Next Article in Journal
A Collaborative Data Sharing Platform to Accelerate Translation of Biomedical Innovations
Previous Article in Journal
3D Printing for Tissue Engineering: Printing Techniques, Biomaterials, Challenges, and the Emerging Role of 4D Bioprinting
Previous Article in Special Issue
Half Squat Mechanical Analysis Based on PBT Framework
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Article

Comparative Biomechanical Strategies of Running Gait Among Healthy and Recently Injured Pediatric and Adult Runners

1
Exercise and Functional Fitness Laboratory, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
2
The Orthopaedic Institute (TOI), Alachua, FL 32615, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Bioengineering 2025, 12(9), 937; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12090937 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 30 June 2025 / Revised: 25 August 2025 / Accepted: 28 August 2025 / Published: 30 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomechanics of Physical Exercise)

Abstract

Biomechanical strategies of running gait were compared among healthy and recently injured pediatric and adult runners (N = 207). Spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic parameters (ground reaction force [GRF], vertical average loading rate [VALR]) and leg stiffness (Kvert) were obtained during running on an instrumented treadmill with simultaneous 3D-motion capture. Significant age X injury interactions existed for cadence, peak GRF, and peak joint angles in stance. Cadence was fastest in healthy adults and 2–3% lower in other groups (p = 0.049). Injured adults exhibited higher variance in stance and swing time, whereas injured pediatric runners had lower variance in these measures (p < 0.05). Peak GRF was highest in non-injured adults (2.6–2.7 BW) and lowest in injured adults (2.4 BW; p < 0.05). VALRs (BW/s) were higher among pediatric groups, irrespective of injury (p < 0.05). The interaction for ankle dorsiflexion/plantarflexion moment was significant (p = 0.05). Healthy pediatric runners produced more plantarflexion than all other groups (p = 0.026). Pelvis rotation was highest in healthy pediatric runners and lowest in healthy adults (17.3° versus 12.0°; p = 0.036). Pediatric runners did not leverage force-dampening strategies, but reduced gait cycle time variance and controlled pelvic rotation. Injured adults had lower GRF and longer stance time, indicating a shift toward force mitigation during stance. Age-specific rehabilitation and gait retraining approaches may be warranted.
Keywords: running; injury; adolescent; pediatric; gait; loading rate; kinematics; gait running; injury; adolescent; pediatric; gait; loading rate; kinematics; gait

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Verble, C.; Nixon, R.M.; Pezzullo, L.; Martenson, M.; Vincent, K.R.; Vincent, H.K. Comparative Biomechanical Strategies of Running Gait Among Healthy and Recently Injured Pediatric and Adult Runners. Bioengineering 2025, 12, 937. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12090937

AMA Style

Verble C, Nixon RM, Pezzullo L, Martenson M, Vincent KR, Vincent HK. Comparative Biomechanical Strategies of Running Gait Among Healthy and Recently Injured Pediatric and Adult Runners. Bioengineering. 2025; 12(9):937. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12090937

Chicago/Turabian Style

Verble, Cole, Ryan M. Nixon, Lydia Pezzullo, Matthew Martenson, Kevin R. Vincent, and Heather K. Vincent. 2025. "Comparative Biomechanical Strategies of Running Gait Among Healthy and Recently Injured Pediatric and Adult Runners" Bioengineering 12, no. 9: 937. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12090937

APA Style

Verble, C., Nixon, R. M., Pezzullo, L., Martenson, M., Vincent, K. R., & Vincent, H. K. (2025). Comparative Biomechanical Strategies of Running Gait Among Healthy and Recently Injured Pediatric and Adult Runners. Bioengineering, 12(9), 937. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12090937

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop