Clinical Biomechanics
Volume 16, Issue 8 , Pages 667-680, October 2001

A comparison of overground and treadmill running for measuring the three-dimensional kinematics of the lumbo–pelvic–hip complex

  • Anthony G Schache

      Affiliations

    • Centre for Sports Medicine Research and Education, School of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author
  • ,
  • Peter D Blanch

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physiotherapy, Australian Institute of Sport, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
  • ,
  • David A Rath

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biomechanics, Australian Institute of Sport, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
  • ,
  • Tim V Wrigley

      Affiliations

    • Centre for Rehabilitation, Exercise and Sport Science, Victoria University of Technology, Victoria, Australia
  • ,
  • Roland Starr

      Affiliations

    • Hugh Williamson Gait Analysis Laboratory, The Royal Children's Hospital, Victoria, Australia
  • ,
  • Kim L Bennell

      Affiliations

    • Centre for Sports Medicine Research and Education, School of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia

Received 24 August 2000; accepted 15 June 2001.

Abstract 

Objective. To compare overground and treadmill running for differences in the three-dimensional angular kinematics of the lumbo–pelvic–hip complex.

Design. A within-subject repeated measures design.

Background. The treadmill is an attractive research instrument as speed and slope are easily controlled and the required calibration volume is reduced. However, the degree to which treadmill running simulates overground running has not been resolved in the literature to date.

Methods. 10 able-bodied subjects ran overground and on a treadmill at a self-selected speed. The treadmill speed was matched to each subjects respective average overground speed. The time–distance and the three-dimensional angular kinematic data were captured using a passive marker based motion analysis system. A set of angular and temporal kinematic parameters were extracted from the data and subjected to statistical analyses.

Results. Significant differences were found between overground and treadmill running for all the time–distance parameters. Despite this, the kinematics of the lumbar spine and pelvis were similar between the two running conditions, with only three parameters being significantly different. These were lumbar extension at initial contact, anterior pelvic tilt at initial contact and the first maximum anterior pelvic tilt. Hip flexion-extension parameters were also only found to display subtle differences. Of the 17 hip parameters analysed, only hip flexion at initial contact, maximum hip flexion at loading response, hip extension at toe off, maximum hip extension and hip flexion-extension range of motion were found to be significantly different.

Conclusion. A high powered treadmill with a minimal belt speed fluctuation is capable of being used to obtain a representation of the typical three-dimensional kinematic pattern of the lumbo–pelvic–hip complex during running.

Relevance

In order for the treadmill to be accepted as a useful research and/or clinical assessment instrument, it must be demonstrated that it does not significantly alter the performance of the evaluated activity. In this respect, a treadmill with minimal intra-stride belt speed variability and similar surface stiffness to the relevant overground condition is likely to be capable of being used to obtain a representation of the typical human running action for well accommodated subjects.

Keywords:  Running, Overground, Treadmill, Kinematics, Three-dimensional, Lumbar spine, Pelvis, Hip

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0268-0033(01)00061-4

Clinical Biomechanics
Volume 16, Issue 8 , Pages 667-680, October 2001