How can you report a significant difference in the rate of loading, i.e. variation in the force / time characteristics, yet still make the statement: "The currently available data does not support the hypothesis that there is a significant difference between the ground reaction force of subjects experiencing lower-limb stress fracture and control groups" :bash: Don't get it. Rate of loading, is somehow independent of "ground reaction force"on their planet?:confused:
I thought that statement was a little misleading also.
Maybe saying something like GRF magnitude was not significant but loading rate of GRF was significant?
Kevin, it's really a matter of timing. So the peak magnitude's may not be significantly different, but if we look at the magnitudes at discreet time intervals then they must have been different in order to explain differences in rate of loading. To me, someone might read this and say: "ground reaction force is not different in stress fracture versus control"; this is simply not true. It's almost like the authors had an agenda when they wrote... "The currently available data does not support the hypothesis that there is a significant difference between the ground reaction force of subjects experiencing lower-limb stress fracture and control groups." Errr, yes it does.:mad:
Given the strain rate sensitivity of viscoelastic tissues such as human bone then the rate of loading is clearly pretty important.
Very misleading conclusions.