Biomechanics of graded running: Part II—Joint kinematics and kinetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared to level running (LR), different strategies might be implemented by runners to cope with specific challenges of graded running at different speeds. The changes in joint kinetics and kinematics associated with graded running have been investigated, but their interactions with speed are unknown. Nineteen participants ran on an instrumented treadmill at five grades (0°, ±5° and ± 10°) and three speeds (2.50, 3.33 and 4.17 m/s), while 3D motion and forces were recorded. Three speed × five-grade repeated-measures ANOVA was used to analyze kinetic and kinematic variables. A speed × grade interaction was observed for hip range of motion (ROM). Downhill running (DR) at fastest speed did not reduce ROM at the hip, compared to LR. Compared to LR, it was observed that the hip joint was responsible for a greater contribution of energy generation while running at the fastest speed at +10°. Speed × grade interactions were also observed for the energy absorption, peak moment, and peak power at the knee. Contrary to LR, running faster during UR did not require higher peak power at the knee. Finally, DR at the fastest speed did not increase peak negative power at the knee compared to LR. This study demonstrates that ankle, knee, and hip joint kinetics depend on speed and grade of running, while the effect of grade on joint kinematics was not substantially modulated by speed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".