Lower limb joint angles and ground reaction forces in forefoot strike and rearfoot strike runners during overground downhill and uphill running
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the normal and parallel ground reaction forces during downhill and uphill running in habitual forefoot strike and habitual rearfoot strike (RFS) runners. Fifteen habitual forefoot strike and 15 habitual RFS recreational male runners ran at 3 m/s ± 5% during level, uphill and downhill overground running on a ramp mounted at 6° and 9°. Results showed that forefoot strike runners had no visible impact peak in all running conditions, while the impact peaks only decreased during the uphill conditions in RFS runners. Active peaks decreased during the downhill conditions in forefoot strike runners while active loading rates increased during downhill conditions in RFS runners. Compared to the level condition, parallel braking peaks were larger during downhill conditions and parallel propulsive peaks were larger during uphill conditions. Combined with previous biomechanics studies, our findings suggest that forefoot strike running may be an effective strategy to reduce impacts, especially during downhill running. These findings may have further implications towards injury management and prevention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".