Comparison of longitudinal biomechanical adaptation to shoe degradation between the dominant and non-dominant legs during running (original) (raw)

The influence of running shoes on the biomechanics of the foot and lower limb

2015

Running shoes are designed to reduce injury risk and enhance performance. In line with traditional running injury paradigms running shoes aim to reduce the magnitude and/or rate of foot motion and impact loading. While numerous studies have explored the influence of different shoe modifications upon these parameters, limited work has explored how different types of conventional running shoe influence foot and lower limb kinematics. Therefore the overarching aim of this thesis was to determine the influence of different types of running shoe on shod foot and lower limb motion during running. Twenty-eight active males (26 ± 7years, 1.77 ± 0.05m, 79 ± 9kg) participated in the main phase of testing. Participants ran in three types of running shoe (motion control, neutral and cushioned) at a self-selected pace, on a treadmill. Three-dimensional lower limb and inter-segmental foot kinematics were calculated from the position of retro-reflective markers tracked by a VICON motion analysis s...

Acute kinematics changes in marathon runners using different footwear

Journal of sports sciences, 2017

The effects of running with or without shoes on injury prevention have been extensively studied, and several investigations have assessed biomechanical differences between them. However, findings are not consensual and further insights on biomechanical load associated with differently shod or barefoot conditions may be needed. This study aimed to observe if habitually shod marathon runners show acute alterations when running barefoot or with minimalist shoes, and to determine whether the running kinematical adaptations of wearing minimalist shoes were similar to barefoot running. Twelve male marathon runners ran on the treadmill at their average marathon pace in different footwear conditions: habitual running shoes, minimalist shoes, and barefoot. High-resolution infrared cameras and visual 3D software were used to assess kinematic data. The following parameters were studied: foot strike angle, cycle time, stance time, normalized stride length, hip, knee, and ankle angular position ...

Kinematic Adaptations during Running: Effects of Footwear, Surface, and Duration

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2004

Repetitive impacts encountered during locomotion may be modified by footwear and/or surface. Changes in kinematics may occur either as a direct response to altered mechanical conditions or over time as active adaptations. Purpose: To investigate how midsole hardness, surface stiffness, and running duration influence running kinematics. Methods: In the first of two experiments, 12 males ran at metabolic steady state under six conditions; combinations of midsole hardness (40 Shore A, 70 Shore A), and surface stiffness (100 kN•m Ϫ1 , 200 kN•m Ϫ1 , and 350 kN•m Ϫ1). In the second experiment, 10 males ran for 30 min on a 12% downhill grade. In both experiments, subjects ran at 3.4 m•s Ϫ1 on a treadmill while 2-D hip, knee, and ankle kinematics were determined using high-speed videography (200 Hz). Oxygen cost and heart rate data were also collected. Kinematic adaptations to midsole, surface, and running time were studied. Results: Stance time, stride cycle time, and maximal knee flexion were invariant across conditions in each experiment. Increased midsole hardness resulted in greater peak ankle dorsiflexion velocity (P ϭ 0.0005). Increased surface stiffness resulted in decreased hip and knee flexion at contact, reduced maximal hip flexion, and increased peak angular velocities of the hip, knee, and ankle. Over time, hip flexion at contact decreased, plantarflexion at toe-off increased, and peak dorsiflexion and plantarflexion velocity increased. Conclusion: Lower-extremity kinematics adapted to increased midsole hardness, surface stiffness, and running duration. Changes in limb posture at impact were interpreted as active adaptations that compensate for passive mechanical effects. The adaptations appeared to have the goal of minimizing metabolic cost at the expense of increased exposure to impact shock.

Immediate and short-term biomechanical adaptation of habitual barefoot runners who start shod running

Journal of sports sciences, 2017

This study investigated the immediate and short-term effects of minimalist shoes (MS) and traditional running shoes (TRS) on vertical loading rates, foot strike pattern and lower limb kinematics in a group of habitual barefoot runners. Twelve habitual barefoot runners were randomly given a pair of MS or TRS and were asked to run with the prescribed shoes for 1 month. Outcome variables were obtained before, immediate after and 1 month after shoe prescription. Average and instantaneous vertical loading rates at the 1-month follow-up were significantly higher than that at the pre-shod session (P < 0.034, η(2)p > 0.474). Foot strike angle in the TRS group was significantly lower than that in the MS group (P = 0.045, η(2)p = 0.585). However, there was no significant time nor shoe effect on overstride, knee and ankle excursion (P > 0.061). Habitual barefoot runners appeared to land with a greater impact during shod running and they tended to have a more rearfoot strike pattern wh...

Adaptation of Running Biomechanics to Repeated Barefoot Running: A Randomized Controlled Study

The American Journal of Sports Medicine

Background: Previous studies have shown that changing acutely from shod to barefoot running induces several changes to running biomechanics, such as altered ankle kinematics, reduced ground-reaction forces, and reduced loading rates. However, uncertainty exists whether these effects still exist after a short period of barefoot running habituation. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to investigate the effects of a habituation to barefoot versus shod running on running biomechanics. It was hypothesized that a habituation to barefoot running would induce different adaptations of running kinetics and kinematics as compared with a habituation to cushioned footwear running or no habituation. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Young, physically active adults without experience in barefoot running were randomly allocated to a barefoot habituation group, a cushioned footwear group, or a passive control group. The 8-week intervention in the barefoot and footwear groups consi...

Athletic footwear, leg stiffness, and running kinematics.

"CONTEXT: The leg acts as a linear spring during running and hopping and adapts to the stiffness of the surface, maintaining constant total stiffness of the leg-surface system. Introducing a substance (eg, footwear) may affect the stiffness of the leg in response to changes in surface stiffness. OBJECTIVE: To determine if the type of athletic footwear affects the regulation of leg stiffness in dynamic activities. DESIGN: Repeated-measures design. SETTING: Motion analysis laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Nine healthy adults (age = 28 +/- 6.8 years, mass = 71.6 +/- 12.9 kg) free from lower extremity injuries. INTERVENTION(S): Subjects hopped at 2.2 Hz on a forceplate under 3 footwear conditions (barefoot, low-cost footwear, high-cost footwear). Subjects ran on a treadmill at 2 speeds (2.23 m/s, 3.58 m/s) under the same footwear conditions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Limb stiffness was calculated from forceplate data. Kinematic data (knee and ankle angles at initial contact and peak joint excursion after contact) were collected during running. We calculated 1-way repeated-measures (stiffness) and 2-way (speed by footwear) repeated-measures analyses of variance (running kinematics) to test the dependent variables. RESULTS: A significant increase in leg stiffness from the barefoot to the "cushioned" shoe condition was noted during hopping. When running shod, runners landed in more dorsiflexion but had less ankle motion than when running barefoot. No differences were seen between the types of shoes. The primary kinematic difference was identified as running speed increased: runners landed in more knee flexion. At the ankle, barefoot runners increased ankle motion to a significantly greater extent than did shod runners as speed increased. CONCLUSIONS: Footwear influences the maintenance of stiffness in the lower extremity during hopping and joint excursion at the ankle in running. Differences in cushioning properties of the shoes tested did not appear to be significant."

Running-related injury prevention through barefoot adaptations

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1987

A number of reports indicate an extremely low running-related injury frequency in barefoot populations in contrast to reports about shod populations. It is hypothesized that the adaptations which produce shock absorption, an inherent consequence of barefoot activity and a mechanism responsible for the low injury frequency in unshod populations, are related to deflection of the medial longitudinal arch of the foot on loading. It is also hypothesized that the known inability of this arch of the shod foot to deflect without failure (foot rigidity) is responsible for the high injury frequency in shod populations. To evaluate these hypotheses, 17 recreational runners were analyzed to study the adaptive pattern of the medial longitudinal arch of the foot due to increased barefoot weightbearing activity. Changes occurred in the medial longitudinal arch which allowed deflection of this arch on loading which substantiated the hypotheses. Other evidence suggests that sensory feedback largely from the glabrous epithelium of the foot is the element of barefoot activity which induced these adaptations. The sensory insulation inherent in the modem running shoe appears responsible for the high injury frequency associated with running. The injuries are considered "pseudo-neuropathic" in nature.

Running in new and worn shoes: a comparison of three types of cushioning footwear

British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2009

In this study, the effect of shoe degradation on running biomechanics by comparing the kinetics and kinematics of running in new and worn shoes was investigated. Three types of footwear using different cushioning technologies were compared. Design: Longitudinal study. Setting: Pre-and post-tests on overground running at 4.5 m s 21 on a 20-m laboratory runway; performance measured using a force platform and a motion capture system. Participants: 24 runners (14 men and 10 women) Interventions: 200 miles of road running in the same pair of shoes. Within-group factor: shoe condition (new/ worn); between-group factor: footwear type (air/gel/ spring). Main outcome measurements: Stance time was calculated from force data. External loads were measured by maximum vertical force and loading rate. Kinematic changes were indicated by sagittal plane angles of the torso, hip, knee and ankle at critical events during the stance phase. Results: Stance time increased (p = 0.035) in worn shoes. The torso displayed less maximum forward lean (p,0.001) and less forward lean at toe-off (p,0.001), while the ankle displayed reduced maximum dorsiflexion (p = 0.013) and increased plantar flexion at toe-off (p,0.001) in worn shoes. No changes in the hip and knee angles. No between-group difference among the three footwear groups or condition by type interaction was found in any measured variables. Conclusions: As shoe cushioning capability decreases, runners modify their patterns to maintain constant external loads. The adaptation strategies to shoe degradation were unaffected by different cushioning technologies, suggesting runners should choose shoes for reasons other than cushioning technology.