risk factors for running-related injury have been identified, including running biomechanics. Gait retraining is used to address these biomechanical risk factors in injured runners. While recent systematic reviews of biomechanical risk factors for running-related injury and gait retraining have been conducted, there is a lack of information surrounding the translation of gait retraining for injured runners into clinical settings. Gait retraining studies in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome have shown a decrease in pain and increase in functionality through increasing cadence, decreasing hip adduction, transitioning to a non-rearfoot strike pattern, increasing forward trunk lean, or a combination of some of these techniques. This literature suggests that gait retraining could be applied to the treatment of other injuries in runners, although there is limited evidence to support this specific to other running-related injuries. Components of successful gait retraining to treat injured runners with running-related injuries are presented.

Inertial measurement units (IMUs) attached to the distal tibia are a validated method of measuring lower-extremity impact accelerations, called tibial accelerations (TAs), in runners. However, no studies have investigated the effects of small errors in IMU placement, which would be expected in real-world, autonomous use of IMUs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a small proximal shift in IMU location on mean TAs and relationships between TAs and ground reaction force loading rates. IMUs were strapped to 18 injury-free runners at a specified standard location (∼1 cm proximal to medial malleolus) and 2 cm proximal to the standard location. TAs and ground reaction forces were measured while participants ran at self-selected and 10% slower/faster speeds. Mean TA was lower at the standard versus proximal IMU location in the faster running condition (P = .026), but similar in the slower (P = .643) and self-selected conditions (P = .654). Mean TAs measured at the standard IMU explained more variation in ground reaction force loading rates (r² = .79−.90; P < .001) compared with those measured at the proximal IMU (r² = .65−.72; P < .001). These results suggest that careful attention should be given to IMU placement when measuring TAs during running.