In RE group, the SL decreased linearly when speed increased: 4.4, 6.2, 7.9, 10.6, and 14.0% comparing 0 and 2% grades. SL in RA group also decreased linearly, but with lesser percentile change, that is, 0.4, 2.5, 4.7, 7.9, and 10.4%. The difference between the 2 groups was significant at 3.89 and 4.17 m·s− 1, only. Comparing the changes at 0 and 7%, the decrease was 8.0, 10.2, 12.4, 15.6, and 18.7% for RE and 3.5, 5.1, 6.5, 10.2, and 14.5% for RA. Comparing the 2 groups, only RE showed significantly greater change at 3.89, 4.17, and 4.44 5 m·s− 1.
The percentile change in step frequency increased for both groups. However, the change was greater for RE (4.1, 5.8, 7.2, 9.5, and 12.1%) than for RA (0.4, 2.4, 4.5, 7.3, and 9.5%) at 0 and 2%. The difference between the 2 groups was significant at 3.89 and 4.17 m·s− 1 only. Comparing 0 and 7% running grade, the percentile change was greater for RE (7.3, 9.2, 11.0, 13.3, and 15.6%) than for RA (1.4, 3.3, 5.0, 8.5, and 11.8%) and the difference between the 2 groups was significant at 3.89, 4.17, and 4.44 m·s− 1.
In RE group, the percentile change of CT was less pronounced compared with SL and SF at both 0–2% grade (4.4, 3.9, 4.3, 4.8, and 6.1%) and 0–7% grade (3.3, 1.9, 2.8, 3.2, and 3.7%). In RA group, the percentile alteration of CT in 0–2% was positive (0.6, 1.5, 1.2, 1.2, and 2.1%) similar to RE, indicating shorter CT at 2% grade than at 0%, increasing the gap between the groups (Figure 2). In fact, the difference between the 2 groups in mean percentile changes was not significant with 2 exceptions. Namely, the increase in CT was significantly greater for RA than the decrease for RE running on 7% grade at the speed of 4.44 and 4.72 m·s− 1.
Fight time decreased almost with the same percentage in RE (0–2%: 4.3, 8.3, 11.1, 15.8, and 20.9%; 0–7%: 12.7, 18.6, 22.0, 27.7, and 33.3%) and in RA (0–2%: 3.5, 6.6, 11.5, 17.9, and 21.8%; 0–7%: 13.5,16.6, 21.3, 29.7, and 35.8%). There are significant differences between percentile changes at 0–2% and 0–7% in both groups. A significant difference was found between the 2 groups.
The study was aimed at focusing the footstep characteristic kinematic variables, that is, SL, step frequency (SF), CT, and FT, at 5 running speeds and considering 3 different slopes, that is, 0, 2, and 7%, in amateur and elite marathon runners.
The rationales carrying out the study were that marathon runners perform the distance on road with altering grades, and the speed has to be changed according to altered in a function of the different circumstances, which have not yet been considered in previous laboratory studies. It is expected that the international level athletes' running pattern (technique) is better adapted to the need of efficient work output than that of amateur runners who would react differently to the altered circumstances. The data of the present study demonstrated that the increased speed and slope gradient elicited distinct changes in SL, step frequency, CT, and FT, showing marked differences between elite and amateur marathon runners.
As it was expected, the SL, SF, FT increased, and CT decreased with the increased running speed in both groups. The greatest alteration occurred in SL and CT, indicating the significance of these 2 kinematic variables at increasing running speeds. Because there is no significant difference in the percentile alterations between the 2 groups, except for a longer FT and a higher SF found in RE (Figure 1), we may assume that the difference in marathon running performance could be attributed to the difference in power output rather than to the difference in kinematic pattern.
Similar to level running, SL and SF increased and CT decreased when running speed increased. In contrast to level running, FT decreased, more in RA than in RE, when running speed increased because of the belt inclination (i.e., the foot touches earlier the belt than in level running). At all speeds, the means of all variables were less than those of level running. The minimum alteration occurred in CT and the maximal in FT; we observed at the same time an increase of the gap in both parameters between RE and RA (Figure 1).
However, RE decreased in SL and CT and increased SF. In contrast, the RA maintained CT unchanged compared with the increased slope using a higher value with respect to RE. Probably, at 2% uphill slope, elite and amateurs runners adopt different mechanical strategies to increase velocity. In fact, while in RA the velocity increase was because of a higher as SF, RE achieve the same goal by increasing SL-SF and by reducing the CT, thus allowing them to run more efficiently (Figure 2C). However, the difference in percentile alterations between the 2 groups was significant in SL and SF at the 2 highest running speeds, whereas no difference was observed at a lower speed. On the contrary, considering the absolute value, the difference between RE and RA regarded the FT only because the gap in SL and SF observed at level in both groups is minimal. It seems that the RE group uses a biomechanical strategy aimed at better harmonize the SL, step frequency, CT, and FT during faster running.
In both groups, SL and SF increased, whereas CT and FT decreased when increasing speed. The means of all variables at each speed were less than at level or 2% slope running in both groups, except for the CT in RA that was longer than during level or 2% slope running. In both groups, the difference between 2 and 7% uphill running with respect to CT variable was not significant, whereas their gap increased further (Figure 1).
The means of SL decreased and SF increased, CT remained unchanged in RE. In contrast, in RA SL, SF and FT were almost the same as at 2% slope and CT was longer than that during level or 2% uphill running. The percentile change difference between the 2 groups was significant in SL, SF, FT, and CT at higher speeds. The gap between the 2 groups was reduced as to SL and SF while an increase in CT and FT was found. This result may indicate a better adaptation to the increased load for elite marathon runners, that is, the higher speed and greater incline for RE was not so unusual as for RA. Comparing RE and RA reactions with the altered slopes, it seems that RE were able to adapt better than RA. This assumption was based on variables' alteration in both groups because of the altered gradient. A significant change was found in SL and SF when increasing the gradient up 2% at all speeds in RE. RA did not significantly change in SL and SF at 3.89, 4.17, and 4.44 m·s− 1 speed. Significant change occurred only at the 2 highest speeds. Therefore, the gradient increase did not result in significant change in either group except for the FT that showed a significant difference between the 2 groups and decreased significantly because of slope increase. This result may indicate that the alteration in FT is not only influenced by the gradient degree. In fact, considering the velocity increase, the longer FT observed in RE at each speed at level and on slope, with respect to RA, could be related to a more efficient propulsive phase performed in a shorter CT.
Interestingly, although minor changes were observed in the variables' means when increasing slope from 2 to 7%, the differences were not significant, indicating that efficient adaptation to 7% gradient is not running performance dependent. Considering that every speed needs optimum SL and frequency, we may conclude that RE are more capable than RA to find the optimum combination of SL and step frequency through a better propulsive phase during CT generating a longer FT, providing them a most efficient movement pattern (Figure 2).
Reviewing the relevant literature, the effect of running speed and uphill/downhill gradient on basic kinematic variables was studied from several points of view; however, none of the studies investigated uphill running with different gradients combined with different constant running speeds. During the last 50 years, authors reported that SL, step frequency and FT increase and CT decreases when increasing speed in level running (2,5,14,34). Högberg concluded that every speed needs optimum SL and step frequency to meet economical and biomechanical to meet requirements. Our results support this opinion, and it seems that it is true for uphill running too (14). In a unique experiment, Cavanagh and Williams estimated the optimum SL on the basis of oxygen uptake at a speed of 3.83 m·s− 1 (8). They reported that the freely chosen SL (132.1 cm) was longer with 4.2 cm than that estimated (8). It is well demonstrated in the literature that to increase the running speed, the oxygen uptake should also be increased to provide energy to enhance muscular work. Because the running speed can be elevated by increasing the SL, it can be expected that optimum SL belongs to each speed. Also, it could be expected that elite runners can consume less energy to run with the same speed, and consequently, they use shorter SL relative to body size than amateur runners. Indeed, Cavanagh et al. reported 5.1% shorter SL for elite runners compared with amateur runners applying the same speed (7). The step frequency was higher and the FT longer. No significant difference was reported in CT.
In contrast, in our experiment, the elite runners had significantly longer SL, FT, and higher step frequency at 4.44, 4.72, and 5 m·s− 1 compared with amateur runners. These results suggest that SL cannot be a differential factor alone between amateur without considering the step frequency also. In effect, this study showed that RA adapt their neuromechanical strategy to increase velocity at level and at 7% slope, increasing the step frequency (Figure 2B). As to uphill running, there are a few studies to be compared, and in these experiments, researchers applied only one speed for uphill slopes. Swanson and Caldwell (28), applying 4.5 m·s− 1 speed at level and 30% grade running, reported SL reduction and step frequency increase. Similarly, Gottschall and Kram (12) found SL decrease and step frequency elevation at 3 m·s− 1 speed and 3, 6, and 9% inclination with no change in CT. The results of the present study support the result of the aforementioned experiments. Although the SL, step frequency, and FT increased and CT decreased when increasing running speed, a significant reduction in SL was revealed when the inclination was increased to 2 and 7% with increasing step frequency at each speed (Figure 2A). All changes because of inclination increase are related to increased demand of work energy (24). Perhaps, the alterations trend of is similar for each runner, but the alteration ratio depends on the athletes training status and the individual runner motion efficiency.
Definitely, during uphill running, the oxygen uptake should be increased. It is known that when increasing the running speed, the oxygen uptake is greater, and as a consequence, the SL should be increased (2). It seems that the increased step frequency and decreased CT can compensate the reduced SL because of the increased slope when runners have to maintain the increased constant velocity on the treadmill. Considering that training on slope is used by trainers to increase performance (27), these data suggest that using slopes around or more than 7% could alter, in a considerable way, the neuromechanical efficiency of athletes, whereas using slopes around 2% could influence positively the performance of the marathon runner (30). In fact, at constant speed on slopes, there is an increase of the propulsive phase and a decrease of ground reaction force (12); this is higher in RE than RA groups and produces a considerable SF increase and an SL decrease. In addition, increasing the slope could depress the best quality of RE represented by the capability of using the ground reaction force to increase SL and FT (Figure 2D) in a shorter stretch-shortening cycle. The question on how long the optimal SL in altered conditions should be remains still to be studied.
Our results may allow us to conclude that not only running speed but also gradient influence the choice of optimum SL and frequency with which efficient running can be maintained. It seems that the optimum speed and gradient variations depend on marathon runners' training status. Namely, elite runners can adapt to alter circumstances more efficiently than amateur runners who have less experience. Whereas in a marathon race, the average number of steps in RE is 27,786 vs 52,661 in RA (calculated in relation to their race performance 5.11 vs. 4.17 m·s− 1 and to step frequency). It is necessary for the coach to know the athlete's SL decrease on different slopes at constant speed, to estimate his efficiency level. For example, knowing the speed of the treadmill (the best performance marathon race speed) at the ground level and the number of steps per minute, the SL can be calculated (with a good approximation) with Equation 1. In addition, Table 1 could allow coaches to find the correct position of their athletes by knowing their SL both at level and on slope.
Furthermore, the coaches could train their athletes, by changing slope and step frequency on a treadmill. For example, knowing the speed and SL in level and slope, one can find the optimal frequency on slope through Training Equation 2. In this case, having defined slope and speed, the athlete shall be trained to perform a precise number of steps per minute so as to generate the desired SL.
The authors are grateful to the “Gruppo Sportivo Fiamme Gialle” in particular to Coachs: Andrea Ceccarelli and Nardino Degortes for supporting this research; Davide Viggiano PhD MD for the review, Dott. Napoleone Gasparo, Leonardo Beneduci and Maria Di Filippo for encouragement. The project was supported by Grant from CONI Italian Regional Olympic Committee, Sardinia, Italy.
1. Belli A, Rey S, Bonnefoy R, Lacour JR. A Simple device for kinematic measurements of human movement. Ergonomics 35: 177–186, 1992.
2. Brisswalter J, Legros P. Use of energy cost and variability in stride length to assess an optimal running adaptation. Percept Mot Skills 80: 99–104, 1995.
3. Cavagna GA, Thys H, Zamboni A. The sources of external work in level walking and running. J Physiol 262: 639–657, 1976.
4. Cavagna GA, Willems PA, Franzetti P, Detrembleur C. The two power limits conditioning step frequency in human running. J Physiol 437: 95–108, 1991.
5. Cavanagh PR, Kram R. Stride length in distance running: Velocity, body dimensions, and added mass effects. Med Sci Sports Exerc 21: 467–479, 1989.
6. Cavanagh PR, Lafortune MA. Ground reaction forces in distance running. J Biomech 13: 397–406, 1980.
7. Cavanagh PR, Pollock ML, Landa J. A biomechanical comparison of elite and good distance runners. Ann N Y Acad Sci 301: 328–345, 1977.
8. Cavanagh PR, Williams KR. The effect of stride length variation on oxygen uptake during distance running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 14: 30–35, 1982.
9. Costill DL. The relationship between selected physiological variables and distance running performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 7: 61–66, 1967.
10. Di Prampero PE. The energy cost of human locomotion
on land and in water. Int J Sports Med 7: 55–72, 1986.
11. Gehlsen GM, Stewart LB, Van NC, Bratz JS. Knee kinematics
: The effects of running on cambers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 21: 463–466, 1989.
12. Gottschall JS, Kram R. Ground reaction forces during downhill and uphill running
. J Biomech 38: 445–452, 2005.
13. Hasegawa H, Yamauchi T, Kraemer WJ. Foot strike patterns of runners at the 15-km point during an elite-level half marathon. J Strength Cond Res 21: 888–893, 2007.
14. Högberg P. How do stride length and stride frequency influence the energy-output during running? Arbeitsphysiologie 14: 437–441, 1952.
15. Ito A, Komi PV, Sjodin B, Bosco C, Karlsson J. Mechanical efficiency of positive work in running at different speeds. Med Sci Sports Exerc 15: 299–308, 1983.
16. Iversen JR, McMahon TA. Running on an incline. J Biomech Eng 114: 435–441, 1992.
17. Knuttgen HG. Oxygen uptake and pulse rate while running with undetermined and determined stride lengths at different speeds. Acta Physiol Scand 52: 366–371, 1961.
18. Lake MJ, Cavanagh PR. Six weeks of training does not change running mechanics or improve running economy. Med Sci Sports Exerc 28: 860–869, 1996.
19. Matsas A, Taylor N, McBurney H. Knee joint kinematics
from familiarised treadmill walking can be generalised to overground walking in young unimpaired subjects. Gait Posture 11: 46–53, 2000.
20. Milliron MJ, Cavanagh PR. Sagittal plane kinematics
of the lower extremity during distance running. Biomech Distance Running 65–105, 1990.
21. Morgan D, Martin P, Craib M, Caruso C, Clifton R, Hopewell R. Effect of step length optimization on the aerobic demand of running. J Appl Physiol 77: 245–251, 1994.
22. Morgan DW, Martin PE, Krahenbuhl GS. Factors affecting running economy. Sports Med 7: 310–330, 1989.
23. Owings TM, Grabiner MD. Measuring step kinematic variability on an instrumented treadmill: How many steps are enough? J Biomech 36: 1215–1218, 2003.
24. Roberts TJ, Belliveau RA. Sources of mechanical power for uphill running
in humans. J Exp Biol 208: 1963–1970, 2005.
25. Saltin B, Astrand PO. Maximal oxygen uptake in athletes. J Appl Physiol 23: 353–358, 1967.
26. Saunders PU, Pyne DB, Telford RD, Hawley JA. Factors affecting running economy in trained distance runners. Sports Med 34: 465–485, 2004.
27. Staab JS, Agnew JW, Siconolfi SF. Metabolic and performance responses to uphill and downhill running in distance runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 24: 124–127, 1992.
28. Swanson SC, Caldwell GE. An integrated biomechanical analysis of high speed incline and level treadmill running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 1146–1155, 2000.
29. Taylor CR. Relating mechanics and energetics during exercise. Adv Vet Sci Comp Med 38A: 181–215, 1994.
30. Telhan G, Franz JR, Dicharry J, Wilder RP, Riley PO, Kerrigan DC. Lower limb joint kinetics during moderately sloped running. J Athl Train 45: 16–21, 2010.
31. Tulloh B. The role of cross-country in the development of a runner. New Stud Athl 13: 9–11, 1998.
32. Williams KR. Biomechanical factors contributing to marathon race success. Sports Med 37: 420–423, 2007.
33. Williams KR, Cavanagh PR, Ziff JL. Biomechanical studies of elite female distance runners. Int J Sports Med 8(suppl 2): 107–118, 1987.
34. Yokozawa T, Fujii N, Ae M. Kinetic Characteristics of Distance Running on Downhill Slope. Int. Journ. of Sport and Healt Science 3: 35–45, 2005.
Keywords:© 2012 National Strength and Conditioning Association
uphill running; locomotion; kinematics