Elsevier

Gait & Posture

Volume 39, Issue 1, January 2014, Pages 558-562
Gait & Posture

Referent body weight values in over ground walking, over ground jogging, treadmill jogging, and elliptical exercise

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.09.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Weight-bearing was significantly reduced on the elliptical trainer compared to the other tested activities.

  • Referent weight-bearing values may assist the rehabilitation team regarding return-to-sport decisions.

  • The results obtained may be useful from a repetitive loading standpoint (to prevent overuse injury) or for exercise recommendations for those at greater risk for exacerbating chronic joint pathology.

Abstract

Objectives

I. To evaluate average percentage body weight (APBW) values and weight-bearing distribution percentages (WBDP) between four common sports activities in a referent adult population. II. To suggest clinical implications.

Design

Original research study.

Setting

Lerner Sports Center, Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel.

Participants

Seventy-five asymptomatic volunteers, mean age = 33.5 (19–72) years SD = 15.1, mean weight (kg) = 70.7 (43–113) SD = 14.1.

Interventions

Four tests were conducted: 1. Overground walking (OGW) over a 20 m distance, 2. Overground jogging (OGJ) over a 20 m distance, 3. Treadmill jogging (TJ) at a constant speed of 8.5 km/h for a 15-second interval and 4. Elliptical exercise (EE) for a 20 second period at a resistance and incline level of 10, and a steady pace within the range of 70–95 steps/min.

Main outcome measure

The Smartstep™ weight-bearing gait analysis system.

Results

The APBW value on the entire foot in OGW was 112% (SD = 15.57), in OGJ, 201% (SD = 31.24, in TJ, 175% (SD = 25.48) and in EE, 73% (SD = 13.8). Regarding WBDP, the swing phase in OGJ and TJ was significantly longer than the stance phase (p < 0.05). OGW resulted in significantly less swing phase compared to OGJ and TJ (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

EE significantly reduces weight-bearing as compared to other common functional and sporting activities. These findings may assist the rehabilitation team when considering returning individuals back to early activity following certain bony or soft tissue pathologies or lower-limb surgical procedures. This information is also useful from a repetitive loading standpoint (to prevent overuse injury) or for exercise recommendations for those at greater risk for exacerbating chronic joint pathology.

Section snippets

Methods

Seventy-five healthy adults participated in the study. Participants were randomly selected and each test was conducted on a different day. Exclusion criteria included pain in the hip, knee, ankle and foot during testing or surgery in these anatomical locations less than two years previously. Different subjects participated in each of the four conditions. There was no statistically significant difference between the cohort groups with respect to age or body weight. Twenty-one participated in the

Results

The principal finding of this study was that weight-bearing was significantly reduced during EE as compared to the other tested weight-bearing activities (p < 0.001). The APBW values and the WBDP of the four tested activities are represented in Table 2. The hind: fore foot APBW and stance: swing phase value ratios are displayed in Table 3. The main effect statistic for the one-way ANOVA is presented in Table 4. There were significant differences in the APBW values between all the six pair-wise

Discussion

When analyzing the results of Table 2, OGJ was the only activity in which the APBW values exceeded 100% on all areas of the foot. The fore foot APBW values for OGW, OGJ and TJ all exceeded 100%. This may be explained by the fact that the push-off force exerted by the fore foot on the ground during the transfer from mid-stance through heel-off results in pressure that includes not only the body weight itself, but additional pressure that ensures successful forward propulsion. This fact must be

Study limitations

The study could have been expanded upon, including further measurements relating to ground reaction forces at comparable workloads, including oxygen uptakes as well as a biomechanics study involving kinematic and kinetic analyses. Additional data related to actual speeds (or equivalent cycles on the elliptical trainer) could also have been attained. These parameters however could not be included in the scope of this study. These may form part of a future study protocol.

Inconsistencies in the

Conclusions

This is the first study to evaluate and compare the referent APBW values and WBDP between four popular sporting activities. EE significantly reduces weight-bearing in both the hind and fore foot as compared to three other common functional and sporting activities. These findings may now assist the rehabilitation team when considering returning individuals back to early activity following certain bony or soft tissue pathologies, as well as lower-limb surgical procedures. This information is also

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest and do not have any financial disclosures.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mrs Tali Bdolah, MSc, Senior statistician, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, for her assistance with the statistical analysis, as well as Mrs Sari Goldstein-Diament BSc, for her editing assistance in preparing this manuscript.

References (29)

  • S.J. Lee et al.

    Biomechanics of overground vs. treadmill walking in healthy individuals

    J Appl Physiol

    (2008)
  • E. Isakov

    Gait rehabilitation: a new biofeedback device for monitoring and enhancing weight-bearing over the affected lower limb

    Eura Medicophys

    (2007)
  • Kaplan Y, Barak Y. Percentage body weight (PBW) values and weight-bearing distribution percentages in increasing speeds...
  • E. Hershko et al.

    Biofeedback versus physiotherapy in patients with partial weight-bearing

    Am J Orthop

    (2008)
  • Cited by (7)

    • Movement direction impacts knee joint kinematics during elliptical exercise at varying incline angles

      2021, Knee
      Citation Excerpt :

      Specifically, there have been high coefficients of multiple correlations found between elliptical training exercise and gait for hip (r = 0.85–0.89) and knee (r = 0.87–0.89) joint kinematics [4]. The benefits are even greater for elliptical trainers when comparing the amount of knee joint loading to other common activities such as walking and jogging [5–7]. In vivo measurements of peak tibial forces while using an elliptical trainer (2.24 ± 0.22 BW) were significantly lower than those found during jogging, but did not differ from treadmill walking (1.8–2.5 BW) [5].

    • Hamstring and calf muscle activation as a function of bodyweight support during treadmill running in ACL reconstructed athletes

      2017, Gait and Posture
      Citation Excerpt :

      Long-term consequences such as increased incidence of arthritis are concerning [7] and while a graded return to sport is considered a cornerstone of rehabilitation programs following ACLR [8], there has been little research to objectively quantify this progression back to running. Gradual re-introduction of running at full bodyweight post ACLR makes intuitive sense in an attempt to restore gait kinematics, facilitate muscle function, and decrease the incidence of anterior knee pain [9]. However, while it is known that Increasing running speed during over-ground and treadmill running [10] results in increased muscle activity by the athlete [11], little is known about the effects of altering bodyweight while running post ACLR.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text