## 4 Discussion
### Main Findings and Comparison with Previous Studies
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|c c c c c c c|} \hline \hline  & **PSR** & \multirow{3}{*}{**Men**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Std. Error**} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{**95\% Confidence Interval**} \\ \cline{4-7}  & & & & **Lower Bound** & **Upper Bound** & \(\mathbf{p}\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{SL (m)} & Left & 1.19 & 0.07 & 1.04 & 1.33 & 0.019 * \\ \cline{2-7}  & Right & 1.16 & 0.07 & 1.02 & 1.30 & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{SA (deg)} & Left & 37.03 & 1.19 & 34.53 & 39.54 & \\ \cline{2-7}  & Right & 37.52 & 1.15 & 35.11 & 39.93 & \\ \cline{2-7}  & Left & 0.23 & 0.02 & 0.19 & 0.27 & \\ \cline{2-7}  & Right & 0.23 & 0.02 & 0.19 & 0.27 & \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(>\)10\%PSR} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.257} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.06} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.93} & \multirow{3}{*}{1.18} \\ \cline{2-7}  & Left & 1.06 & 0.06 & 0.93 & 1.18 & \\ \cline{2-7}  & Right & 1.08 & 0.06 & 0.95 & 1.21 & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{SA} & Left & 42.15 & 1.90 & 38.17 & 46.13 & \\ \cline{2-7}  & Right & 41.93 & 1.85 & 38.06 & 45.81 & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{SH} & Left & 0.25 & 0.02 & 0.20 & 0.29 & \\ \cline{2-7}  & Right & 0.25 & 0.02 & 0.21 & 0.29 & \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(<\)10\%PSR} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.257} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.06} & \multirow{3}{*}{1.13} & \multirow{3}{*}{1.42} \\ \cline{2-7}  & Left & 1.28 & 0.07 & 1.13 & 1.42 & \\ \cline{2-7}  & Right & 1.30 & 0.06 & 1.17 & 1.43 & \\ \cline{2-7}  & Left & 36.66 & 1.58 & 33.34 & 39.98 & \\ \cline{2-7}  & Right & 36.26 & 1.42 & 33.28 & 39.24 & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{SH} & Left & 0.24 & 0.02 & 0.20 & 0.28 & \\ \cline{2-7}  & Right & 0.24 & 0.02 & 0.20 & 0.28 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Note. All pairs are \(p>0.05\) except for a pair of variables. Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: BMI = 23.020. *\(p<0.05\). PSR: preferred step rate, SL: step length, SA: step angle, SH: max height of foot during step.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: Comparison of SL, SA, and SH between left and right sides. may require a period of time to adapt to the changes in metabolic costs when manipulating biomechanics variables [18]. [PERSON] et al. discovered that elite runners tend to display a higher SR, SA and shorter CT time than recreational runners [5; 7]. Moreover, [PERSON] et al. observed greater flight time, SA and SL in elite runners, while recreational runners displayed similar contact times and a higher SR [19]. Increasing SR in recreational runners could be a superior method to improve running technique that increases swing time, vertical stiffness and SA without the need to increase SL. No significant difference existed between SAs that were 10% below the participants' PSR. This could be explained by lower SR producing longer ground CT, thus reducing leg stiffness [20]. More compliant limbs are associated with greater lower limb joint flexion during the stance phase and increased energy expenditure [21]. More mechanical work from the muscles at a lower SR could produce a more varied SA among participants due to their inability to utilise kinetic energy effectively. Therefore, incorporating SA as a quantitative measure in running technology could assist in the improvement of running performance. Previous research reported that SL had an inverse relationship to SR [22]. Increasing SR is a technique employed with runners to prevent overstriding and to reduce SL [3; 23]. This helps to reduce vertical COM displacement [24], thus reducing peak vertical ground reaction forces [9] and breaking impulses during the stance phase, although elite runners displayed a longer SL and lower SR due to their higher athletic abilities [19]. Coaching drills that increase SA or SR could be useful in preventing overstriding in gait re-education programs for recreational runners. In contrast, this current study does not find that SL and SR have a significant correlation, maybe because this experiment has different conditions from the previous ones. Interestingly, SL was the only spatial parameter that had asymmetry when running at the participants' PSR (Table 6).