Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This article discusses the possible association between impact forces and foot pronation and the development of running-related injuries, and proposes a new paradigm for impact forces and foot pronation. DATA SOURCES: The article is based on a critical analysis of the literature on heel-toe running addressing kinematics, kinetics, resultant joint movements and forces, muscle activity, subject and material characteristics, epidemiology, and biologic reactions. However, this paper is not a review of the literature but rather an attempt to replace the established concepts of impact forces and movement control with a new paradigm that would allow explaining some of the current contradictions in this topic of research. STUDY SELECTION: The analysis included all papers published on this topic over the last 25 years. For the last few years, it concentrated on papers expressing critical concerns on the established concepts of impact and movement control. DATA EXTRACTION: An attempt was made to find indications in the various publications to support or reject the current concept of impact forces and movement control. Furthermore, the results of the available studies were searched for indications expanding the current understanding of impact forces and movement control in running. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data were synthesized revealing contradictions in the experimental results and the established concepts. Based on the contradictions in the existing research publications, a new paradigm was proposed. CONCLUSION: Theoretical, experimental, and epidemiological evidence on impact forces showed that one cannot conclude that impact forces are important factors in the development of chronic and/or acute running-related injuries. A new paradigm for impact forces during running proposes that impact forces are input signals that produce muscle tuning shortly before the next contact with the ground to minimize soft tissue vibration and/or reduce joint and tendon loading. Muscle tuning might affect fatigue, comfort, work, and performance. Experimental evidence suggests that the concept of "aligning the skeleton" with shoes, inserts, and orthotics should be reconsidered. They produce only small, not systematic. and subject-specific changes of foot and leg movement. A new paradigm for movement control for the lower extremities proposes that forces acting on the foot during the stance phase act as an input signal producing a muscle reaction. The cost function used in this adaptation process is to maintain a preferred joint movement path for a given movement task. If an intervention counteracts the preferred movement path, muscle activity must be increased. An optimal shoe, insert, or orthotic reduces muscle activity. Thus, shoes, inserts, and orthotics affect general muscle activity and, therefore, fatigue, comfort, work, and performance. The two proposed paradigms suggest that the locomotor system use a similar strategy for "impact" and "movement control." In both cases the locomotor system keeps the general kinematic and kinetic situations similar for a given task. The proposed muscle tuning reaction to impact loading affects the muscle activation before ground contact. The proposed muscle adaptation to provide a constant joint movement pattern affects the muscle activation during ground contact. However, further experimental and theoretical studies are needed to support or reject the proposed paradigms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".