Movement Assessment Article Archives

Check out all my articles on assessing movement.  Explore the archives below or click the button to subscribe and never miss another post.


Assessing Overhead Arm Elevation – Video Case Study

Assessing overhead arm elevation is one of the many things I look for during my integrated movement assessment.  This is a big part of the Champion Performance Specialist program.  The information you gather on the person’s ability to perform such a basic task is often invaluable when designing someone’s rehab or training program.

I have a video below of an assessment I performed that I wanted to share.  It’s an interesting case with a bunch of movement compensations.  I thought it would be nice to outline my thought process

But first, let me give you a little history…

The patient is a competitor high school swimmer with insidious onset of bilateral generalized shoulder discomfort and fatigue in the pool after prolonged swimming.  He had been seeing another clinician for soft tissue treatments in the past (hence the cupping marks.  His laxity was mostly posterior in nature, but certainly multidirectional.  The exam obviously reveals generalized laxity you would expect with a swimmer, however no significant structural pathology detected.

Here’s what I saw:

Pretty interesting, right?  Scroll down to the comments section and let me know what you think!

Let’s dig into some of my thoughts.

 Assessing Overhead Arm Elevation

  • I would first comment and state that this is one quick video in a long series of assessments.  I chose overhead elevation because it was simple and reproducible  and showed a bunch of interesting things!  I start my assessment off by simple asking them to raise their arms over head.  That is it.  No other instructions.  I feel that it is important to assess how “they” want to move, not how “I” want them to move. assessing overhead arm elevation
  • A test like overhead elevation in the sagittal plane, such as in this video, assumes two thing: symmetry and neutrality.  I don’t think either of these exist.  So it is inherently flawed.  Think about it, if his scapulae are off, then doesn’t that mean his glenoid is off?  Then technically the “sagittal” plane is just in relation to the ground, not to his body.
  • There is also a “chicken and the egg” concept here.  Did his pain create the dysfunctional movement or vice versa?  Unfortunately in retrospect we’ll never know.  Taking this into consideration I don’t think it is fair to assume that anything we are seeing is the “cause” of his pain.  Essentially it is all just the summation of where we are today.
  • Many people often want to jump right in and label specific muscles, such as being “tight,” “long,” “short,” or “weak.”  Remember all we know here is that he has a movement dysfunction.  I think it is appropriate to suggest these may be true, but you will need to take the next step and assess these assumptions.  I wouldn’t just jump in and treat based on assumptions.
  • I should also comment on the marks on his back.  One relevant, the other not so relevant.  The circles are cupping marks.  He is seeing another provider that performs this as part of his maintenance program while swimming in addition to massage etc, not for treatment of his symptoms.   However, the horizontal marks on his low back are relevant.  Those are stretch marks.  More on this later…

Static Scapula Position

  • I have commented on this before in my article on Myths of Scapula Exercises, but I don’t put a lot of emphasis on resting static scapular position.  Realistically, the scapula sits on the ribs, so it’s resting static posture is likely more a reflexion of rib and thorax position that scapular position.  I prefer to look at scapular dynamic movement quality.
  • Interestingly, you can see his dynamic concentric control of his scapulae doesn’t seem as bad as you would think based on his static resting position, especially as he gets high into elevation:

static and dynamic scapula position - assessing overhead arm elevation

The Head Wiggle and Scapula Wing

  • The first thing that really stuck out to me was his head wiggle.  I bet you missed it the first time!  A very interesting movement pattern.  In retrospect, you can find him shift his neck in this fashion quite a bit while observing him moving around and performing activities, even just talking to you sometimes.  It is not limited to just overhead elevation in the sagittal plane.  
  • We can’t really separate this from his winging scapula, they go together.  It sure looks like the head wiggles when the scapula wiggles.
  • To me, this looks like the levator scapula pulling the head with a complete lack of opposition from the lower trapezius and serratus anterior.  His head goes into side bend to the left and extension.  This is the cervical responsibility of the levator.  However, his scapula also shoots up into elevation and downward rotation.  This is my biggest indicator that levator is the one acting.  There could be more involved, like SCM, but I’m focusing on levator.
  • There is obviously some winging and lack of opposition of the levator by the traps and serratus.  This is really obvious on eccentric lower.  He also does not have a painful arc during this movement.  He is not shifting away from pain.

scapula winging - - assessing overhead arm elevation

  • So while the levator may be causing the head wiggle, it sure looks like the serratus and lower trap are not doing their job and creating the scapula wiggle.
  • See how everything plays together?

 

The Elbow Wiggle

  • Did you notice the elbow wiggle?  I don’t think this is really an elbow issue.  If you watch closely he keeps his hand in the same position.  He essentially fixes his hand on an imaginary sagittal plane track.  To me his shoulder and scapula want to move into adduction and internal rotation with the beginning of his scapula winging about to occur.  I feel like his glenoid may be the one the is not stabilized.  Since we have forced him to perform a strict overhead assessment in the sagittal plane, he is keeping his hand fixed and his elbow has to hyperextend to not allow his hand to horizontal adduct.  Again, just shows some of the flaws of assessments like this.

elbow compensation - assessing overhead arm elevation

  • So while this may be glenohumeral instability, I think it is still just the scapula as it occurs during the eccentric lowering and he has almost no ability to control winging.  And again, he does not have a painful arc.
  • This really illustrates a general point that I tend to make about humans in general, but even more so on high level athletes.  We are excellent at getting from point A to point B.  It’s all about how we get there.  Unfortunately the overhead elevation assessment uses an internal cue to “raise your hand up in front of you.”  Perhaps it would be better to give an external cue like “reach up and touch the ceiling.”

 

Thoracolumbar Flexion

  • So taking away all the interesting things happening from the scaps up, I also notice some interesting thoracolumbar compensations.  Remember, this client is a swimmer, and a high level swimmer.  Is it me or does his left latissimus look too small for a swimmer?
  • I mentioned earlier the stretch marks on his lower back.  When he tries to pull down with his arms with any resistance, his movement compensation was to go into a large amount of thoracolumbar flexion, which is a compensatory movement for the inability to extend his arms against resistance.  His lumbar paraspinals show hypertrophy.  So while this could be poor core control, I feel that may be too simplistic.  He goes into thoracolumbar flexion with minimal resistance.  Seems more compensatory rather than poor patterning.  In the photos below, that is not just paraspinal hypertrophy, that is also flexion:

latissimus - assessing overhead arm elevation

  • In looking at the photos above, see how he moves into thoracolumbar flexion?  These are fairly recent photos.  Here are a couple of photos from two months prior.  You can really see the thoracolumbar flexion compensation.  But also notice the dramatic increase in body composition in 2 months.  He put on 15 pounds of muscle mass in a 2-month program designed specifically for him:

thoracolumbar compensation - assessing overhead arm elevation

  • One thing I mentioned was that he feels symptoms with prolonged swimming.  He actually fatigues out well before his fellow swimmers.  Feels strong and swims well, then hits a wall quickly from 10-20 minutes in the pool, while everyone else is in there for 60-120 minutes without complaints.  While he looks a lot better.  There are still some muscles that are not coming back as expected, and he is still fatiguing out in the pool and feeling generalized symptoms.
  • This really makes me question a nerve issue that is just not allowing proper muscle function, and/or the fact that he is essentially swimming with his accessory muscles like his teres major and deltoids.  This is something we need to explore further.

 

Conclusion

Assessing overhead arm elevation is an important part of my overall movement assessment process.  There are many compensations that I typically see, but most don’t present as complex as this video case study.  I hope you enjoyed reading through my breakdown of how I assess overhead arm elevation and some of the things running through my mind!

Comment below if you think I missed anything!

Interested in learning my whole movement assessment system?  It’s a part of my Champion Performance Specialist program, where you’ll learn our exact system of assessing movement, then optimizing and enhancing performance.  It’s exactly what all the physical therapists and strength coaches follow at Champion when building our performance therapy and training programs.

 

Champion Performance Specialist - laptop mockup

 

 

Do You Want to Learn More About Optimizing Movement and Enhancing Performance? 

I’m really excited to be launching my brand new course for rehabilitation and fitness professionals looking to help people restore, optimize, and enhance performance.   It’s my Introduction to Performance Therapy Training course.

And you know what the best part is???

It’s absolutely FREE!

Check out the information and video below, and click the link below to enroll today!

 

Introduction to Performance Therapy and Training

If you’re anything like me, I’m sure you’d love to work with more highly motivated people, and even athletes, that want to focus on improving their performance.

But I remember not really feeling prepared for this or knowing how to get started, I really felt overwhelmed. We all learned the basics, but no one really teaches you how to optimize movement and enhance performance.

Over these years, I’ve learned a ton. Good and bad! But everything I have learned has shaped what I do, and it took some time and experience to realize this.

There so much info out there, but people tell me all the time they’re still confused and that they feel like they just start treatments and training programs and aren’t even confident that they choosing the right ones!

Check out this video for more of what I mean:

 

Enroll in My Course for FREE

I want to help.  When we started our facility at Champion PT and Performance, one of our biggest goals was to develop a simple system for our physical therapists and strength coaches to help people move and perform better.

My Introduction to Performance Therapy and Training program will teach you our 4-step system at Champion to assure you have everything you need to start helping people move and perform better.

Introduction to Performance Therapy and Training

Best of all, it’s absolutely free to anyone that signs up for my Newsletter. You’ll get all my best articles straight to your email, and immediate free access to the course.

Thank so much, hope you enjoy!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How to Assess Thoracic Mobility

The latest Inner Circle webinar recording on How to Assess Thoracic Mobility is now available.

 

How to Assess Thoracic Mobility

how to assess thoracic mobilityThis month’s Inner Circle webinar is on How to Assess Thoracic Mobility.  In this presentation, I’m going to show you how I assess thoracic mobility from multiple perspectives.  Many people have thoracic mobility restrictions and just blindly throwing thoracic mobility drills at them is going to be suboptimal without an accurate assessment.  Some need to focus on extension, some rotation, and others can move well, they just don’t!

This webinar will cover:

  • The key things I look at to assess thoracic mobility
  • How to integrate posture, thoracic movements, and functional movements
  • How to assess for compensation elsewhere when the thoracic spine is limited

 

To access this webinar:

 

Hip Variations and Why My Squat Isn’t Your Squat

Today’s article is an AMAZING guest post from my friend Dean Somerset.  I’ve been talking a lot lately about how hip anatomy should change your mechanics and why exercises like squats should be individualized based on each person, but Dean blows this topic out of the water with this article.  If you love this stuff as much as I, check out the link at the bottom for Dean and Tony Gentilcore’s new program, The Complete Shoulder & Hip Blueprint.  This is just the tip of the iceberg of what is covered in the program.

 

Hip Variations and Why My Squat Isn’t Your Squat

In a recent workshop, I had a group of 50 fit and active fitness professionals and asked them all to do their best bodyweight squat with a position that felt good, didn’t produce pain, and was as deep as they could manage. As you can imagine, looking around the room produced 50 different squats. Some were wide, narrow, deep, high, turned out feet or some variation all of the above.

Did these differences mean there was a standard everyone should aim for, and those who weren’t there had to try to improve their mobility or strength or balance in that position? Maybe, but there’s probably a bunch of other reasons as to why 50 people have 50 different squats.

A standard requirement for powerlifting is to squat to a depth that involves having the crease of the hips below the vertical position of the knee. That’s probably the only known requirement for squat depth out there. The universal recommendation of “ass to grass” depth being the best thing since sliced bread may sound nice on paper (or in Instagram videos or Youtube segments), but it might be something that’s relatively difficult for some people to achieve, and for others it could be downright impossible, regardless of how much mobility work or soft tissue attacks they go through. The benefits of a deep squat seem to only be reserved for those who have the ability to express those benefits by accessing that range of motion without some other compensatory issue.

Let’s just consider simple stuff like anthropometric differences between individuals. Someone who is taller will have a bigger range of motion to go through to hit a parallel position than someone who is shorter, and someone with longer femurs in relation to their torso length will have a harder time maintaining balance over their base of support compared to someone who has shorter femurs. A long femur could be any femur that comprises more than 26% of an individual’s’ total height. So someone who is tall and long femured will have trouble getting down to or below parallel due to simply having the limb lengths to allow the bar to stay over the base of support during the squat motion without losing balance one way or the other.

Not as commonly known is the degree of retroversion or anteversion the femoral necks can make. The shaft of the femur doesn’t just always go straight up and insert into the pelvis with a solid 90 degree alignment. On occasion the neck can be angled forward (femoral head is anterior to the shaft) in a position known as anteversion, or angled backward (femoral head is posterior to the shaft) in a position known as retroversion. Zalawadia et al (2010) showed the variances in femoral neck angles could be as much as 24 degrees between samples, which can be a huge difference when it comes to the ability to move a joint through a range of motion.

hip variations squat

The acetabulum could itself be in a position of anteversion or retroversion, and this difference itself could be more than 30 degrees. This means the same shaped acetabulum would give someone who has the most anteverted acetabulum 30 extra degrees of flexion than someone who had the most retroverted acetabulum, but would give them 30 degrees more extension than the anteverted hips.

There’s also the differences in centre-edge angles, or the angle made from the center of the femoral head through the vertical axis and the outer edge of the lateral acetabulum. Laborie et al (2012) measured this angle in 2038 19 year old Norwegians, and found that it ranged from 20.8 degrees to 45.0 degrees with a mean of 32 in males and 31 in females.

hip anatomy squat

Now to throw even another monkey wrench into the problem, there’s the simple fact that your left and right hips can be at different angles from each other! Zalawadia (same guy as before) showed that the angle of anteversion or retroversion of the femur could be significantly different from left to right, sometimes more than 20 degrees worth of difference.

squat anatomy

All of this can have a direct effect on their available range of motion. You can’t easily mobilize bone into bone and create a new range from that interaction, so if one person has hips where the bony alignment and shape doesn’t causes earlier contact in a specific direction compared to someone else who has a different shaped and aligned hip structure, it’s going to show in their overall mobility.

Elson and Aspinal (2008) showed that there can be a massive variation in both passive and active movements of the hip across age ranges and gender differences. They showed a true hip flexion range of between 80-140 degrees (mean of 25)with no lumbar rounding, a strict active straight leg raise with no lumbar rounding range of 30-90 degrees (mean of 70), and active leg raise with lumbar rounding of 50-90 degrees (mean of 86). This means someone in their sample managed to get 60 degrees more hip flexion than someone else in the sample. There was also a range of between 5-40 degrees of hip extension too, and across an age range from 19-89 years old, that’s a notable difference, especially if you work in general populations where everyone walks into the gym and over to the squat rack.

D’Lima et al (2000) found that hip flexion ROM could be as low as 75 degrees with 0 degrees of both acetabular anteversion or femoral anteversion, but as high as 155 degrees, with 30 degrees of both acetabular anteversion or femoral anteversion. An increase in femoral neck diameter of as little as 2mm was able to reduce hip flexion range by 1.5 – 8.5 degrees, depending on the direction of motion.

So essentially, your ability to achieve a specific range of motion is as much up to your unique articular geometry as it is to your strength and mobility. In many cases, it’s entirely independent of your strength and mobility, and no amount of stretching, mashing, crushing, or stripping will improve it. In many cases, trying to achieve that range of motion that’s outside of your joints ability to achieve will cause less desirable results, like bone to bone contact and irritation (potentially leading to things like femoroacetabular impingement), or compensatory movement from other joints like the SI joint or lumbar spine.

So with as much involved with the structure as I’ve presented here, and how impactful it can be to the end result of total motion of the hips during exercises, how can you determine whether it’s a limiting factor or not? If you happen to have X-ray vision you can do a good job of this, but you’d likely be charging a heck of a lot more money than you are right now for your services.

What we have available is a detailed assessment that focuses on a combination of features.

Involving a passive assessment to assume a theoretically available range of motion and shape of movement capability, an active assessment to see how they can use that range and whether there’s a difference between the two, and then determining strength or motor pattern aptitudes for the movements can be the best tools we have at our disposal, and then coaching the movement until their face sweats blood.

By using multiple approaches to assessing available and usable range of motion, you can get multiple views into a room that can paint a broader picture of what’s available. If the person has the ability to easily let their knee drop to their chest on your treatment table and squat to the floor, there’s obviously no restriction to their range of motion. If they have trouble breaking 90 degrees, even if they move wider through abduction and external rotation, their active range is limited through multiple tests, and their ability to show you a squat shows a lumbar flexion at around 90 degrees of hip flexion as well, the odds of you mobilizing that tissue to produce a significantly bigger range may be limited.

 

Passive Assessment of Hip Structure

 

Active Hip Flexion Capability Against Gravity

 

Active Rockback for Hip Flexion without Gravity Influence

 

Supported Squat Assessment


If all of these tests show a specific limitation to the range of motion consistently across all situations, it could be assumed that there would be a structural limitation versus passive insufficiency, weakness or other considerations. If active testing is limited but passive or supported assessments are fine, there could be a strength or motor pattern limitation holding the movement back.

Now sure, there’s a lot of brakes that could be restricting that range, from things like scar tissue to guarding and some soft tissue restrictions. Doing some work to help reduce that can help improve overall range of motion, but in some cases will be limited to just minimal gains. In some situations, trainers or therapists may work on improving range of motion for weeks or months and see no improvement, and in many cases the deck would be stacked against them seeing any improvement at all.

customized squat pattern

As mentioned earlier, there could also be an asymmetric structural element at play, which may necessitate an asymmetric setup for the movement where one foot is either turned out more, held slightly forward or back, or even turned into something like a one-heel elevated squat. The difference between this and a lunge is merely how far back that elevated foot is relative to the other foot, but again it’s taking advantage of potential asymmetries in structure and allowing an asymmetric set up to be more congruent with the individual.

Another way to think of it is if we have a potentially asymmetric structure yet force a symmetric set up on it, we may be creating an imbalance or compensative element in our training versus preventing it.

The Complete Hip and Shoulder Blueprint

complere shoulder and hip blueprintThese and many more elements are discussed in Complete Shoulder & Hip Blueprint, a new continuing education resource from Tony Gentilcore and Dean Somerset. This digital video product is 11 hours of lecture and hands on where they break down pertinent anatomy, considerations for program design, and delve into assessments, corrective options, and training considerations for these 2 highly involved complex structures.

The series is currently on a launch sale pricing, and the entire package is available for only $137 versus the regular pricing of $177. The sale is on from November 1 through 5, so act quickly to get your copy.  Click below to learn more or check out the below preview video!

large-learn-more

 

large-learn-more

A Simple Approach to Running Analysis for Clinicians

This week’s post is an amazing article by my friend Chris Johnson on what he looks for during a running analysis.  Chris is my go-to resource for running related injuries and rehabilitation.  He’s also recently developed an app on the iTunes app store to help runners, which I have reviewed and found to be really impressive.  Check it out at the end of this article!

 

A Simple Approach to Running Analysis For Clinicians

a simple approach to running analysis for cliniciansThe ultimate special test for runners is RUNNING.

For some odd reason, when runners seek medical consultation, clinicians routinely neglect watching them run during the rehab process. While it may not always be appropriate to take an injured runner through a formal running analysis at the time of presentation, at some point it’s imperative to take the time to watch them run. Only then will you gain a more complete understanding of perhaps what landed them in your hands in the first place.

A great deal of research has emerged over the past several years specifically looking at various characteristics of the running gait and their associated implications. A few prime examples include but are not limited to the following:

  •      Footstrike
  •      Step rate
  •      Hip adduction
  •      Loading rates
  •      Speed

By taking the time to understand the running gait along with ways to shift loads in the lower extremity, clinicians will ultimately be in a better position to help runners return to consistent training in a timely manner through manipulating physical loads on the ecosystem.

While this may seem daunting to those new at running analysis, it can actually be quite simple.  The purpose of this post is to provide clinicians with a simple framework to approach conducting a running analysis using what I call “The Four S’s of Running Analysis.”  These are:

  •      Sound
  •      Strike
  •      Step rate
  •      Speed

While it’s important to appreciate that overground and treadmill running are different animals, approaching every running assessment in a systematic manner is important. Clinicians are encouraged to use the resources at their disposal while understanding their relevance and limitations. By developing proficiency in performing a running gait analysis, clinicians will ultimately refine their clinical decision making and improve their outcomes in terms of restoring one’s float phase.

 

Sound

Before you even watch someone run, close your eyes and listen to the sound of their running gait. As clinicians, there is a great deal of information that can be ascertained by simply listening to one run.

  •      Does the runner land quiet, or is does it sound like they are going to put a hole through the ground or treadmill belt?
  •      Do their feet sound similar or is there a strike asymmetry?
  •      Does the sound of their footstrike change as a function of being shod versus unshod?
  •      Does the sound change as a function of different shoe types?

One of the simplest cues to consider in the event that someone is “overstriking” is to simply instruct the runner to “quiet your feet down.” This may be particularly relevant if the goal is to reduce the vertical ground reaction force (vGRF).

It’s important to appreciate that when one does go to quiet down their feet, that they tend to increase the ankle and knee joint excursions. On the other hand, if landing sound increases, so does the vGRF secondary to decreasing ankle joint excursion while increasing the hip joint excursion (Wernli et al. 2016).

It has been the author’s experience that under a shod condition that a rearfoot strike lends itself to reducing the sound of impact whereas when a runner is barefoot that a forefoot strike serves to quiet down the sound of impact through using the triceps surae to dampen the vertical rate of loading (VRL).

 

Strike

Let’s not complicate things! Does the runner land with a noticeable heel strike or forefoot strike, or do they exhibit a midfoot, or “flat-footed” contact? Is their strike symmetrical?

Also, the point in the race or training session we are discussing matters because one’s strike pattern tends to change over the course of the run, especially during competition (Larson et al 2011).

Over the past several years, there was a considerable buzz around forefoot striking as a means to address common running related injuries. This was due in large part to the book “Born to Run,” in conjunction with Daniel Lieberman’s classic manuscript that appeared in Nature (Lieberman et al 2010) coupled with a craze by the mass media.  It should be mentioned that coaches have long used barefoot training as means to incorporate variability into a runner’s program.

Training runners to incorporate a forefoot strike into their training may prove effective some, such as those with tibial stress syndromes, anterior compartment syndrome, and anterior knee pain.  Caution should be exercised in the context of a past medical history remarkable for injuries involving the calf muscle complex, plantar tissues of the foot, and/or metatarsals as it will bias the load to these regions.

On the other hand, if a runner is dealing with an Achilles tendinopathy or recovering from a calf muscle strain, a heel or rearfoot striking strategy would perhaps be indicated as research has shown that such a strategy reduces Achilles tendon force, strain, and strain rate relative to a FFS pattern (Lyght et al. 2016).

In my opinion, one strike pattern is not necessarily superior to others, but rather, that every strike pattern has unique characteristics and implications (Almeida et al 2015) and serves a purpose pending the context and intent.

By taking the time to understand the implications of each strike pattern, clinicians will be better able to understand the potential changes to consider making as a means to shift load to different regions of the lower extremity. As with any change, however, clinicians must be mindful that it should take place in a slow and gradual manner.

Finally, never take a runner’s word if they tell you that they utilize a certain strike pattern as research has shown that a runner’s subjective report of their strike is not necessarily accurate (Bade et al. 2016).

 

Step Rate

Running is largely about rhythm and timing.

It’s therefore no surprise that over the past several years, a considerable amount of research has focused on step rate or what’s more commonly known as cadence as a simple and practical means to address common running injuries.

The idea is that by increasing the number of steps while keeping running velocity constant, a runner can effectively reduce the magnitude of each individual loading cycle despite increasing the total number of loading cycles for a given training session. This ultimately occurs through a reduction in one’s stride length as when step rate and stride length are manipulated independently, the benefits only occur with a reduction in stride length.

runcadence appBecause I think this is so important, I actually developed a cadence app, RunCadence, which is specifically designed to help runners and clinicians apply cadence to rehab and training for runners through the use of accelerometry coupled with a metronome.

Research has shown that increasing one’s step rate by as a little as five percent above preferred while keeping velocity constant can reduce shock absorption at the level of the knee by upwards of 20 percent. Additionally, increasing step rate by 10 percent above preferred significantly reduces peak hip adduction angle as well as peak hip adduction and internal rotation moments (Heiderscheit et al. 2011).

More recently, a study showed that irrespective of whether one utilizes a rearfoot or forefoot strike pattern that increasing one’s cadence by five percent results in lower peak Achilles stress and strain.

Decreasing one’s stride length through step rate manipulation has also been shown to lead to a wider step width with an accompanying decrease in contralateral pelvic drop (CPD), peak hip adduction, peak ankle eversion, as well as peak ITB strain and strain rate (Boyer & Derrick 2015).

Lastly, clinicians should also bear in mind that increasing one’s step rate greater than 10% above preferred while keeping running velocity constant tends to occur at a greater metabolic cost so as they say, “the juice ain’t worth the squeeze.” So at day’s end, remember that the sweet spot is between 5-10% when it comes to increasing cadence based on the current body of literature.

 

Speed

Anytime one discusses running, it’s important that we account for the amount of ground covered in a given time. This is referred to as running velocity, which is the quotient of distance and time.

The typical units that we go by in the United States are min/mile or miles/hour (mph), though most of the world relies on the metric system (m/s or km/hr). So make sure you have a converter bookmarked on your web browser.

Running is typically classified into one of five categories based on speed (Novachek 1998):

  1. Jogging = 2m/s or 4.5mph
  2. Slow running = 3.5m/s or 7.8mph
  3. Medium running = 5m/s or 11mph
  4. Fast running = 7m/s or 15mph
  5. Sprinting = 8m/s or 17.9mph

Additionally, to run faster, a runner must push on the ground more forcefully, more frequently, or a combination thereof (Schache et al 2014).

At speeds < 7m/s the ankle plantarflexors reign supreme as they contribute most significantly to vertical support surfaces and increases in stride length (Dorn et al 2012). At faster speeds, however, the energy sources tend to shift proximal as a means to increase stride frequency in order to increase speed.

The reality is that most runners seeking our services will fall under the category of joggers and slow runners unless one works with speed based running athletes and short course racers.

Once a runner has reached a point in their rehab where they are a candidate to undergo a running analysis, the question naturally becomes, “what speed should we select?” This question is best answered by primarily considering the runner’s pre-injury status along with the severity, region, type of injury, and agreed upon goals.

It’s also essential to clearly identify the runner’s typical training and race intensities to better understand the entry point to having them run as well as the various speeds worth taking them through as part of the analysis.

It should also be mentioned that a thorough running analysis may require a couple sessions to work them up to faster velocities to ensure tolerance to progressive loading. Unfortunately, a common pitfall in the clinic is reluctance, or failure to have runners work up to faster speeds. This invariably leads to a myopic view of one’s running while engendering the potential for hasty clinical reasoning as we transition runners back to training.

In retrospect, running is an activity that has relatively predictable performance demands. By taking the time to develop proficiency in conducting a simple running analysis while applying the research as it relates to shifting loads in the lower extremity, clinicians will be better positioned to help runners return to consistent and healthy training and beyond.

 

Download the RunCadence App

running_cadence_appRunCadence was developed by two physical therapists to help the running community apply step rate to running via real time step rate notification and metronome.
Start using RunCadence to get more in tune with your running. While no shortcuts or “hacks” to running exist, gait retraining using cadence is the next best thing.  Click below to download:

 

 

About the Author
chris_johnson_headshot

Chris Johnson, PT, is the owner of Zeren PT and Performance in Seattle, WA.  In addition to being a highly skilled physical therapist and performance enhancement specialist for runners, Chris is also certified triathlon coach (ITCA), three-time All-American triathlete, two-time Kona Qualifier, and is currently ranked 16th (AG) in the country for long course racing.

What Exactly is Optimal Movement Quality?

What exactly does optimal movement quality mean?

Have you ever thought of that?  How do you define “optimal” movement?”  I would argue optimal movement is slightly different for everyone as we are all unique.

However, I usually think of optimal movement as simply two things:

  1. Do the right joints move (and the wrong ones don’t)?
  2. Do the right muscles work (and the wrong ones don’t)?

Simple.

Watch this video below, which is a clip from my product Functional Stability Training: Optimizing Movement, to learn more about what I mean.

 

What is Optimal Movement Quality?

 

Learn Exactly How I Optimize Movement

Want to learn even more about how I optimize movement?  Eric Cressey and I have teamed up on Functional Stability Training: Optimizing Movement, to show you exactly how we both assess, coach, and build programs designed to optimize movement.

Click the button below for more information and to sign up now!

large-learn-more

Assessing for Lat and Teres Tightness with Overhead Shoulder Mobility

Limitations in overhead shoulder mobility are common and often a frequent source of nagging shoulder pain and decreased performance.  Any loss of shoulder elevation mobility can be an issue with both fitness enthusiasts and athletes.  Just look at all the exercises that require a good amount of shoulder mobility in the fitness, Crossfit, and sports performance worlds.  Overhead press, thrusters, overhead squats, and snatches are some of the most obvious, put even exercises like pullups, handstands, wall balls, and hanging knee and toe ups can be problematic, especially when combined with speed and force such as during a kipping pull up.

Assessing for Lat and Teres Tightness with Overhead Shoulder MobilityWhen assessing for limitations in overhead shoulder elevation, there are several things you need to evaluate.  I’ve discussed many of these in several past blog posts and Inner Circle webinars on How to Assess Overhead Shoulder Mobility.

I am worried about what I am seeing on the internet right now.

I feel like the mobility trends I am seeing are focused on torquing the shoulder joint to try to improve overhead mobility.  Remember, the shoulder is a VERY mobile joint that tends to run into trouble from a lack of stability.  Trying to stretch out the joint or shoulder capsule should never be the first thing you attempt with self mobilization techniques.  In fact, I have found it causes way more problems than it solves.

Think about it for a second…

If your shoulder can’t fully elevate, jamming it into more elevation is only going to cause more issues. Find the cause. [Click to Tweet]

In my experience, the focus should be on the soft tissue around the joint, not the shoulder joint itself.  The muscles tend to be more of the mobility issue from my experience than the joint.  Just think about all the chronic adaptations that occur from out postures and habits throughout the date.

Two of the most muscles that I see causing limitations in overhead shoulder mobility at the latissimus dorsi and the teres major.

Here’s a quick and easy way to assess the lat and teres during arm elevation.

 

Assessing and Improving Overhead Shoulder Mobility

For those interested in learning more, I have a few Inner Circle webinars on how to assess and improve overhead shoulder mobility:

 

 

How to Assess Overhead Shoulder Mobility

The latest Inner Circle webinar recording on How to Assess Overhead Shoulder Mobility is now available.

How to Assess Overhead Shoulder Mobility

How to assess overhead shoulder mobilityThis month’s Inner Circle webinar is a live demonstration of How to Assess Overhead Shoulder Mobility .  In this recording of a live student inservice from Champion, I overview my process for assessing loss of overhead mobility.  This is a very common occurrence at Champion and something we do all day.  Many people don’t even realize they have a mild loss of mobility.

In this webinar, I’ll cover:

  • Why you must look at the shoulder, scapula, thoracic spine, and lumbar spine
  • What to look for during active elevation
  • How to assess for passive loss of motion
  • A couple of easy tweaks to assess if loss of mobility is coming from the joint or soft tissue
  • How to teach someone self assessments so they can monitor themselves

To access this webinar: