J Sports Sci Med. 2014 Dec 01;13(4):823-8. eCollection 2014 Dec.

Does achilles tendon cross sectional area differ after downhill, level and uphill running in trained runners?.

Journal of sports science & medicine

Katy Andrews Neves, A Wayne Johnson, Iain Hunter, J William Myrer

PMID: 25435775 PMCID: PMC4234952

Abstract

In this study we examined how hill running affects the Achilles tendon, a common location for injuries in runners. Twenty females ran for 10 min on each of three randomly ordered grades (-6%, 0 and +6%) at speeds selected to match the metabolic rates. Achilles tendon (AT) cross-sectional area (CSA) was imaged using Doppler ultrasound and peak vertical forces were analyzed using an instrumented treadmill. A metabolic cart and gas analyzer ensured a similar metabolic cost across grades. Data were analyzed using a forward selection regression. Results showed similar decreases in AT CSA from pre- to post-run for all three conditions of ~5 to 7% (p = 0.0001). Active peak vertical forces were different across grades (p = 0.0001) with the largest occurring during downhill running and smallest during uphill running. Since changes in AT CSA were not different between grades, each form of running appears equal and acceptable in regards to how the Achilles tendon reacts. That is, the results suggest that the Achilles tendon is affected by downhill, level, and uphill running and a decrease in CSA appears to be a normal response. Key PointsDownhill (- 6%), level and uphill (+ 6%) running at different speeds each caused a statistically significant decrease in the Achilles tendon cross-sectional area in healthy, trained runners.The magnitude of change in Achilles tendon cross-sectional area did not differ between grades when metabolic cost of running was matched.Downhill running resulted in the largest peak vertical force, while uphill running resulted in the smallest.

Keywords: Doppler ultrasound imaging; cross-sectional area; peak vertical force

References

1. J Biomech. 2014 Jan 3;47(1):65-73 - PubMed
2. J Exp Biol. 2008 Oct;211(Pt 20):3266-71 - PubMed
3. J Exp Biol. 2006 Nov;209(Pt 21):4379-88 - PubMed
4. J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Jun;27(6):1549-59 - PubMed
5. J Biomech Eng. 1992 Nov;114(4):435-41 - PubMed
6. J Exp Biol. 2000 Apr;203(Pt 8):1317-27 - PubMed
7. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000 Sep;32(9):1635-41 - PubMed
8. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2003 May;29(5):637-42 - PubMed
9. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012 Nov;44(11):2111-7 - PubMed
10. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2001 Jan;90(1):164-71 - PubMed
11. Sports Med. 2005;35(11):991-1014 - PubMed
12. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012 Feb;112(2):653-60 - PubMed
13. J Appl Physiol. 1964 Mar;19:249-56 - PubMed
14. Int Orthop. 1987;11(1):71-5 - PubMed
15. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000 Jun;32(6):1146-55 - PubMed
16. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011 May 27;366(1570):1540-53 - PubMed
17. J Exp Biol. 2006 Sep;209(Pt 17):3345-57 - PubMed
18. J Biomech. 2005 Mar;38(3):445-52 - PubMed
19. J Physiol. 2008 Jan 1;586(1):71-81 - PubMed
20. J Athl Train. 2010 Jan-Feb;45(1):16-21 - PubMed
21. Clin J Sport Med. 2005 May;15(3):133-5 - PubMed
22. J Ultrasound Med. 2006 Oct;25(10 ):1291-6 - PubMed
23. J Biomech. 2011 Mar 15;44(5):822-6 - PubMed
24. Biorheology. 1982;19(3):397-408 - PubMed
25. J Physiol. 2001 Dec 1;537(Pt 2):333-45 - PubMed
26. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003 Nov;90(5-6):549-53 - PubMed
27. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2005 Nov;99(5):1965-71 - PubMed
28. Connect Tissue Res. 1980;7(3):177-83 - PubMed
29. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013 Dec;113(12):2925-32 - PubMed
30. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2002 Sep;93(3):1039-46 - PubMed

Publication Types

• Journal Article