Gait Retraining For Runners: Research Epiphany Or Old News?

It is a topic that makes the rounds on a regular basis: changing an athlete’s running mechanics. Now, it has a more formal clinical term - “gait retraining for runners”. Gait labs around the country, most notably the Spaulding National Running Center at Harvard University, are analyzing running gait and using various feedback mechanisms to enhance or refine the athlete’s movement patterns. The premise is that you can change the gait mechanics of a runner in order to either address a current injury, prevent injury, or optimize their running performance.

This kind of thinking shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to those in the sports sciences community. Why this is such a big deal in the running community circa 2011, I have no idea.

Clinicians and coaches alike wouldn’t think twice about changing a golfer’s swing, or the throwing mechanics of a pitcher, shot putter or a javelin thrower. So why is this suddenly a hot news item in 2011? Look no further than the Journal of Orthopedic And Sports Physical Therapy and an editorial entitled “Gait Retraining For Runners: In Search Of The Ideal” in the December 2011 issue.

The editorial, written by Associate Editor Bryan Heiderscheit, PT, PhD, starts off with the following observation:

“Alberto Salazar is under a microscope at the moment. As head coach of the Oregon Project, the world of track and field is watching to see whether his unconventional training of the US’s promising elite distance runners will be successful. Specifically, Salazar is changing running form or posture in attempt to maximize mechanical efficiency, with the ultimate goal of improving performance and reducing injury risk”.

The editorial goes on to propose many questions for the physical therapy profession and their involvement in the running community. At first glance, most of these questions appear to have been fully examined already in countless other sports. But I digress.

First things first: no, changing running form isn’t unconventional, or certainly shouldn’t be considered as such. As I mentioned earlier, biomechanics is one of the basic tenets of the sport sciences. Will athletes initially become less efficient when changes are made to their running form? Yes. Will the long-term benefits be significant? Yes – over time and training.

The clinical and coaching communities are talking about all of this like it is the next closest thing to quantum physics. Is there one perfect form, given the tremendous anatomic variability of the running population? Perhaps not. But are there principles of human propulsion that remain consistent, and ways in which we can alter those characteristics repeatedly and effectively? Absolutely.

In 1990, Peter Cavanagh released a book entitled "Biomechanics of Distance Running". In this, he compiled the latest research from many notable sport scientists. It would appear that the running community has had plenty of good research available for the last 21 years – at least enough to form a foundation for what good running mechanics look like, and which characteristics will affect a runner’s ability to move through space effectively.

In 1992, I put forth a simple premise that eventually provided the basis for "RunSmart":

“I came to the realization that the well-researched principles and mechanisms underlying optimal human performance are one and the same as those that will effectively prevent injury over the long term. These same principles also define optimal physiotherapy practice and provide for an optimal environment for injury rehabilitation, tissue repair and remodeling.”

The fact that gait retraining for runners is thought of as “unconventional” now is strange given that I have utilized this approach to optimizing running performance here in Austin with various levels of athletes for 20 years now.

“Gait retraining” and improving an athlete’s running mechanics will improve the long-term performance potential. As far as decreasing injury risk, that might be a different story. There is but one factor that directly correlates to the onset of running injury, and this has been very well supported in the literature: training error. While many coaches and clinicians may be changing running mechanics, they also choose to not critique the training strategies utilized. If Salazar’s athletes don’t succeed with this “unconventional” approach, it isn’t necessarily because the running form changes didn’t work. It could simply be the approach to training.

If training strategies – the primary risk factor in the incidence of running injuries - are not addressed, the problems will still persist. We will still see runners with lousy mechanics that never get injured, and runners with good running mechanics that are always injured – and all points in between.

I do appreciate the research that is being done by groups such as those at Harvard, the questions that they propose, and the hard research data that they have produced.  But I have to ask: is this really anything we don’t already know?

When it comes to running injuries, perhaps the true research epiphany will take place in the training program itself and not in the old news that is applied sport biomechanics. Unfortunately, the research on training has existed for a much longer period of time already - yet is still ignored.

References:

Cavanagh PR (ed). Biomechanics Of Distance Running. 1990; Human Kinetics, Champaign.

Heiderscheit B. Gait Retraining For Runners: In Search Of The Ideal. JOSPT 2011, 41(12), p. 909 – 910.

Photo credits: What What