Why Don't Most Runners Get Knee Osteoarthritis? A Case for Per-Unit-Distance Loads

1Department of Mechanical & Materials Engineering, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada 2Human Mobility Research Centre, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada 3Department of Kinesiology & Nutrition, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA.
Medicine and science in sports and exercise (Impact Factor: 3.98). 09/2013; 46(3). DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000135
Source: PubMed


Peak knee joint contact forces ("loads") in running are much higher than they are in walking, where the peak load has been associated with the initiation and progression of knee osteoarthritis. However, runners do not have an especially high risk of osteoarthritis compared to non-runners. This paradox suggests that running somehow blunts the effect of very high peak joint contact forces, perhaps to provide a load per unit distance traveled (PUD) that is relatively low.
To compare peak and PUD knee joint loads between human walking and running.
Fourteen healthy adults walked and ran at self-selected speeds. Ground reaction force and motion capture data were measured and combined with inverse dynamics and musculoskeletal modeling to estimate the peak knee joint loads, PUD knee joint loads, and the impulse of the knee joint contact force for each gait with a matched-pair (within-subject) design.
The peak load was three times higher in running (8.02 vs. 2.72 bodyweights, p < 0.001) but the PUD load did not differ between running and walking (0.80 vs. 0.75 bodyweights·m, p = 0.098). The impulse of the joint contact force was greater for running than for walking (1.30 vs. 1.04 bodyweights·s, p < 0.001). The peak load increased with increasing running speed, while the PUD load decreased with increasing speed.
Compared to walking, the relatively short duration of ground contact and relatively long length of strides in running seem to blunt the effect of high peak joint loads, such that the PUD loads are no higher than in walking. Waveform features other than or in addition to the peak value should be considered when studying joint loading and injuries.

200 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence suggests prolonged bouts of sitting are unhealthy, and some public health messages have recently recommended replacing sitting with more standing. However, the relative benefits of replacing sitting with standing compared to locomotion are not known. Specifically, the biomechanical consequences of standing compared to other sitting-alternatives like walking and running are not well known and are usually not considered in studies on sitting. We compared the total knee joint load accumulated (TKJLA) and the total energy expended (TEE) when performing either walking, running, or standing for a common exercise bout duration (30 minutes). Walking and running both (unsurprisingly) had much more TEE than standing (+300% and +1100%, respectively). TKJLA was similar between walking and standing and 74% greater in running. The results suggest that standing is a poor replacement for walking and running if one wishes to increases energy expenditure, and may be particularly questionable for use in individuals at-risk for knee osteoarthritis due to its surprisingly high TKJLA (just as high as walking, 56% of the load in running) and the type of loading (continuous compression) it places on cartilage. However, standing has health benefits as an “inactivity interrupter” that extend beyond its direct energy expenditure. We suggest that future studies on standing as an inactivity intervention consider the potential biomechanical consequences of standing more often throughout the day, particularly in the case of prolonged bouts of standing.
    No preview · Article · Oct 2014 · Gait & Posture
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2015 · Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Study Design Biomechanical cross-sectional study. Objective To investigate the hypothesis that the cumulative load in the knee at a given running distance is increased when running speed is decreased. Background The knee joint load per stride is decreased when running speed is decreased. However, by decreasing running speed the number of strides per given distance is increased. Running at a slower speed may increase the cumulative load at the knee joint at a given distance compared with running the same distance at a higher speed, hence increasing the risk of running-related injuries in the knee. Methods Kinematic and ground reaction force data were collected from 16 recreational runners utilizing a rearfoot strike during steady-state running at 3 different speeds: 8.02 +/- 0.17 km/h, 11.79 +/- 0.21 km/h, and 15.78 +/- 0.22 km/h. Cumulative load (cumulative impulse) over a 1000 meter distance was calculated at the knee joint on the basis of a standard 3-dimensional inverse dynamics approach. Results Based on a 1000 meter running distance, the cumulative load at the knee was significantly higher at slow running speed than at high running speed (relative difference: 80%). The mean load per stride at the knee increased significantly across all biomechanical parameters, except impulse, following an increase in running speed. Conclusion Slow-speed running decreases knee joint loads per stride and increases the cumulative load at the knee joint for a given running distance compared to faster running. The primary reason for the increase in cumulative load at slower speeds is an increase in number of strides needed to cover the same distance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, Epub 1 Jan 2015. doi:10.2519/jospt.2015.5469.
    No preview · Article · Apr 2015 · Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy
Show more