This study was conducted at the University of Kentucky Biodynamics Laboratory in Lexington, KY and was partially supported by a grant from the Kentucky Chapter of the American Physical Therapy Association. Backward running (BR) is employed for conditioning and for rehabilitation in sports, orthopaedics, and neurology. Our purposes were to compare kinematics and training effects of BR to forward running (FR). Ten runners (6 males, 4 females, ages 20-34 years) were assigned to a backward running (BRG) or control (FRG) group. Subject isokinetic muscular torque production (IMTP) and biomechanics during FR and BR at 3.58 m/sec were studied at the beginning and after 8 weeks of training. Stance time was significantly shorter during BR. The peak vertical component of the ground reaction force (Fz) and Fz impulse were significantly less during BR. After training, knee extensor IMTP of the BRG increased significantly at 75 and 120 degrees /sec. We concluded that BR produced lower Fz stress than FR and improved knee extensor torque at low speeds. Backward running may be clinically useful for reducing stress to injured joints and for increasing knee extensor strength. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1989;11(2):56-63.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 January 2012.
All research outputs
#24,893,401
of 34,518,147 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
#2,358
of 2,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,769
of 21,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,518,147 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,761 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.4. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 21,054 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.
