Article Title



Will M. White, Jeff T. Wight, Nico Arciniegas, Ryan S. Sloan, David R. Hooper, Jordon Garman, George G.A. Pujalte, FACSM. Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, FL.

BACKGROUND: In distance running, pelvis kinematics are thought to be relevant to injury and performance. To date, pelvic anterior/posterior tilt has received considerable attention. However, the overall motion of the pelvis, in all three planes, remains poorly understood. Further, minimal studies have assessed the stride-to-stride variability of the pelvis. In this study, we analyze competitive runners to better understand overall pelvis kinematics. PURPOSE: Analyze stance phase pelvis motion and stride-to-stride variability for all three planes (sagittal, frontal, transverse) and determine if there are significant differences (among the planes). METHODS: Twelve higher mileage recreational runners participated (8 Division I cross-country and 4 competitive recreational runners, 22.1±4.9 years; 50+ miles per week). Participants completed their preferred warm-up and then ran 3 minutes at an 8-minute/mile pace. Six Vicon Bonita cameras and 3DGAIT software were used to collect kinematic data (200 Hz). Ten strides were used to generate average plots (normalized to 101 data points) for the pelvis motion in the three planes. The 10 plots were averaged to generate an overall waveform for the pelvis in each plane. The pelvis motion was determined by calculating the range of the waveform. Stride-to-stride variability was determined by calculating the standard deviation across the 10 strides. One-way ANOVAS were used to test for significant differences among the three planes (p=0.05). Bonferroni post-hoc analysis was used for follow-up testing. RESULTS: For total motion in stance, the transverse plane had significantly more (p<0.01) total motion (14.0°±4.8°) than the sagittal plane (6.1°±2.0°) and frontal plane (5.8°±1.8°). There was no significant difference between the sagittal and frontal plane. For SSV in stance, the transverse plane had significantly greater (p<0.05) SSV (0.97°±0.29°) than the sagittal plane (0.81°±0.18°) and frontal plane (0.53°±0.18°). CONCLUSION: During stance, pelvis motion was by far the greatest in the transverse plane. Interestingly, the SSV was also greatest in the transverse plane. Future studies should strive to determine the relevance of these pelvis kinematic measures to running injuries and performance.

This document is currently not available here.