Hinz-Orlando 1

Observation on the Magnitude of Force on Knees During

Walking, Jogging, and Sprinting

Macomb Mathematics Science and Technology Center

Physics

11B

Mr. McMillan/Mrs. Cybulski

May 25, 2016

 Hinz-Orlando 2

Table of Contents

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1

Review of Literature ............................................................................................................4

Problem Statement ...............................................................................................................8

Experimental Design ............................................................................................................9

Data and Observations .......................................................................................................13

Data Analysis and Interpretation .......................................................................................20

Conclusion .........................................................................................................................28

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................31

Appendix A: How to Set Up a Lab Quest..........................................................................32

Appendix B: How to Attach the Accelerometer ................................................................33

Appendix C: Two-Sample t Test .......................................................................................34

Appendix D: Confidence Interval ......................................................................................35

Works Cited .......................................................................................................................36

 Hinz-Orlando 3

The Observation on the Magnitude of Force on Knees During Walking, Jogging, and

Sprinting

This experiment was conducted to test the effects of different running speeds on the force

exertion on knees. It was predicted that sprinting would cause the most acceleration and

therefore the highest force on a knee. By studying the differences in the magnitude of force on

knees between three different stages of running, more people will be knowledgeable on the topic,

and less prone to knee injuries.

The experiment was conducted by strapping an accelerometer to the knee of a test

subject. The test subject then either walked, jogged, or sprinted depending on the trial. The

acceleration was then recorded into a Logger Pro Lab Quest, and the data was taken to conduct a

two-sample t test. A two-sample t test was conducted to compare the mean accelerations between

three stages of running - walking, jogging, and sprinting.

The hypothesis stated that the sprinting stage would yield the greatest magnitude of force.

This statement was accepted because all the p-values were less than the alpha level of 0.05. This

statement was further supported by the fact that the sprinting stage had the highest acceleration at

53.05 m/s2, followed by the jogging stage at an acceleration of 31.8 m/s2, and lastly the walking

stage at an acceleration of 12.72 m/s2. This explained why the sprinting stage yielded the

greatest amount of force. It had the greatest acceleration.

Overall, this data supports how sprinting is detrimental to knees and overtime can cause

many injuries that runners should be aware of so they will be more careful.
 Hinz-Orlando 4

Introduction

Twist! Pop! Crack! In a split second, knee injuries change the lives of people

every day. Whether its a minor sprain or a torn ligament, the incident always leaves a

mark on that person. A commonly occurring overuse injury is patellofemoral pain

syndrome, or runners knee. This injury happens when the patella is pulled out of place

(Runner's Knee Help).

To combat these injuries, one needs to decrease the amount of force exerted on

his or her knees. This could be done with a combination of many techniques, but one

particular technique would be to decrease the acceleration of the knee.

The purpose of this experiment was to determine which stage of running -

walking, jogging, or sprinting - would yield the greatest amount of force on the knee. By

using this knowledge, more people will be aware of how much more force is exerted on

the knee while sprinting compared to walking or jogging. This information will be useful

for everyone to know, from professional athletes to the occasional jogger.

The research was conducted by strapping an accelerometer to a knee of the test

subject. The Logger Pro Lab Quest was then used to collect the data from the

accelerometer and created a graph. When analyzing the data, the positive acceleration

points during each trial were averaged together. Then all 34 trials were averaged together,

giving each overall mean acceleration from the walking, jogging, and sprinting stages.

These averages were used to conduct three separate two-sample t-tests to compare the

knee accelerations of each running stage to one another. The acceleration during the

sprinting stage was predicted to have the greatest magnitude.

 Hinz-Orlando 5

Understanding how force and acceleration are related is important when dealing

with athletes. As the acceleration of a knee increases, so does the force on the knee.

Walking can cause a force exertion of up to three times ones body weight on your knees

while running may cause a force exertion of up to five and a half times ones body weight

(Matte). This explains how athletes often have pain when they run for extended periods

of time. After a while, the force on the knees becomes too much and this leads to knee

injuries such as patellofemoral pain syndrome, IT band bursitis, or patellar tendinitis

(Runner's Knee Help...).

(Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome)

Figure 1. Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome

Figure 1 shows a diagram of what Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome does to a knee.

It can be seen that the femur rubs against the patella causing the cartilage between the

two areas to disappear until the two bones are touching each other. This causes extreme

pain in the knee and can be detrimental if not treated.

It is very easy for people to get this injury and others. People who run daily

slowly wear away the cartilage causing major damage. The research being conducted will
 Hinz-Orlando 6

show what stage of running puts the most force on a knee. In order to lessen the affects

running has on knees a person should spend less time running at the speed that causes the

most force. Most runners would not do this because they want to be as fast as possible.

Runners instead can choose to improve their running technique and make sure that they

are running in the proper way to lessen the extent of injuries. In the end, running will

cause many issues in knees, but people love it and will not stop. This research will show

how detrimental each type of motion is and how much force is put on the knee while

running.
 Hinz-Orlando 7

Review of Literature

The purpose of this experiment was to determine which stage of running -

walking, jogging, or sprinting - would yield the greatest magnitude of force on a knee.

For the experiment to be conducted, there first needed to be a thorough background

knowledge of acceleration, force, and velocity.

Force, which is a push or pull on an object from its interaction with another

object, is equal to the product of the mass and acceleration of the object in question

(Meaning of Force). The equation stated below is used in determining the magnitude of

force on knees where F stands for Force, m stands for mass, and a stands for acceleration.

F = ma

To find the maximum force exerted on a knee, the maximum acceleration is

found. Since F=ma, as the acceleration increases, the force will also increase at the same

rate. Acceleration is the change in velocity of an object. To find it, use the equation stated

below.

( )
A= =

In the equation above, A stands for acceleration, V stands for the change in

velocity which is the final velocity minus the initial velocity, and T stands for the time

(Elert).

Table 1. Force Loads in Body Weight

Stage of Running Force Load
Times Body
Weight (BW)

Walking 3.0

Jogging 4.0

Sprinting 5.5
 Hinz-Orlando 8

Table 1 shows the different force loads exerted on a knee during the three stages

of running. The number values correspond to how much force was being exerted on the

knee at that stage. For example, when walking, forces up to 3 times ones body weight is

being exerted on the knee (Biomechanics).

Another important concept to understand is velocity. Velocity is a vector quantity

that refers to "the rate at which an object changes its position" (Speed and Velocity).

The velocity of an object is found using the equation shown below. In this equation,

velocity V is equal to the change in position P which is the distance between the starting

point and the finishing point over the time it takes to complete that trial T. The velocity

function is also known as the total distance walked, jogged, or sprinted D over the time it

takes to complete the trial T.

P
V= =

It was hypothesized that the sprinting velocity would yield the greatest amount of

force on the knee. To come up with this statement, the equation F=ma was used. Since

force and acceleration are directly related, as the acceleration increased, the force

increased as well. This showed that at greater velocities, the acceleration would rise

causing the magnitude of force to increase. So the faster the knee moves, the greater

amount of force is exerted on it.

An example of a similar experiment is the Effect of Shoe Configuration,

Running Speed, and Striking Style on the Maximum Acceleration of the Knee. This

experiment was a senior research project done at the Macomb Mathematics Science and

Technology Center by Ryan Bisson and Haley Hilliard class of 2012. This experiment

compared multiple factors and observed the different knee forces generated by the
 Hinz-Orlando 9

factors. Bisson and Hilliards experiment is similar to this one because it observed how

different accelerations affected the magnitude of force exerted on a knee. It is different in

that it only used jogging and running as the velocity factors on the knee forces. Bisson

and Hilliards experiment concluded that the fastest running speeding yielded the greatest

magnitude of force on the knee.

Overall, as the velocity of a runner increases, the force on the knee increases as

well. To refer back to figure 1, if the force load multiplied by the body weight value is

high, the amount of force will be high also. Therefore, this shows that sprinting produces

the most force on knees because its force multiplied by the body weight value is the

highest. Sprinting also exerts the most force because it produces the highest acceleration.

As stated earlier F=ma, so if acceleration is greater, the force on the knee is greater too.

In all, if the velocity of a runner increases, the acceleration increases, which causes an

increase of force exerted on their knee.

 Hinz-Orlando 10

Problem Statement

Problem:

To test the effects of different running speeds on the force exertion on knees.

Hypothesis:

The highest running speed or highest acceleration will cause the most force to be

exerted on the knee.

Data Measured:

In this experiment, the independent variable was running speed with the following

levels (walking, jogging, sprinting) and the dependent variable was the force that was

exerted on the knee. The force on the knee was calculated using the formula F=ma where

m is equal to mass, a is equal to acceleration, and F is equal to force. The acceleration

was found by strapping an accelerometer to the knee and then pacing the rate at which the

leg moves according to running speed being tested. There were 34 trials of each category-

walking, jogging, and sprinting-conducted for this experiment. These test subjects each

walked, jogged, and sprinted so the data could be recorded. Multiple two-sample t tests

were used to compare the data. Three of these tests were calculated to compare the means

of the average accelerations of walking with jogging, walking with sprinting, and jogging

with sprinting.
 Hinz-Orlando 11

Experimental Design

Materials:

ACE Bandage Safety Pins (2)

Lab Quest Test Subjects (High School Freshmen)
Laptop USB Flash Drive
Masking Tape Vernier Accelerometer

Procedure:

Conducting the Experiment:

1. Put a two feet long piece of tape on the ground on the gym floor perpendicular to
the out of bounds line painted on the gym floor. This is the longer line on the
basketball court. See Figure 1 for the set up.

2. Put another two feet long piece of tape on the ground in the same fashion as stated
in step 1. This piece is 55 feet and 6 inches from the first piece of tape. See figure
1 for the set up.

3. Bring test subject into the gym.

4. Make sure the test subject is wearing tennis shoes.

5. Set up Lab Quest (see Appendix A).

6. Plug the USB Flash Drive into the Lab Quest.

7. Strap accelerometer (see Appendix B) onto the test subjects right knee as seen in
Figure 2.

8. The test subject holds the Lab Quest in the hands.

9. Have the test subject step up to the first line.

10. Count down from three and have them start walking at the word Go.

11. When the test subject begins walking, they hit the play button to start the data

collection.

12. Have the test subject stop walking at the second line. Once they stop walking,
have the test subject hit the play button to end the data collection. When the
button is hit again, the amount of time recorded will be shown on the graph.
 Hinz-Orlando 12

13. Save the results to a USB Flash Drive.

14. Repeat steps 7-13 for the jogging and running trials.

15. Once the test subject has completed all the trials, take the ACE bandage wrap off
of their knee.

16. Repeat steps, 7-15 for all 34 trials.

Calculating the Velocities:

18. Use the equation V = where V stands for velocity, D stands for the change in
distance, and T stands for the time.

19. The distance used is the length from the start line to the finish line. Once the
length is found plug it into the equation given in step one. This distance is
consistent for every calculation.

20. The time used is taken from the Logger Pro Lab Quest where it was recorded on
the graphs after every trial.

21. Plug all these variables into the equation and solve for the velocity for each trial.

Diagram:

Figure 3. Gym Set Up

Figure 3 shows the set-up for the tape on the gym floor and where to label the

start and finish lines.

 Hinz-Orlando 13

Figure 4. Accelerometer Set-Up

Figure 4 shows how and where the accelerometer was strapped to the knee. In this

figure, the accelerometer is attached using athletic tape, but for pretrials the

accelerometer was attached with an Ace bandage wrap.

Figure 5. Lab Quest Set-Up

Figure 5 shows how the Lab Quest was attached to the accelerometer and then

held in the test subjects hand while they run.

 Hinz-Orlando 14

Figure 6. Materials

The figure above shows all the materials in this experiment. They were all used

when conducting the experiment.

 Hinz-Orlando 15

Data and Observations

In this experiment, an accelerometer was strapped to the knee of a test subject.

Each test subject was asked to go through the different stages of running: walking,

jogging, and sprinting. The trials were recorded using a Logger Pro Lab Quest that

collected the data into a graph which can be seen in Figure 2. The hypothesis was that the

sprinting stage would yield the highest acceleration and therefore highest amount of force

on a knee. The acceleration was measured in meters per second squared (m/s2), the time

was measured in seconds, and the velocity was measured in meters per second (m/s).

Table 2
Walking Stage Data
Walking
Acceleration
Test Time Speed
of the Knee
Subject (sec) (m/s)
(m/s2)
1 10.60 16.10 1.60
2 11.24 20.70 1.51
3 13.60 14.62 1.24
4 14.82 19.60 1.14
5 12.30 16.18 1.38
6 13.02 14.68 1.30
7 12.40 19.50 1.36
8 13.80 15.97 1.23
9 11.00 27.30 1.54
10 12.02 20.70 1.41
11 10.72 17.73 1.58
12 12.12 10.91 1.40
13 12.72 11.14 1.33
14 12.12 17.35 1.40
15 15.80 7.57 1.07
16 13.12 9.59 1.29
17 11.74 9.83 1.44
18 18.74 6.40 0.90
 Hinz-Orlando 16

Acceleration
Test Time Speed
of the Knee
Subject (sec) (m/s)
(m/s2)
19 16.42 8.92 1.03
20 17.94 7.04 0.94
21 14.54 10.40 1.16
22 12.30 8.33 1.38
23 13.62 8.30 1.24
24 11.90 22.30 1.42
25 14.52 10.53 1.17
26 12.20 12.41 1.39
27 12.84 7.38 1.32
28 13.92 7.31 1.22
29 12.72 6.80 1.33
30 13.80 7.81 1.23
31 15.60 6.37 1.08
32 10.90 9.75 1.55
33 17.20 7.92 0.98
34 15.84 15.19 1.07
Average: 13.47 12.72 1.28

Table 2 displays the acceleration, time, and velocity of each test subject when

they performed the walking trial. The average walking acceleration was 12.72 m/s2 with

an average time of 13.5 seconds. The time and distance walked was then used to calculate

the average velocity of 1.28 m/s. From these values it was observed that since the

acceleration was low, the force on the knee was also low. The speed re-enforces this

observation because it was slow and therefore not much force was put on the knee.

Table 3
Jogging Stage Data
Jogging
Acceleration
Test Time Speed
of the Knee
Subject (sec) (m/s)
(m/s2)
1 4.70 33.80 3.60
2 6.12 32.52 2.76
3 6.00 27.23 2.82
4 5.42 22.48 3.12
 Hinz-Orlando 17

Jogging
Acceleration
Test Time Speed
of the Knee
Subject (sec) (m/s)
(m/s2)
5 6.74 32.80 2.51
6 5.86 38.23 2.89
7 5.24 67.27 3.23
8 5.74 44.47 2.95
9 6.10 39.30 2.77
10 5.70 34.40 2.97
11 5.94 44.84 2.85
12 7.00 33.23 2.42
13 7.50 29.89 2.26
14 5.84 30.96 2.90
15 8.30 32.33 2.04
16 6.00 23.48 2.82
17 5.70 21.49 2.97
18 6.52 35.44 2.59
19 8.34 17.89 2.03
20 9.94 16.90 1.70
21 7.80 26.03 2.17
22 5.90 33.79 2.87
23 5.54 24.20 3.05
24 5.14 15.02 3.29
25 6.74 28.06 2.51
26 5.52 32.58 3.06
27 6.60 27.00 2.56
28 8.42 28.45 2.01
29 6.42 19.93 2.63
30 8.30 25.13 2.04
31 6.82 24.60 2.48
32 5.84 25.48 2.90
33 9.50 61.81 1.78
34 9.00 51.21 1.88
Average: 6.65 31.83 2.63

Table 3 displays the acceleration, time, and velocity of each test subject when

they performed the jogging trial. The average jogging acceleration was 31.83 m/s2 with

an average time of 6.65 seconds. The time and distance jogged was then used to calculate
 Hinz-Orlando 18

the average velocity of 2.63 m/s. From these values it was seen that since the acceleration

increased, it caused the force on the knee to increase as well. The speed re-enforces this

observation since it was a little higher than the average walking speed. This shows that

although the force increased on the knee, it is still at a manageable level.

Table 4
Sprinting Stage Data
Sprinting
Acceleration
Test Time Speed
of the Knee
Subject (sec) (m/s)
(m/s2)
1 3.32 79.20 5.10
2 3.34 89.80 5.06
3 3.90 71.10 4.34
4 4.22 90.20 4.01
5 4.30 55.60 3.93
6 3.10 67.13 5.46
7 2.62 73.33 6.46
8 3.70 66.80 4.57
9 4.54 50.30 3.73
10 4.84 46.98 3.50
11 4.02 33.89 4.21
12 4.54 60.30 3.73
13 4.06 45.52 4.17
14 3.90 50.11 4.34
15 5.02 60.75 3.37
16 3.90 48.98 4.34
17 3.12 37.61 5.42
18 4.92 43.17 3.44
19 4.52 37.89 3.74
20 5.12 44.75 3.30
21 4.60 42.26 3.68
22 3.10 40.16 5.46
23 3.54 47.23 4.78
24 5.52 36.44 3.06
25 5.24 40.11 3.23
26 4.02 43.71 4.21
27 4.96 49.06 3.41
28 4.84 68.85 3.50
 Hinz-Orlando 19

Sprinting
Acceleration
Test Time Speed
of the Knee
Subject (sec) (m/s)
(m/s2)
29 5.04 36.75 3.36
30 4.60 25.47 3.68
31 3.50 55.52 4.83
32 3.94 25.74 4.29
33 5.62 70.52 3.01
34 5.94 68.54 2.85
Average: 4.28 53.05 4.10

Table 4 displays the acceleration, time, and velocity of each test subject when

they performed the sprinting trial. The average sprinting acceleration was 53.05 m/s2 with

an average time of 4.28 seconds. The time and distance sprinted was then used to

calculate the average velocity of 4.10 m/s. From these values it was seen that the

acceleration increased again and caused the force on the knee to reach its largest amount.

The speed re-enforces this observation since it was greater than both the walking and

jogging velocities. This shows that the force on the knee has increased to an amount that

puts a lot of pressure on it.

Table 5
Observations
Test Subject(s) Observations

Researcher 1 helped the test subjects through the trial and

Researcher 2 started creating the data tables. They seemed
1-3
to have pretty good paces throughout the walking and
jogging, but when they got to the sprinting the speed
increased greatly which lead to a high acceleration.

Researcher 1 analyzed data and researcher 2 helped the test

subject. There did not seem to be much of a difference
between the walking and jogging speeds which could
4
indicate a low acceleration change between the two values.
When sprinting there seemed to be a large increase in
speed.
 Hinz-Orlando 20

Test Subject(s) Observations

Researcher 1 analyzed data and Researcher 2 continues to

5-6 help the test subjects. All of the differences between each
level of running seemed very regular with normal speeds.

Researcher 1 analyzed data and Researcher 2 helped the

test subjects. The walking speeds for these test subjects
7-10 were pretty large except for test t subject 8 who seemed to
have a standard speed. The jogging speeds were high
causing the difference in speeds between jogging and
sprinting to be less than the previous trials.

Researcher 1 analyzed data and Researcher 2 helped the

test subject. This subject started off with a normal walking
11 speed and normal jogging speed. The sprinting speed did
not seem to be much greater than the jogging speed which
caused the acceleration of the jogging to be greater than
the sprinting.

Researcher 1 analyzed the data and Researcher 2 helped

12-17 the test subjects. These subjects had pretty standard speeds
for each of the different running stages. A few walked
slower, but overall the differences between each stage
were pretty standard.

Researcher 1 analyzed data and Researcher 2 helped the

test subject. This subject had a very slow walking speed
18 causing them to finish the walking in a large amount of
time. The sprinting and jogging speeds were not too
different from each other due to the fact that the test
subject was unsure of the difference between a jog and
sprint.

Researcher 1 analyzed data and Researcher 2 helped the

19-23 test subject. These test subjects had low speeds in each
stage. The differences between each stage were still
noticeable and similar.
 Hinz-Orlando 21

Test Subject(s) Observations

Researcher 1 analyzed data and Researcher 2 helped the
test subject. This test subject seemed to have regular
24 speeds throughout the different running stages. Once the
data was analyzed though it was found that the
acceleration was higher while walking than jogging. This
is strange, but could be due to the fact that while walking
they took big strides.
Researcher 1 analyzed data and Researcher 2 helped the
test subject. These test subjects walking speeds were all
pretty slow although they managed to finish the walking
portion in a reasonable time. Their differences between
25-33
each of the speeds were pretty average and seemed
regular. Test subjects 30 and 32 had almost no difference
between their jogging and sprinting acceleration causing
some question.
Researcher 1 analyzed data and Researcher 2 helped the
test subject. This test subject was very regular. All speeds
34 were sound which led to average differences between the
different stages of running.

Table 5 shows the observations made throughout the course of the trials. Each test

subject performed differently although there were similarities between certain groups of

subjects. There was a wide range of athletic ability anywhere from playing sports daily to

almost no physical activity at all. This gave the data more accuracy in portraying the

differences in humans.
 Hinz-Orlando 22

Figure 7. Trial Pictures

Figure 7 displays two pictures. The left picture is a side view of how the

accelerometer was attached to the knee. The right picture is a front view. These materials

were used to record the acceleration of the knee.

Figure 8. Sample Acceleration Graph

 Hinz-Orlando 23

Figure 8 shows a graph that was on the screen of the Lab Quest after a walking

trial. It shows the spikes of when the test subjects knee went up and down while walking

and how fast their leg was moving while walking. When calculating the average

acceleration for the table every important value possible was used. The points circled in

red are all the points used in this trial to calculate the average. While calculating it, the

large spikes at the end due to the subject were not used because it would have caused the

data to be an inaccurate measure of the acceleration during the time the subject was

moving.
 Hinz-Orlando 24

Data Analysis and Interpretation

In this experiment, multiple two-sample t tests were conducted. The data collected

for acceleration was measured in meters per second squared. The data is valid because a

simple random sample was used in determining the test subjects. The trials were

randomized with a calculator, and the trials were repeated 34 times. Each sample was a

control for the other therefore lurking variables affected both equally. A total of 34 trials

were completed to show that the data was normally distributed. This is shown by the

central limit theorem which states that the data is normally distributed as long as at least

30 trials are completed. The trials were then randomized with the calculator. This

increases variability and allows on average a mean that represents the trials outcomes.

This ensured that there was no bias in the data. By randomizing the data, the order of the

trials was unknown. This led to more accurate data because it showed a wide range of

athletic ability in people. The data was collected by connecting an accelerometer to a

Logger Pro Lab Quest and saving the data it measured. Three different stages of running

were compared to each other using multiple two-sample t tests.

 Hinz-Orlando 25

Figure 9. Box Plot of Walking and Jogging Data

The figure above displays the data collected in the walking and jogging trials that

was organized into box plots. The walking box plot is skewed to the right because the

median is at 10.72 while the median is at 12.72. The jogging box plot has multiple

outliers skewing the data to the right.

When the box plots were observed, they appear to overlap. It can be determined

from the overlap that around 50% of the jogging data had a greater acceleration than the

walking data. The means and medians between both data sets are about 20 m/s2 in

difference. This suggests that the jogging had a slightly higher acceleration and force put

on the knee than the walking. However, a two sample t-test had to be conducted to

determine the significance of the data.

Ho: j = w
Ha: j > w
Figure 10. Null and Alternate Hypothesis for the Walking and Jogging Test

The figure above displays the null and alternate hypotheses for the walking and

jogging data. A two-sample t-test was conducted to determine the significance between
 Hinz-Orlando 26

the sets of data. This test was appropriate because this experiment compares two sample

means from two independent populations. The null hypothesis states that the jogging

mean acceleration is equal to the walking mean acceleration. The alternative hypothesis

states that the jogging mean acceleration is greater than the walking mean acceleration.

The assumptions for the two sample t test are that the data is from random

samples, the population distributions are at least ten times the sample size, and at least

thirty trials were conducted. Nearly all of the assumptions were met. The trials were all

random and thirty-four trials were conducted which shows that the data is normally

distributed by the central limit theorem. Something to look at though, was that the

jogging data had multiple outliers which may affect the tests reliability.

Table 6
Walking and Jogging 2 Sample t test Results
Title 2-Sample t Test

Alternate Hypothesis j > w

t-value 8.7159

p-value 1.0731-11

Degrees of Freedom 47.1988

xj 31.8306

xw 12.7244

sxj 11.5433

sxw 5.4893

nj 34

nw 34
 Hinz-Orlando 27

The table above shows the results from the Two-Sample t test between walking

and jogging. To calculate the t value refer to Appendix C for the test, the null hypothesis,

which was that j = w, was rejected because the p-value of 21.0731E-11 is less than the

alpha value of 0.05. There is significant evidence that the walking mean acceleration is

not equal to the jogging mean. There is almost no chance that the data collected during

this experiment happened by chance alone, if 0 is true.

Table 7
Walking and Jogging 95% Confidence Interval
CLower 14.6967
CUpper 23.5156

Table 7 above shows the confidence intervals for the walking and jogging test. To

calculate the confidence intervals see Appendix D. It was said with 95% confidence that

the true mean acceleration between walking and jogging is between 14.6967 m/s2 and

23.5156 m/s2 for the walking and jogging stages.

Figure 11. Box Plot of Walking and Sprinting Data

 Hinz-Orlando 28

Figure 11 displays the data collected in the walking and sprinting trials that was

organized into box plots. The walking box plot is skewed to the right because the median

is at 10.72 while the median is at 12.72. The sprinting box plot is also skewed to the right

because the median is at 49.02 while the mean is at 53.05.

When the box plots were observed, they appear to overlap only slightly. It can be

determined from the overlap that around 75% of the sprinting data had a greater

acceleration than the walking data. The means and medians between both data sets are

about 40 m/s2 in difference. This suggests that the sprinting had a much higher

acceleration and force put on the knee than the walking. However, a two sample t-test

had to be conducted to determine the significance of the data.

Ho: s = w
Ha: s > w
Figure 12. Null and Alternate Hypothesis for the Walking and Sprinting Test

Figure 12 displays the null and alternate hypotheses for the walking and sprinting

data. A two-sample t test was conducted to determine the significance between the sets of

data. This test was appropriate because this experiment compares two sample means from

two independent populations. The null hypothesis states that the sprinting mean

acceleration is equal to the walking mean acceleration. The alternative hypothesis states

that the sprinting mean is greater than the walking mean.

Table 8
Walking and Sprinting Two-Sample t Test Results
Title 2-Sample t test

Alternate Hypothesis s > w

t-value 13.3648

P-value 1.2-16
 Hinz-Orlando 29

Title 2-Sample t test

Degrees of Freedom 40.0351

xs 53.0521

xw 12.7244

sxs 16.7164

sxw 5.4893

ns 34

nw 34

Table 8 shows the results from the Two-Sample t test between walking and

sprinting. To calculate the t value refer to Appendix C For the test, the null hypothesis,

which was that s = w, was rejected because the p-value of 1.2E-16 is less than the alpha

value of 0.05. There is significant evidence that the walking mean is not equal to the

sprinting mean. There is almost no chance that the data collected during this experiment

happened by chance alone if 0 is true.

Table 9
Sprinting and Walking 95% Confidence Interval
CLower 34.2293

CUpper 46.4259

The table above shows the confidence intervals for the walking and sprinting test.

To calculate the confidence intervals see Appendix D. It was said with 95% confidence

that the true mean difference acceleration between walking and sprinting is between

46.4259 m/s2 and 34.2293 m/s2 for the walking and sprinting stages.
 Hinz-Orlando 30

Figure 13. Box Plot of Jogging and Sprinting Data

Figure 13 displays the data collected in the jogging and sprinting trials that was

organized into box plots. The jogging box plot has multiple outliers skewing the data to

the right. The sprinting box plot is also skewed to the right because the median is at 49.02

while the mean is at 53.05.

When the box plots were observed, they appeared to overlap. It was determined

from the overlap that a little more than 50% of the sprinting data had a greater

acceleration than the jogging data. The mean difference between sprinting and jogging is

21.22 m/s2 and the median difference between both sprinting and jogging is 18.57m/s2 in

difference. This suggests that the sprinting had a higher acceleration and force put on the

knee than the jogging. However, a two sample t-test was conducted to determine the

significance of the data.

Ho: s = j
Ha: s > j
Figure 14. Null and Alternate Hypothesis for the Jogging and Sprinting Test
 Hinz-Orlando 31

The figure on the previous page displays the null and alternate hypotheses for the

jogging and sprinting data. A two-sample t test was conducted to determine the

significance between the sets of data. This test was appropriate because this experiment

compares two sample means from two independent populations. The null hypothesis

states that the sprinting mean acceleration is equal to the jogging mean acceleration. The

alternative hypothesis states that the sprinting mean acceleration is greater than the

jogging mean acceleration.

Table 10
Results of the Jogging and Sprinting Two-Sample t Test
Title 2-Sample t Test

Alternate Hypothesis s > j

t-value 6.0912

p-value 4.6410-8

Degrees of Freedom 58.6414

xs 53.0521

xj 38.8306

sxs 16.7164

sxj 11.5433

ns 34

nj 34

Table 10 shows the results from the Two-Sample t-test between jogging and

sprinting. To calculate the t value refer to Appendix C. For the test, the null hypothesis,

which was that s = j, was rejected because the p-value of 4.6410E-8 was less than the

alpha value of 0.05. There is significant evidence that the jogging mean acceleration is
 Hinz-Orlando 32

not equal to the sprinting mean acceleration. There is almost no chance that the data

collected during this experiment happened by chance alone if 0 is true.

Table 11 Sprinting and Jogging 95% Confidence Interval

CLower 14.2492
CUpper 28.1936

Table 11 shows the confidence intervals for the jogging and sprinting test. To

calculate the confidence intervals see Appendix D. It was said with 95% confidence that

the true mean difference in acceleration between jogging and sprinting is between

14.2492 m/s2 and 28.1936 m/s2 for the jogging and sprinting stages.

Overall, the statistical evidence showed that there was a significant effect on the

acceleration between each stage of running. Since the p-value of all the tests was less

than the alpha level of 0.05, the null hypothesis for each test was rejected. This showed

that there was significant evidence the mean jogging acceleration was greater than the

mean walking acceleration, the mean sprinting acceleration was greater than the mean

walking acceleration, and the mean sprinting acceleration was also greater than the mean

jogging acceleration. From these statistical conclusions it can be seen that the sprinting

acceleration always yielded the most force on the knee.

 Hinz-Orlando 33

Conclusion

The experiment was run to test the effects of different running speeds on the force

exertion on knees. These trials were completed by strapping an accelerometer to the test

subject's knee and then having them walk, jog, or sprint. The data of the acceleration of

the knee was then collected and graphed by the Lab Quest. Since force equals the product

of acceleration and mass, as acceleration increased force also increased. This fact was

taken into account when determining which running stage created the highest magnitude

of force. Thirty-four trials were run on each of the three different stages of running.

This experiments hypothesis stated that the highest running speed or highest

acceleration would cause the most force to be exerted on the knee. The hypothesis was

accepted. The by comparing the mean accelerations of the three stages, it was apparent

that the sprinting stage had a higher mean acceleration than both the walking and jogging

stages. It was also noticed that the jogging mean acceleration was higher than the walking

mean acceleration.

The sprinting stage had the highest mean acceleration at 53.05 m/s2, the next

highest was the jogging stage with a mean acceleration at 31.83 m/s2, and the lowest was

the walking stage with a mean acceleration at 12.72 m/s2. These values indicate how

much greater the sprinting mean acceleration was in comparison to the other two stages.

This shows that the sprinting stage yielded the greatest magnitude of force on the

subjects knee.

Tests between walking and jogging, walking and sprinting, and jogging and

sprinting were all conducted. The p-values for all three tests were less than the alpha level
 Hinz-Orlando 34

of 0.05, indicating that there was significant evidence that the mean accelerations were

not equal.

Therefore, the statistical tests and box plots support the hypothesis. Figure 9,

Figure 11, and Figure 13, all show the boxplots comparing the accelerations of walking,

jogging, and sprinting. Figure 10 displays the boxplot between walking and sprinting.

This visual displays how the mean acceleration of the sprinting stage is much higher in

magnitude in comparison to the walking stage. This is the same case for Figure 12 which

shows the boxplot between jogging and sprinting. No aspect of this experiment disagreed

with the hypothesis in any way.

The results of this experiment also agreed with the results of previous

experiments. One such experiment was The Effect of Shoe Configuration, Running

Speed, and Striking Style on the Maximum Acceleration of the Knee done by Ryan

Bisson and Haley Hilliard, previous MMSTC students. This past experiment stated that

an increase in the force on knees when running leads to an increase in the rate of knee

injury. The increase in force is associated with the sprinting stage acceleration (Bisson

and Hilliard). The results of their supported this experiments conclusion.

In addition to this experiment, new research would include answering how the

angle of a knee when striking the ground affects the force exertion.

The experimental design for this research worked well enough to collect accurate

data. However, some issues occurred. For example, multiple trials were deleted because

the Lab Quests and accelerometers recorded faulty data. This was due to the fact that

some of the equipment in use was old and in need of replacement. The faulty

accelerometer was replaced, and the data collection began again, but throwing away the
 Hinz-Orlando 35

data from those trials wasted a lot of time. Instead of using data for 35 to 40 trials, only

the data for 34 trials were used because inaccurate data was collected and thrown out. To

fix this, next time there needs to be more attention payed to the data collected so any

errors can be found much earlier. The test subjects also used different types of shoes.

Most used tennis shoes, but many were not the same brand, and an occasional few used

converse or vans. This could have affected the data because tennis shoes have more

spring in them than converse and vans. There is also a difference between the types of

tennis shoes and how they affect their running speeds. It most likely did not affect the

data a lot, but it still could have skewed the data slightly. To fix this in the future, all test

subject would wear the same shoes to decrease any data skewing.

In all, this experiment was run correctly and supports the hypothesis. This

experiment will provide essential information to anyone interested in running. From

professional athletes to the occasional jogger, knowing this information can help people

become more aware of how running at certain velocities can be detrimental to ones

health.
 Hinz-Orlando 36

Acknowledgements

The experimenters would like to acknowledge the people who helped throughout

this experiment. Mrs. Cybulski helped with editing and formatting multiple aspects of the

paper. Mr. McMillan helped with understanding the science behind this experiment as

well as the procedure. Mrs. Gravel allowed her students to participate as test subjects for

this experiment. In addition, many MMSTC freshman participated as test subjects for this

experiment.
 Hinz-Orlando 37

Appendix A: How to Set up a Lab Quest

Materials:

Accelerometer
Lab Quest

Procedure:

1. Make sure the Lab Quest is fully charged. If it is, continue to step 2. If not, plug
the Lab Quest into an outlet.

2. Turn the Lab Quest on.

3. Plug the accelerometer into the Lab Quest.

4. Tap the screen and set the sensor to zero.

 Hinz-Orlando 38

Appendix B: How to Attach the Accelerometer

Materials:

Accelerometer
Ace Bandage Wrap
4 Safety Pins

Procedure:

1. Attach the accelerometer to the middle of the Ace bandage wrap using one safety
pin on each side of the accelerometer.

2. Wrap the Ace bandage wrap onto the knee so that the accelerometer is just below
the knee.

3. Secure the Ace bandage wrap on the knee using two safety pins.
 Hinz-Orlando 39

Appendix C: Two-Sample t Test

Multiple two-sample t-tests were conducted to compare the different accelerations

in the three stages of running. In this example, x stands for the mean of the jogging

acceleration, and x stands for the mean of the walking acceleration. The is the

standard deviation of the jogging acceleration, and is the standard deviation of the

walking acceleration. The is the number of trials in the jogging stage, and the is the

number of trials in the walking stage. To calculate the t value, divide the quantity of the

jogging mean minus the walking mean by the square root of the quantity of the standard

deviation of the jogging trails squared divided by the number of jogging trials plus the

quantity of the standard deviation of the walking trails squared divided by the number of

walking trials.

( x x )
t=
2 2
+

(31.8312.72)
t= 2 2
= 8.7195
11.54 +5.49
34 34

Figure 9. Example Two-Sample T Test Calculation

Figure 9 shows an example calculation of a two-sample t test using the data

collected.
 Hinz-Orlando 40

Appendix D: Confidence Interval

A 95% confidence interval was used after the t test was conducted. In this

example, x stands for the mean of the jogging acceleration, and x stands for the mean

of the walking acceleration. The is the standard deviation of the jogging acceleration,

and is the standard deviation of the walking acceleration. The is the number of trials

in the jogging stage, and the is the number of trials in the walking stage.

2 2
(x -x ) t * +

11.542 5.492
(31.83 12.72) (2.042) + = 14.6347 to 23.5853
34 34

Figure 10. The 95% Confidence Interval Calculation

The figure above shows the calculation of the 95% confidence interval. The value

of t* is 2.042.
 Hinz-Orlando 41

Works Cited

"A Beginner's Guide to Accelerometers." Dimension Engineering, n.d. Web. 24 Apr.

2016.

<http://www.dimensionengineering.com/info/accelerometers>.

"Biomechanics of the Knee Joint." (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 23 Apr. 2016.

<http://seltsft.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2011/06/Mati_Pa%CC%88a%CC%88suke_p

o%CC%83lveliigese_biomehaanika.pdf>

Elert, Glenn "Acceleration." The Physics Hypertextbook. Glenn Elert, n.d. Web. 24 Apr.

2016.

<http://physics.info/acceleration/>.

Henderson, Tom "The Meaning of Force." The Physics Classroom. n.d. Web. 24 Apr.

2016. <http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-2/The-

Meaning-of-Force>.

Henderson, Tom "Speed and Velocity." The Physics Classroom. The Physics Classroom,

n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2016. (Can be seen on page 5)

<http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-1/Speed-and-Velocity>

K, Toni. "Accelerometer Basics." SparkFun. SparkFun Electronics, n.d. Web. 24 Apr.

2016. <https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/accelerometer-basics>.

Matte, Michelle. "Weight & Knee Pressure When Walking, Running & Cycling." Live

Healthy. Houston Chronicle, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.

<http://livehealthy.chron.com/weight-knee-pressure-walking-running-cycling-

5043.html>.
 Hinz-Orlando 42

"Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome." N.p., n.d. Web. 10 May 2016. (Can be seen on page 2)

<http://america.pink/patellofemoral-pain-syndrome_3424878.html>

"Runner's Knee Help for Patellofemoral Pain and IT Band Irritation." My Life Stages.

N.p., n.d. Web. 10 May 2016. (Can be seen on page 1)

<https://www.mylifestages.org/health/knees/runners_knee.page>.

Bisson, Ryan and Haley Hilliard. "Effect of Shoe Configuration, Running Speed, and

Striking Style on the Maximum Acceleration of the Knee."Macomb Mathematics

Technology Center. Warren Consolidated Schools, 2012. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.

<http://www.wcskids.net/mmstc/students/research/physics/2012/bisson%20-

%20hilliard.asp>.