Cam LabRowing guide →

How running analysis is scored

Every number in a running report traces to a published source or is labelled as our own estimate. This page says what each score means, which measurements feed it, how much each one counts, and — just as importantly — what we cannot measure well.

The scores

Form score

How close your mechanics sit to the references calculated for you.

Every scored metric earns continuous partial credit for how far it sits from its target — full credit inside the band, then a smooth fade, never a cliff at the edge. Metrics the camera could not see clearly are weighted down, and the remaining ones are renormalised, so you are judged on what was actually visible rather than penalised for a bad angle.

What it does not tell you: It moves with the profile you pick, because the profile changes how much tolerance each band gets. Use the comparable score to track yourself over time.

Comparable score

The same run against one fixed rubric, so it means the same thing every time.

Identical measurements, scored at a fixed tolerance and using only the side-view metrics. That makes it independent of the profile you chose and of whether you happened to film a rear view — which is exactly what a progress chart needs. This is the number History stores.

What it does not tell you: It ignores the rear-view metrics by design, so it is not a fuller picture than the form score — it is a more stable one.

Injury Load Index

How your mechanics compare on patterns published cohorts associate with injury.

A weighted read of six measurements, each weighted by the effect size reported in the source study and discounted by how reliably it can be measured from video. Only the contributors actually measured are counted, and the weights are renormalised over them.

What it does not tell you: It is an index of load patterns, not a probability, and not a diagnosis. From a side view alone the two strongest contributors are invisible, so its confidence is capped. It says nothing about your training load, history, or tissue tolerance — the things that actually decide whether you get hurt.

Economy & speed

The four kinematic terms that predicted race performance in the largest study of its kind.

Braking, vertical oscillation, duty factor and shank angle at touchdown. In a study of 97 runners from recreational to elite, those four together explained 31% of the variance in season's-best time and 39% of running economy.

What it does not tell you: 31% is a lot for running technique and still leaves most of performance to physiology, training and genetics. A high score does not make you fast on its own.

Across the run

How much your stride varied, and whether it drifted.

Stride-to-stride variation in contact and stride time, plus the change from the first third of the clip to the last.

What it does not tell you: These are observed statistics with no claim attached. There is no published 'correct' amount of stride variation, so nothing here is a target — it is a description of what your run did.

What feeds the form score, and how much

Weights are relative, not percentages: each metric contributes in proportion to its weight among the metrics that were actually measurable in your clip.

Stride

Cadence1.5
Step length1.0
Ground contact time1.0
Flight time0.5
Duty factor1.0
Vertical oscillation1.0

Landing

Landing position1.5
Shank angle at touchdown1.5
Knee flexion at contact1.2
Knee flexion at midstance1.0
Foot strikenot scored

Posture & drive

Trunk forward lean1.2
Hip extension at toe-off1.0
Heel recovery0.8
Thigh lift0.8

Rear view

Contralateral pelvic drop2.0
Hip adduction1.5
Foot progression angle0.8
Heel whip0.8

How much to trust each target

Measured

The cited source states this number, for this convention, in a population like yours. The strongest kind of target we have.

Modelled

Predicted for you specifically, from published regression equations fitted to 860 recreational runners, using your sex, age, height, weight and running speed. Not a population average — a value for your build at your pace. How much of the variation each equation explains varies a lot: step length 88%, contact time 64%, duty factor 55%, step rate 26%, flight time 21%, vertical oscillation 19%. The last two are weak, and their bands are correspondingly wide.

Estimate

The convention is cited but the target band is ours, interpolated from it. Directional guidance, not a measurement standard. Most of the joint-angle targets are in this category, and they are labelled everywhere they appear.

Things worth knowing

Foot strike is reported, never graded

Forefoot striking moves load from the knee to the ankle and Achilles; rearfoot striking does the reverse. Systematic reviews find cohorts pointing both ways and rate the evidence low quality. We classify what you do using the published thresholds and explain the trade-off. Any product that marks you down for it is asserting something the literature does not support.

180 steps per minute is not a target

That figure comes from an observation of elite runners racing at the 1984 Olympics. The 860-runner reference cohort averaged 164 at ~10 km/h, and the right cadence depends on your height, age and speed — the step-rate equation alone moves by 13 steps per minute across 30 cm of height. We compare you to your own reference, not to 180.

The best injury metric is the hardest to see

Contralateral pelvic drop is the strongest discriminator between injured and uninjured runners in the published data, and it is also the measurement trained clinicians agree on least from video — one reliability study found pairwise agreement as low as chance. We weight it down for that, say so on the card, and still tell you when it is high. Both facts are true and you should have both.

Frame rate decides what can be measured at all

Timing foot contact needs enough samples inside a ~230 ms stance. Below about 25 effective frames per second we withhold contact time, flight time and duty factor rather than estimate them — a number nobody can stand behind is worse than an empty slot. Film at 60 fps or higher; 120 is better.

This is not a medical assessment

Nothing here diagnoses anything or predicts whether you will get injured. Running injury depends on training load, history, tissue tolerance and recovery — none of which a video of your gait can see.

Where the numbers come from

  • Reference equations for the six spatiotemporal metrics

    Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 2023 — 860 recreational runners, instrumented treadmill.

  • Injury-associated kinematics and their effect sizes

    American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2018 — 36 injured and 36 uninjured runners.

  • Economy and performance terms

    Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2017 — 97 runners, recreational to elite.

  • Step-rate manipulation effects

    Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2011 — 45 recreational runners.

  • Trunk flexion and patellofemoral joint stress

    Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 2014 — 24 recreational runners.

  • Foot-strike angle thresholds

    Gait & Posture, 2012.

  • 2D video protocol, and how reliably each variable can be judged from it

    Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America, 2016; International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 2025.

Cam Lab running analysis is a training tool, not a medical device. It does not diagnose anything and does not predict injury.