跑步著地方式對下肢肌肉活化情形與關節能量貢獻之影響

Effects of different strike patterns on lower extremity muscle activity and energy contribution during running

陳柏潔(Chen Po-Chieh)

指導教授 ： 黃長福

國立臺灣師範大學/運動與休閒學院/體育學系/博士(2018年)

https://doi.org/10.6345/DIS.NTNU.DPE.054.2018.F03

摘要

目的：本研究目的為探討前足及後足著地跑步動作之下肢肌肉與關節能量吸收與產生的主要來源以及下肢各關節能量貢獻之分配情形。方法：利用十台高速攝影機、二台測力板及無線肌電儀同步蒐集15名有慢跑習慣之健康男性受試者前、後足著地方式跑步 (3.5±0.5公尺/秒) 之運動學、動力學與肌電資料。統計方法以重複量數t考驗進行分析比較，顯著水準設為α=.05。結果：一、前足著地方式在支撐期間有較大的髖關節與踝關節角位移、最大功率以及正功，而踝關節負功與下肢關節總作功亦顯著大於後足著地方式；後足著地方式在膝關節負功、平均及最大負荷率方面則顯著大於前足著地方式。二、前足著地方式在預先收縮期與支撐期間有較高的腓腸肌活化情形，而後足著地方式則在脛前肌皆有較高的活化情形。三、前足著地在髖、膝及踝關節產能貢獻度分別為10%、19%與71%，後足著地為8%、19%與73%；而前足著地在能量吸收貢獻度分別為39%、13%與47%，後足著地為37%、35%與26%。結論：前、後足著地方式在推蹬時皆以踝關節為主要產能之關節，但在緩衝時前足著地方式主要是藉由踝關節為主、髖關節為輔進行緩衝吸能，而後足著地方式則是以髖、膝關節為主。在同樣地慢跑速度下使用前足著地方式在跑步支撐期會消耗較多的能量，但在足部著地時卻較後足著地方式有較好的緩衝機制去吸收衝擊力。因此，建議跑者在選擇跑步著地方式時應注意下肢肌群能量的消耗與負荷，並預防可能發生之傷害。

關鍵字

前足著地 ； 後足著地 ； 赤足跑步

並列摘要

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate lower extremity’s muscle and joint energy resource and contribution during running with forefoot strike (FFS) and rear-foot strike (RFS) patterns. Methods: Ten high-speed cameras, two force plates and wireless EMG sensors were synchronized to collect the lower extremity kinematics, kinetics and EMG data of 15 healthy male runners with FFS and RFS running (3.5±0.5 m/s). All variables were analyzed with paired t-test. The significant level was set at α= .05. Results: 1. The range of motion, power and positive work at hip and ankle were significantly greater in FFS than in RFS during the stance phase of running, as well as the negative work at ankle and the total joint work at lower extremity joints. The negative work at knee, the average loading rate, and the maximal loading rate in RFS were significant greater than FFS. 2. Higher muscle activity of gastrocnemius muscle was observed in FFS at pre-stretching phase and stance phase and higher muscle activity of tibialis anterior muscle was also observed in RFS. 3. In FFS, the positive energy contribution joint at hip, knee, and ankle were 10%, 19%, and 71%; in RFS were 8%, 19%, and 73%. The negative energy contribution joint in FFS at hip, knee, and ankle were 39%, 13%, and 47%; in RFS were 37%, 35%, and 26%. Conclusion: The ankle joint was the major joint to absorb and generate energy during FFS running. The hip and knee joints were the main joints to absorb energy for braking, and the ankle joint was the major joint to generate energy for propelling during RFS running. While running at the same speed, FFS would consume more energy than RFS at the stance phase of running, but had better braking mechanism to absorb shock during braking phase. Therefore, this study suggested that runner should consider their energy consumption and loading on lower extremity to chose proper running strike pattern, and prevent the potential injury.

並列關鍵字

forefoot strike ； rear-foot strike ； barefoot running

參考文獻

Arendse, R. E., Noakes, T. D., Azevedo, L. B., Romanov, N., Schwellnus, M. P., & Fletcher, G. (2004). Reduced eccentric loading of the knee with the pose running method. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36(2), 272-277.

Aura, O., & Komi, P. (1986). Effects of prestretch intensity on mechanical efficiency of positive work and on elastic behavior of skeletal muscle in stretch-shortening cycle exercise. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 7(3), 137-143.

Bishop, M., Brunt, D., Pathare, N., & Patel, B. (2004). The effect of velocity on the strategies used during gait termination. Gait & Posture, 20(2), 134-139.

Brüggemann, G., Potthast, W., Niehoff, A., Braunstein, B., & Assheuer, J. (2005). Adaptation of morphology and function of the intrinsic foot and shank muscle to mechanical loading induced through footwear. The Impact of Technology On Sport, 505-510.

Cavanagh, P. R., & Lafortune, M. A. (1980). Ground reaction forces in distance running. Journal of Biomechanics, 13(5), 397-406.