Effects of strengthening and stretching exercise programmes on kinematics and kinetics of running in older adults: a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of strengthening and stretching exercises on running kinematics and kinetics in older runners. One hundred and five runners (55-75 years) were randomly assigned to either a strengthening (n = 36), flexibility (n = 34) or control (n = 35) group. Running kinematics and kinetics were obtained using an eight-camera system and an instrumented treadmill before and after the eight-week exercise protocol. Measures of strength and flexibility were also obtained using a dynamometer and inclinometer/goniometer. A time effect was observed for the excursion angles of the ankle sagittal (P = 0.004, d = 0.17) and thorax/pelvis transverse (P < 0.001, d = 0.20) plane. Similarly, a time effect was observed for knee transverse plane impulse (P = 0.013, d = 0.26) and ground reaction force propulsion (P = 0.042, d = -0.15). A time effect for hip adduction (P = 0.006, d = 0.69), ankle dorsiflexion (P = 0.002, d = 0.47) and hip internal rotation (P = 0.048, d = 0.30) flexibility, and hip extensor (P = 0.001, d = -0.48) and ankle plantar flexor (P = 0.01, d = 0.39) strength were also observed. However, these changes were irrespective of exercise group. The results of the present study indicate that an eight-week stretching or strengthening protocol, compared to controls, was not effective in altering age-related running biomechanics despite changes in ankle and trunk kinematics, knee kinetics and ground reaction forces along with alterations in muscle strength and flexibility were observed over time.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".