Study note • PMID 36423619
Efficacy of an Audio-Based Biofeedback Intervention to Modify Running Gait in Female Runners.
Worth trying if it fits your goal and context.
ELI5
In plain language
To determine whether instructing female recreational runners to "run quietly" could decrease impact force characteristics. (cohort study; recreational runners).
The abstract suggests a trade-off or negative effect affecting Running economy. Treat this as a signal, not a guarantee; confirm methods and context in the full paper.
Takeaways
What the abstract suggests
- • Study question: To determine whether instructing female recreational runners to "run quietly" could decrease impact force characteristics.
- • The abstract suggests a trade-off or negative effect affecting Running economy.
- • Population: recreational runners.
- • Protocol cues (title/abstract): 1 week.
Protocol
Protocol (as reported)
- • Intervention/exposure: ground reaction, foot strike (vs comparison group).
- • Dose/time/duration cues in abstract/title: 1 week.
- • Outcomes: Running economy.
- • Replication note: abstracts often omit adherence and timing; confirm details before changing training or supplementation.
Fit
Who it helps, and who should skip it
Who it helps
- • Athletes similar to the study population (recreational runners) working on biomechanics.
- • Athletes who can measure Running economy with a repeatable workout or time-trial effort.
Who should skip
- • If you have symptoms or conditions that make the intervention risky, get professional guidance.
- • If you’re near race day and can’t safely test, defer the experiment.
Methods
What the study actually did
- • Design: cohort study.
- • Population: recreational runners.
- • Comparator: comparison group.
- • Outcomes measured: Running economy.
- • Protocol cues mentioned: 1 week.
- • Source: PubMed PMID 36423619 (2023) — Journal of sport rehabilitation.
Results excerpt
What the abstract reports
“Vertical ground reaction force was lower at follow-up (2.30 bodyweights [BW]) versus baseline (2.39 BW, P = .023) and training (2.34 BW, P = .047).”
Note: excerpts are short; for full context, read the paper.
Limits
Limitations & bias
- • Abstract-only summaries can miss critical details (population, protocol, adherence, and context).
- • Single studies often don’t generalize to your event, history, and training load; treat results as a starting point.
- • If your context differs (elite vs recreational; cycling vs running), adjust expectations and be conservative.
- • This is performance information, not medical advice.
Coaching beta
Get a plan that adapts to your life.
Join the 26weeks.ai TestFlight beta for adaptive coaching, recovery-aware adjustments, and race-week reminders.
Keep going
Performance Science Lab
Research-backed protocols and evidence grades for endurance performance — built for athletes.
Biomechanics performance research
Biomechanics changes can help — but most athletes should start with strength, cadence, and pacing.
Caffeine for endurance performance: a practical protocol
Evidence-informed protocol: Caffeine for endurance performance: a practical protocol. Practical steps, who it helps, and what to watch out for.
Running economy research for endurance athletes
Economy is the cost of speed. Small improvements compound over long races.