Context: Deficits in dynamic postural control predict lower limb injury. Differing fatiguing protocols negatively affect dynamic postural control. The effect of high-intensity, intermittent exercise on dynamic postural control has not been investigated.Objective: To investigate the effect of a high-intensity, intermittent exercise protocol (HIIP) on the dynamic postural control of men and women as measured by the Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT).Design: Descriptive laboratory study.Setting: University gymnasium.Patients or Other Participants: Twenty male (age = 20.83 ± 1.50 years, height = 179.24 ± 7.94 cm, mass = 77.67 ± 10.82 kg) and 20 female (age = 20.45 ± 1.34 years, height = 166.08 ± 5.83 cm, mass = 63.02 ± 6.67 kg) athletes.Intervention(s): We recorded SEBT measurements at baseline, pre-HIIP, and post-HIIP. The HIIP consisted of 4 repetitions of 10-m forward sprinting with a 90° change of direction and then backward sprinting for 5 m, 2 repetitions of 2-legged jumping over 5 hurdles, 2 repetitions of high-knee side stepping over 5 hurdles, and 4 repetitions of lateral 5-m shuffles. Participants rested for 30 seconds before repeating the circuit until they reported a score of 18 on the Borg rating of perceived exertion scale.Main Outcome Measure(s): A mixed between- and within–subjects analysis of variance was conducted to assess time (pre-HIIP, post-HIIP) × sex interaction effects. Subsequent investigations assessed the main effect of time and sex on normalized maximal SEBT scores. We used intraclass correlation coefficients to determine the test-retest reliability of the SEBT and paired-samples t tests to assess the HIIP effect on circuit times.Results: We found a time × sex effect (F8,69 = 3.5; P range, <.001–.04; η2 range, 0.057–0.219), with women less negatively affected. We also noted a main effect for time, with worse normalized maximal SEBT scores postfatigue (F8,69 = 22.39; P < .001; η2 range, 0.324–0.695), and for sex, as women scored better in 7 SEBT directions (F8,69 = 0.84; P range, <.001–008; η2 range, 0.088–0.381). The intraclass correlation coefficients demonstrated high (0.77–0.99) test-retest repeatability. Paired-samples t tests demonstrated increases in circuit time post-HIIP (P < .001).Conclusions: The HIIP-induced fatigue negatively affected normalized maximal SEBT scores. Women had better scores than men and were affected less negatively by HIIP-induced fatigue.

Background: It has been suggested that foot strike technique (FST) at initial contact is related to running-related injuries (RRIs). Purpose: To explore the relationship between FST and RRIs. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A systematic electronic search was performed using MEDLINE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Included were studies published in the English language that explored the relationship between FST and RRIs between January 1960 and November 2020. Results were extracted and collated. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was applied to synthesize the quality of evidence. Results: We reviewed 13 studies exploring the relationship between FST and RRIs. Of these, 6 studies reported FST categorically (foot strike pattern [FSP]), and 7 reported continuous measures (foot contact angle, ankle flexion angle, and strike index). Three of the 6 studies looking at categorical FSP found rearfoot strikers have a significantly greater retrospective injury rate than do non– rearfoot strikers, with 1 other study noting a greater risk associated with midfoot and forefoot strike. Regarding the continuous measures of FST, only 1 of the 7 studies reported a significant relationship with RRIs. Conclusion: There was low evidence to suggest a relationship between FST (or its subcategories of categorical FSP and continuous measures) and RRIs. While two-thirds of the categorical studies found a relationship between FSP and RRIs, these studies were very low quality, with limitations such as retrospective study design, low participant numbers, and poor FSP assessment methods. More large-scale prospective studies are required.

Background: Running-related injuries (RRIs) are a prevalent issue for runners, with several factors proposed to be causative. The majority of studies to date are limited by retrospective study design, small sample sizes and seem to focus on individual risk factors in isolation. This study aims to investigate the multifactorial contribution of risk factors to prospective RRIs. Methods: Recreational runners (n = 258) participated in the study, where injury history and training practices, impact acceleration, and running kinematics were assessed at a baseline testing session. Prospective injuries were tracked for one year. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression was performed in the analysis. Results: A total of 51% of runners sustained a prospective injury, with the calf most commonly affected. Univariate analysis found previous history of injury < 1 year ago, training for a marathon, frequent changing of shoes (every 0–3 months), and running technique (non-rearfoot strike pattern, less knee valgus, greater knee rotation) to be significantly associated with injury. The multivariate analysis revealed previous injury, training for a marathon, less knee valgus, and greater thorax drop to the contralateral side to be risk factors for injury. Conclusion: This study found several factors to be potentially causative of injury. With the omission of previous injury history, the risk factors (footwear, marathon training and running kinematics) identified in this study may be easily modifiable, and therefore could inform injury prevention strategies. This is the first study to find foot strike pattern and trunk kinematics to relate to prospective injury.

Whilst running is hugely popular, running-related injuries (RRIs) are prevalent. High impact loading has been proposed to contribute to RRIs, with accelerometers becoming increasingly popular in estimating segmental loading for injury detection and biofeedback training. However, there is a lack of research examining the reliability of measures of impact acceleration across short- and long-term time periods, both prior to and following exerted running. The aim of this study was to assess the absolute and relative reliability of shank and sacral impact accelerations over a short- and long-term time period. Peak (Peak_accel) and rate (Rate_accel) of impact acceleration at the shank and sacrum were assessed in 18 recreational runners over short- and long-term time frames, across fixed and self-selected speeds. The relative and absolute reliabilities were investigated for pre- and post-exerted states of running. There was high-to-excellent relative reliability, and predominantly moderate absolute reliability for shank and sacrum Peak_accel and Rate_accel in the short- and long-term time frames between pre- and post-exerted states. High to excellent relative reliability of Peak_accel and Rate_accel at the shank and sacrum are appropriate and acceptable measures across short- and long-term time frames. These findings were consistent with different levels of speed and exertion. The minimal detectable change % was large for both sensors and associated measurements, indicating that their use may be limited to intervention studies that elicit large change (>30%) in these measures.

Inconsistent and restricted definitions of injury have contributed to limitations in determining injury rates and identifying risk factors for running‐related injuries (RRIs). The aim of this scoping review was to investigate the definitions and surveillance methods of RRIs. A systematic electronic search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscuss, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases. Included studies were published in English between January 1980 and June 2023 which investigated RRIs in adult running populations, providing a definition for a general RRI. Results were extracted and collated. 204 articles were included. Three primary criteria were used to define RRIs: physical description, effect on training and medical intervention, while three secondary criteria are also associated with definitions: cause/onset of injury, location, and social consequences. Further descriptors and sub‐descriptors form these criteria. The use of Boolean operators resulted in nine variations in definitions. Inconsistency is evident among definitions of RRIs. Injury definitions seem to be important for two main reasons: firstly, determining accurate injury rates, and secondly, in research examining risk factors. For the latter, definitions seem to be very limited, only capturing severe injuries and failing to recognise the full development process of RRIs, precluding the identification of conclusive risk factors. A potential two‐approach solution is the initial use of a broad definition acting as a gatekeeper for identifying any potential injury, and follow‐up with an extensive surveillance tool to capture the specific consequences of the varying severity of RRIs.

Previous injury has consistently been shown to be one of the greatest risk factors for running-related injuries (RRIs). Runners returning to participation following injury may still demonstrate injury-related mechanics (e.g. repetitive high impact loading), potentially exposing them to further injuries. The aim of this study was to determine if the magnitude (Peak_accel) and rate of loading (Rate_accel) at the tibia and sacrum differ between runners who have never been injured, those who have acquired injury resistance (runners who have not been injured in the past 2 years) and those who have been recently injured (RRI sustained 3–12 months ago). Runners completed an online survey capturing details of their RRI history over the previous 2 years. Never injured runners were matched by sex, quarterly annual mileage and typical training speed to runners who had acquired injury resistance and to runners who had been recently injured. Differences in Peak_accel and Rate_accel of the tibia and sacrum were assessed between the three groups during a treadmill run at a set speed, with consideration for sex. A total of 147 runners made up the three injury status groups (n: 49 per group). There was a significant main effect of injury status for Peak_accel and Rate_accel at the sacrum, with recently injured runners demonstrating significantly greater Rate_accel than never injured and acquired injury resistant runners. There was also a significant main effect for sex, with females demonstrating greater tibial Peak_accel, sacrum Peak_accel and Rate_accel than males. Rate_accel at the sacrum distinguishes recently injured runners from never injured runners and runners who may have acquired injury resistance, potentially highlighting poor impact acceleration attenuation in recently injured runners.