## 5 Conclusions  
In summary, GLMMs within this study have demonstrated the intersegmental relationship between joint/segment kinematics, segment velocities and the resulting peak accelerations of the upper trunk during running over several speeds. Specifically, we found that peak shank and pelvis velocities during impact (IFC-MS) had the largest effect on the RES upper trunk peak accelerations captured by the accelerometer contained within the GPS device. Furthermore, differences in pelvis and thorax peak velocities affected the peak accelerometer accelerations in the individual axes (VT, AP and ML). Sports science and medical practitioners may utilize analysis of peak RES GPS-based accelerometer accelerations to provide insights into the lower body's GRF attenuation properties during impact. Additionally, analyzing the differences between the peak accelerometer accelerations in each axis can infer an athlete's trunk stability mechanisms whilst running. The findings of this study provide the basis for analyzing an athlete's running style in the field with the peak accelerations captured from the GPS-based accelerometer. Information of this kind could be used to monitor an athlete's progress during injury rehabilitation and training load management.  
**Supplementary Materials:** The following supporting information can be downloaded at [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app14010063/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app14010063/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app14010063/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app14010063/s1)): Table S1. Category 1 Peak RES Accelerations GLMM results; Table S2. Category 1 Peak VT Accelerations GLMM results; Table S3. Category 1 Peak AP Accelerations GLMM results; Table S4. Category 1 Peak ML Accelerations GLMM results; Table S5. Category 2 Peak RES Accelerations GLMM results; Table S6. Category 2 Peak VT Accelerations GLMM results; Table S7. Category 2 Peak AP Accelerations GLMM results; Table S8. Category 2 Peak ML Accelerations GLMM results; Table S9. Actual Peak RES Accelerations vs. GLMM predicted for Category 1 and2 variables; Table S10. Actual Peak VT Accelerations vs. GLMM predicted for Category 1 and 2 variables; Table S11. Actual Peak AP Accelerations vs. GLMM predicted for Category 1 and 2 variables; Table S12. Actual Peak ML Accelerations vs. GLMM predicted for Category 1 and 2 variables.  
**Author Contributions:** [PERSON] was the principal researcher on this study. The contributions by the authors are as follows: Conceptualization, M.L., R.A.N., R.N. and N.C.; Methodology, M.L. and R.N.; Software, M.L. and R.A.N.; Formal Analysis, M.L., R.N. and R.A.N.; Writing--Original Draft Preparation, M.L. and R.N.; Writing--Reviewing and Editing, R.A.N., R.N. and N.C.; Visualization, M.L.; Supervision, R.N. and N.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
**Funding:** This research received no external funding.  
**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Ethical clearance for this testing procedure was granted by the Staffordshire University ethical committee (9 October 2019).  
**Informed Consent Statement:** All participants gave informed written consent prior to testing.  
**Data Availability Statement:** The data presented in this study are available in the main text (Tables 1-3) and in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S1-S12).  
**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors can declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this study.