What is the Effect of Changing Running Step Rate on Injury, Performance and Biomechanics? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: Running-related injuries are prevalent among distance runners. Changing step rate is a commonly used running retraining strategy in the management and prevention of running-related injuries.

Objective: The aims of this review were to synthesise the evidence relating to the effects of changing running step rate on injury, performance and biomechanics.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus.

Results: Thirty-seven studies were included that related to injury (n = 2), performance (n = 5), and biomechanics (n = 36). Regarding injury, very limited evidence indicated that increasing running step rate is associated with improvements in pain (4 weeks: standard mean difference (SMD), 95% CI 2.68, 1.52 to 3.83; 12 weeks: 3.62, 2.24 to 4.99) and function (4 weeks: 2.31, 3.39 to 1.24); 12 weeks: 3.42, 4.75 to 2.09) in recreational runners with patellofemoral pain. Regarding performance, very limited evidence indicated that increasing step rate increases perceived exertion ( - 0.49,  - 0.91 to - 0.07) and awkwardness (- 0.72, - 1.38 to - 0.06) and effort (- 0.69, - 1.34, - 0.03); and very limited evidence that an increase in preferred step rate is associated with increased metabolic energy consumption (- 0.84, - 1.57 to - 0.11). Regarding biomechanics, increasing running step rate was associated with strong evidence of reduced peak knee flexion angle (0.66, 0.40 to 0.92); moderate evidence of reduced step length (0.93, 0.49 to 1.37), peak hip adduction (0.40, 0.11 to 0.69), and peak knee extensor moment (0.50, 0.18 to 0.81); moderate evidence of reduced foot strike angle (0.62, 034 to 0.90); limited evidence of reduced braking impulse (0.64, 0.29 to 1.00), peak hip flexion (0.42, 0.10 to 0.75), and peak patellofemoral joint stress (0.56, 0.07 to 1.05); and limited evidence of reduced negative hip (0.55, 0.20 to 0.91) and knee work (0.84, 0.48 to 1.20). Decreasing running step rate was associated with moderate evidence of increased step length (- 0.76, - 1.31 to - 0.21); limited evidence of increased contact time (- 0.95, - 1.49 to - 0.40), braking impulse (- 0.73, - 1.08 to - 0.37), and negative knee work (- 0.88, - 1.25 to - 0.52); and limited evidence of reduced negative ankle work (0.38, 0.03 to 0.73) and negative hip work (0.49, 0.07 to 0.91).

Conclusion: In general, increasing running step rate results in a reduction (or no change), and reducing step rate results in an increase (or no change), to kinetic, kinematic, and loading rate variables at the ankle, knee and hip. At present there is insufficient evidence to conclusively determine the effects of altering running step rate on injury and performance. As most studies included in this review investigated the immediate effects of changing running step rate, the longer-term effects remain largely unknown.

Prospero Registration: CRD42020167657.