settings
Membership login
Author: Carmen Bott | Posted: 6/12/2026 | Time to Read: 6 minutes

Article Review | ACL Reconstruction: The Difference Between Running and Performance Readiness

A strength and conditioning perspective on return-to-running criteria and the qualities required for successful return to competition

A paper by Grondin et al. (2022) sought to identify objective strength measures that could help clinicians decide whether a patient is ready to begin running approximately 4 months after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) using a hamstring tendon graft. The authors retrospectively analyzed 413 patients and found that quadriceps strength symmetry was the strongest predictor of successful return to running.

Summary

The authors argue that return to running should not rely solely on time after surgery but should incorporate objective strength testing. Their major findings include:
  • 63.2% of patients successfully returned to running by 6 months after surgery.
  • Patients who returned to running demonstrated significantly greater:
    • Quadriceps strength
    • Hamstring strength
    • Limb symmetry indexes (LSI)
    • Functional Lysholm scores
  • Patients who did not return to running had substantially higher rates of complications such as arthrofibrosis and anterior knee pain.
The strongest predictor was:
  • Quadriceps LSI at 60°/s ≥65%
Secondary support came from:
  • Hamstring LSI at 180°/s ≥80%
Alternatively, absolute quadriceps strength normalized to body weight (1.60 Nm/kg) could be used, although bilateral testing was required.
The authors conclude that these isokinetic measures provide objective criteria to guide return-to-running decisions after ACL reconstruction.

Critique from a Strength & Conditioning / Kinesiologist Perspective

This paper is valuable, but it should be interpreted within the context of its authorship and clinical purpose.
The research team is primarily composed of sports medicine physicians, physical medicine and rehabilitation specialists, orthopedic surgeons, and rehabilitation clinicians, whose goal is to determine when a patient can safely begin jogging without excessive risk rather than when they are prepared for high-performance athletic demands.
A strength and conditioning coach or exercise prescription specialist would likely approach the problem differently.

1. The outcome is "return to running," not "return to performance"

From a physiotherapy perspective, successfully jogging 15–30 minutes is considered an important rehabilitation milestone.
From a strength and conditioning perspective, jogging is a low-force locomotor task that bears little resemblance to:
  • maximal sprinting
  • repeated acceleration
  • deceleration
  • cutting
  • jumping
  • reactive agility
  • collision sport demands
Being able to jog continuously does not necessarily indicate readiness for sport.

2. Isokinetic strength is only one piece of tissue preparedness

The paper relies heavily on isolated knee extension and flexion torque measured on an isokinetic dynamometer.
A strength coach would argue that athletic readiness depends on integrated qualities such as:
  • maximal force production
  • rate of force development
  • eccentric braking capacity
  • reactive strength index
  • tendon stiffness
  • stretch-shortening cycle efficiency
  • intermuscular coordination
  • trunk and hip control
None of these capacities are adequately assessed by seated open-chain isokinetic testing.

3. Running itself may not be the best way to prepare tissues for sprinting

The underlying assumption is that progressing from walking → jogging → faster running gradually prepares tissues.
Many strength and conditioning professionals would challenge this assumption.
Peak hamstring and ACL loading occurs during:
  • maximal velocity sprinting
  • rapid deceleration
  • explosive change of direction
Slow jogging generates substantially lower forces and therefore may provide only a limited stimulus for adaptation.
Instead, tissue preparation may be better achieved through progressive exposure to:
  • plyometrics
  • skipping and bounding drills
  • track drills
  • resisted acceleration work
  • maximal strength training
  • progressive surface manipulation (grass → turf → track)
These interventions often expose tissues to higher and more sport-specific loading than continuous jogging while allowing precise control over volume and intensity.

4. The paper measures symmetry rather than athletic capacity

The principal recommendation is a 65% quadriceps limb symmetry index (LSI).
However, limb symmetry can be misleading.
For example:
  • Operated leg = 100 units
  • Non-operated leg = 150 units
LSI = 67%
The athlete satisfies the criterion despite possessing relatively poor absolute strength.
Conversely:
  • Operated leg = 250 units
  • Non-operated leg = 300 units
LSI = 83%
This athlete is vastly stronger despite a similar asymmetry.
Strength and conditioning practitioners generally prioritize absolute force-producing capacity, not simply symmetry.

5. Athletic movement is multi-planar

The return-to-running decision in this study is based almost entirely on sagittal-plane knee torque.
Sport performance requires athletes to tolerate:
  • frontal plane loading
  • transverse plane loading
  • rotational moments
  • unpredictable perturbations
  • multiplanar deceleration
These demands are absent from both treadmill jogging and isokinetic testing.

6. The psychological and physical demands of sport exceed jogging

The authors acknowledge that motivation, fear of reinjury, and psychosocial factors influence return to running but are not captured by strength testing.
From a coaching perspective, additional considerations would include:
  • confidence under speed
  • exposure to chaotic environments
  • fatigue resistance
  • decision-making under pressure
  • repeated high-intensity efforts
  • sport-specific skill execution
These factors are essential for return to competition but fall outside the scope of this paper.

Overall appraisal

This is a well-designed rehabilitation paper that provides objective criteria for initiating recreational running after ACL reconstruction. Its findings help reduce reliance on arbitrary time-based milestones and support evidence-informed clinical decision-making.
However, from the perspective of a strength and conditioning coach or kinesiologist specializing in exercise prescription and athletic performance, it should be viewed as an early rehabilitation checkpoint.
The paper answers the question:
"Is this patient likely ready to begin jogging safely?"
It does not answer the more performance-oriented question:
"Has this athlete restored the strength, power, stiffness, reactive ability, eccentric braking capacity, and movement competencies necessary to tolerate the chaotic demands of sport?"
That distinction reflects the differing priorities of rehabilitation clinicians—whose focus is minimizing harm and restoring basic function—and strength and conditioning professionals, whose objective is to optimize tissue capacity and prepare athletes for the highest mechanical demands they will encounter in competition

Final Thoughts


This study provides useful objective criteria for determining when an athlete may be ready to begin running after ACL reconstruction. However, as coaches and clinicians, we must remember that jogging is only one step in the return-to-performance process. Restoring the strength, power, stiffness, reactive ability, movement competency, and confidence required for sport demands a much broader approach than simply achieving a limb symmetry threshold.

And don't forget one of the most important parts of the return-to-play process: what happens before you ever get under the knife.

The quality of your pre-operative preparation can have a significant impact on post-operative outcomes, strength recovery, movement quality, and your overall return-to-sport timeline.
​​​​​​​
Download my free ACL Pre-Op eBook here to learn how to maximize your preparation before surgery and set yourself up for a more successful recovery.

— Carmen Bott, MSc, BHK
[bot_catcher]