Running Speed Can Be Predicted from Foot Contact Time during Outdoor over Ground Running.

The number of validation studies of commercially available foot pods that provide estimates of running speed is limited and these studies have been conducted under laboratory conditions. Moreover, internal data handling and algorithms used to derive speed from these pods are proprietary and thereby...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Cornelis J de Ruiter, Ben van Oeveren, Agnieta Francke, Patrick Zijlstra, Jaap H van Dieen
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2016-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5029865?pdf=render
Description
Summary:The number of validation studies of commercially available foot pods that provide estimates of running speed is limited and these studies have been conducted under laboratory conditions. Moreover, internal data handling and algorithms used to derive speed from these pods are proprietary and thereby unclear. The present study investigates the use of foot contact time (CT) for running speed estimations, which potentially can be used in addition to the global positioning system (GPS) in situations where GPS performance is limited. CT was measured with tri axial inertial sensors attached to the feet of 14 runners, during natural over ground outdoor running, under optimized conditions for GPS. The individual relationships between running speed and CT were established during short runs at different speeds on two days. These relations were subsequently used to predict instantaneous speed during a straight line 4 km run with a single turning point halfway. Stopwatch derived speed, measured for each of 32 consecutive 125m intervals during the 4 km runs, was used as reference. Individual speed-CT relations were strong (r2 >0.96 for all trials) and consistent between days. During the 4km runs, median error (ranges) in predicted speed from CT 2.5% (5.2) was higher (P<0.05) than for GPS 1.6% (0.8). However, around the turning point and during the first and last 125m interval, error for GPS-speed increased to 5.0% (4.5) and became greater (P<0.05) than the error predicted from CT: 2.7% (4.4). Small speed fluctuations during 4km runs were adequately monitored with both methods: CT and GPS respectively explained 85% and 73% of the total speed variance during 4km runs. In conclusion, running speed estimates bases on speed-CT relations, have acceptable accuracy and could serve to backup or substitute for GPS during tarmac running on flat terrain whenever GPS performance is limited.
ISSN:1932-6203