Static morphological analysis of the runner is carried out standing, barefoot, weight-bearing, from the front, side and back. It is the first step of a full assessment before any treatment.
This postural assessment objectifies the anatomical factors that influence the runner’s biomechanics and helps personalise the prevention strategy.
Remember: Body shape is not a disease. It is a risk factor which, combined with an unsuitable training load or a muscle deficit, promotes overuse injuries.
🎯 Goals of the static analysis
Assess lower-limb alignment in the frontal and sagittal planes.
Detect left/right differences in segment lengths, angles and orientations.
Identify morphological variants that promote overuse conditions.
Guide the choice between rehabilitation, strengthening, stretching and foot orthoses.
🔬 Systematic static examination (top to bottom)
The examination is carried out methodically, from the pelvis down to the foot, analysing each segment and its possible effects on adjacent structures.
Zone 1 01
Assessment of pelvic orientation and femoral alignment.
- Anterior or posterior pelvic tilt
- Pelvic obliquity
- Leg length discrepancy
- Femoral rotation (increased or decreased anteversion)
⚠️ Increased anteversion promotes low back pain and psoas overuse
Frontal plane — Zone 2 02
Analysis of hip–knee–ankle alignment under load.
- Genu varum: bow legs
- Genu valgum: knock knees
- Neutral alignment: hip–knee–ankle aligned
➡️ Any deviation from the axis alters the distribution of femorotibial stress
Zone 3 03
Observation of patellar tracking and position.
- Inward- or outward-facing patellae (“squinting” or “frog-eyed”)
- Increased Q angle
- High or low patella position
- Quality of patellar tracking
➡️ An increased Q angle is a risk factor for patellofemoral pain syndrome
Zone 4 04
Orientation of the calcaneus under load, posterior view.
- Calcaneal valgus: heel tilted outwards
- Calcaneal varus: heel tilted inwards
➡️ Heel orientation determines the stresses on the whole lower limb
Zone 5 05
Assessment of plantar morphology and arch height.
- Flat foot (pes planus): collapse of the medial arch
- Hollow foot (pes cavus): high arch
- Neutral foot: physiological arch
➡️ Plantar morphology influences the distribution of ground pressures
⚠️ Conditions favoured by body shape
Each morphological variant creates preferential stresses on certain structures. Knowing these associations guides screening and prevention.
Bow legs
- Pes anserine tendinopathy
- Iliotibial band syndrome (TFL)
- Medial femorotibial osteoarthritis
- Medial tibial stress fractures
Knock knees
- Patellofemoral pain syndrome
- Patellar instability
- Quadriceps tendinopathy
- Patellar cartilage lesions
Increased Q angle
- Patellar pain syndrome
- Patellar chondropathy
- Quadriceps tendinopathy
- Anterior knee pain
🦶 Foot and ankle — risk factors
Heel tilted outwards
- Plantar fasciitis
- Tibialis posterior tendinopathy
- Patellofemoral pain syndrome
- Medial Achilles tendinopathy
- Medial tibial stress syndrome
Heel tilted inwards
- Lateral ankle sprains
- Stress fractures (tibia, 5th metatarsal)
- Peroneal tendinopathy
- Plantar fasciopathy
Collapse of the medial arch
- Plantar fasciitis
- Tibialis posterior tendinopathy
- Diffuse lower-limb pain
- Patellofemoral pain syndrome
High arch
- Stress fractures
- Metatarsalgia
- Achilles tendinopathy
- Recurrent ankle sprains
✅ Key messages to remember
A morphological variant does not automatically lead to injury. It is the combination with a poorly dosed training load or a muscle deficit that creates the risk.
Overuse injuries mainly occur when load increases too quickly — whatever the runner’s body shape.
An unsuitable running technique amplifies the stresses linked to morphological variants. Dynamic analysis is an essential complement to the static examination.
Static analysis must be complemented by a dynamic running analysis, a muscle assessment and a review of training history to guide treatment.
Static morphological analysis is the starting point of a complete assessment of the runner. It identifies vulnerability factors and anticipates at-risk areas according to each athlete’s profile. It is not enough on its own: only by combining it with dynamic gait analysis, a muscle assessment and training history can a truly personalised prevention strategy be proposed.