We systematically reviewed observational and clinical trials (baseline) studies examining differences in gait parameters between Parkinson’s disease (PD) in on-medication state and healthy control. Four electronic databases were searched (November-2018 and updated in October-2020). Independent researchers identified studies that evaluated gait parameters measured quantitatively during self-selected walking speed. Risk of bias was assessed using an instrument proposed by Downs and Black (1998). Pooled effects were reported as standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals using a random-effects model. A total of 72 studies involving 3027 participants (1510 with PD and 1517 health control) met the inclusion criteria. The self-selected walking speed, stride length, swing time and hip excursion were reduced in people with PD compared with healthy control. Additionally, PD subjects presented higher cadence and double support time. Although with a smaller difference for treadmill, walking speed is reduced both on treadmill (.13 m s⁻¹) and on overground (.17 m s⁻¹) in PD. The self-select walking speed, stride length, cadence, double support, swing time and sagittal hip angle were altered in people with PD compared with healthy control. The precise determination of these modifications will be beneficial in determining which intervention elements are most critical in bringing about positive, clinically meaningful changes in individuals with PD (PROSPERO protocol CRD42018113042).

Endurance running has become an immensely popular sporting activity, with millions of recreational runners around the world. Despite the great popularity of endurance running as a recreational activity during leisure time, there is no consensus on the best practice for recreational runners to effectively train to reach their individual objectives and improve physical performance in a healthy manner. Moreover, there are lots of anecdotal data without scientific support, while most scientific evidence on endurance running was developed from studies observing both recreational and professional athletes of different levels. Further, the transference of all this information to only recreational runners is difficult due to differences in the genetic predisposition for endurance running, the time available for training, and physical, psychological, and physiological characteristics. Therefore, the aim of this review is to present a selection of scientific evidence regarding endurance running to provide training guidelines to be used by recreational runners and their coaches. The review will focus on some key aspects of the training process, such as periodization, training methods and monitoring, performance prediction, running technique, and prevention and management of injuries associated with endurance running.

Nordic Walking (NW) owes much of its popularity to the benefits of greater energy expenditure and upper body engagement than found in conventional walking (W). Muscle activation during NW is still understudied, however. The aim of the present study was to assess differences in muscle activation and physiological responses between NW and W in level and uphill walking conditions. Nine expert Nordic Walkers (mean age 36.8±11.9 years; BMI 24.2±1.8 kg/m²) performed 5-minute treadmill trials of W and NW at 4 km/h on inclines of 0% and 15%. The electromyographic activity of seven upper body and five leg muscles and oxygen consumption (VO₂) were recorded and pole force during NW was measured. VO₂ during NW was 22.3% higher at 0% and only 6.9% higher at 15% than during W, while upper body muscle activation was 2- to 15-fold higher under both conditions. Lower body muscle activation was similarly increased during NW and W in the uphill condition, whereas the increase in erector spinae muscle activity was lower during NW than W. The lack of a significant increase in pole force during uphill walking may explain the lower extra energy expenditure of NW, indicating less upper body muscle activation to lift the body against gravity. NW seemed to reduce lower back muscle contraction in the uphill condition, suggesting that walking with poles may reduce effort to control trunk oscillations and could contribute to work production during NW. Although the difference in extra energy expenditure between NW and W was smaller in the uphill walking condition, the increased upper body muscle involvement during exercising with NW may confer additional benefit compared to conventional walking also on uphill terrains. Furthermore, people with low back pain may gain benefit from pole use when walking uphill.

There is physiological and biomechanical evidence suggesting a possible advantage of using poles in walking training programs. The purpose of this proof-of-concept study was to test the hypothesis that untrained elderly training Nordic walking for eight weeks will show higher improvements on the functional mobility, quality of life and postural balance than that training without poles; more likely to occur in self-selected walking speed (primary outcome), and the locomotor rehabilitation index than the quality of life, the static balance and the dynamic stability. It was a two-arm randomized sample- and load-controlled study. Thirty-three untrained older people were randomly assigned into Nordic walking (n = 16, age: 64.6±4.1 years old) and free walking (n = 17, age: 68.6±3.9 years old) training groups. Improvements in the self-selected walking speed (primary outcome, p = 0.011, ES = 0.42 95%CI -0.31 to 1.16), locomotor rehabilitation index (p = 0.013, ES = 0.36; (95%CI -0.39 to 1.10), quality of life (p<0.05), static balance (p<0.05) and dynamic variability (p<0.05) were found in both groups. The hypothesis was not supported, our findings indicated that after 8 weeks, the Nordic walking training did not result in greater improvements than free walking training for the primary outcome (self-selected walking speed) and most of the secondary outcomes (including locomotor rehabilitation index, static balance, dynamic stability, and psychological and social participation domains of quality of life). ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03096964.