LAUSR

CONTEXT Previous studies have found that instructions promoting an external focus (EF) tend to be more effective for movement pattern retraining compared to instructions promoting an internal focus (IF), for a variety of movement tasks. However, few studies have examined how different types of instructions affect running mechanics associated with running-related injury risk. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of instructions promoting different attentional foci on impact forces during running. DESIGN Cross-sectional study. METHODS Twenty uninjured female recreational runners ran at a self-selected speed with their typical pattern (no instructions condition) on an instrumented treadmill that measured ground reaction forces. Next, they were given 2 sets of instructions intended to alter their running pattern; one promoted an IF and the other promoted an EF. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare impact peaks and loading rates across the conditions (no instructions, IF, and EF), with post hoc tests conducted in the case of a significant omnibus test. RESULTS There were differences among the conditions in the impact peaks (P < .001) and loading rates (P < .001). Impact peaks were lower for the IF (P = .002) and EF (P < .001) conditions compared to the no instructions condition. Loading rates were lower for the EF condition compared to the no instructions (P < .001) and IF (P < .001) conditions; there was no difference between the IF and no instructions conditions (P = .24). CONCLUSIONS Our findings indicate that instructions promoting an EF may be more effective at reducing loading rates during running compared to instructions promoting an IF. Clinicians should consider these findings when attempting to retrain a runner's running pattern.