The effect of different running shoes on treadmill running mechanics and muscle activity assessed using statistical parametric mapping (SPM)

BackgroundDifferences in joint mechanics between running shoes are commonly assessed using discrete parameters, yet statistically significant differences in these parameters between shoes are often scarce with small effect sizes. Statistical parametric mapping (SPM) has been suggested as suitable method for analyzing one-dimensional data such as kinematic, kinetic or muscle intensity time series.Research questionThe purpose of this study was to determine differences in treadmill running mechanics between novel running shoes using SPM.MethodsJoint kinematics, muscle activity and ground reaction force were assessed in 19 rearfoot runners in their own shoes and in two test shoes during treadmill running (test shoe 1: 13 distinct rubber elements in the outer sole, springboard within EVA midsole with posterior elements shifted anteriorly by approximately 1.5 cm; test shoe 2: 17 distinct EVA elements with conventional heel geometry). Joint kinematics were measured using an inertial sensor system, and ground reaction force was measured using an instrumented treadmill.ResultsSPM analysis with repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant reductions in the ankle angle and in tibialis anterior, peroneus longus, vastus medialis and lateralis muscle activity during weight acceptance and in peroneus longus muscle activity during early and late swing and in semitendinosus muscle activity during late swing for the test shoes. Significant differences in muscle activity were observed in the interval of the main activity of the respective muscle. SPM on individual data revealed statistically significant and relevant within-subject differences between conditions in kinematic, muscle activity and ground reaction force patterns.SignificanceInertial sensor systems and SPM may provide an efficient way of detecting changes in joint mechanics between running shoes within runners. Detecting within-subject differences in running mechanics between conditions not only requires statistical criteria but also criteria on the relevance of the magnitude of differences.     

Differences in running biomechanics between a maximal,traditional, and minimal running shoe

ObjectivesPrevious studies comparing shoes based on the amount of midsole cushioning have generally used shoes from multiple manufacturers, where factors outside of stack height may contribute to observed biomechanical differences in running mechanics between shoes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare ground reaction forces and ankle kinematics during running between three shoes (maximal, traditional, and minimal) from the same manufacturer that only varied in stack height.DesignWithin-participant repeated measuresMethodsTwenty recreational runners ran overground in the laboratory in three shoe conditions (maximal, traditional, minimal) while three-dimensional kinematic and kinetic data were collected using a 3D motion capture system and two embedded force plates. Repeated measures ANOVAs (α = .05) compared biomechanical data between shoes.ResultsWhile the loading rate was significantly greater in the minimal shoe compared to the maximal shoe, no other differences were seen for the ground reaction force variables. Peak eversion was greater in the maximal and minimal shoe compared to the traditional shoe, while eversion duration and eversion at toe-off were greater in the maximal shoe.ConclusionsPreviously cited differences in ground reaction force parameters between maximal and traditional footwear may be due to factors outside of midsole stack height. The eversion mechanics in the maximal shoes from this study may place runners at a greater risk of injury. Disagreement between previous studies indicates that more research on maximal running shoes is needed.     

Efficacy of motion control shoes for reducing excessive rearfoot motion in fatigued runners

ObjectivesExcessive foot pronation and fatigue in running are possible risk factors for injuries. Motion control footwear was designed to limit excessive foot motion in runners, but its clinical efficacy has not been well reported. This study investigated the rearfoot kinematics in runners when running with different footwear before and after fatigue of the lower leg muscles.DesignWithin subjects repeated measures.SettingUniversity gait laboratory.Participants25 female recreational runners.Main outcome measuresA Vicon three-dimensional motion analysis system was used to capture the rearfoot motions of 25 recreational runners who had excessive foot pronation, when running with motion control shoes and neutral shoes before and after fatigue of the lower leg muscles.ResultsThe findings with neutral shoe testing revealed a significant increase in rearfoot angle of 6.5° (95% CI 4.7–8.2°) (p<0.01) when the muscles were fatigued. However, the findings with motion control shoes revealed that rearfoot angle was marginally insignificant (p=0.06) in subjects before and after muscle fatigue. Moreover, rearfoot motion when running with neutral shoes was higher than that with motion control shoes in both pre- (p<0.01) and post-fatigue states (p<0.01).ConclusionsMotion control shoes can control excessive rearfoot movements in runners with over-pronation regardless of the state of leg muscle fatigue.     

Interaction of arch type and footwear on running mechanics

BACKGROUND: Running shoes are designed to accommodate various arch types to reduce the risk of lower extremity injuries sustained during running. Yet little is known about the biomechanical changes of running in the recommended footwear that may allow for a reduction in injuries. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of motion control and cushion trainer shoes on running mechanics in low- and high-arched runners. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Twenty high-arched and 20 low-arched recreational runners (>10 miles per week) were recruited for the study. Three-dimensional kinematic and kinetics were collected as subjects ran at 3.5 ms(-1) +/- 5% along a 25-m runway. The motion control shoe evaluated was the New Balance 1122, and the cushioning shoe evaluated was the New Balance 1022. Repeated-measures analyses of variance were used to determine if low- and high-arched runners responded differently to motion control and cushion trainer shoes. RESULTS: A significant interaction was observed in the instantaneous loading rate such that the low-arched runners had a lower instantaneous loading rate in the motion control condition, and the high-arched runners had a lower instantaneous loading rate in the cushion trainer condition. Significant main effects for shoe were observed for peak positive tibial acceleration, peak-to-peak tibial acceleration, mean loading rate, peak eversion, and eversion excursion. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that motion control shoes control rearfoot motion better than do cushion trainer shoes. In addition, cushion trainer shoes attenuate shock better than motion control shoes do. However, with the exception of instantaneous loading rate, these benefits do not differ between arch type. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Running footwear recommendations should be based on an individual's running mechanics. If a mechanical analysis is not available, footwear recommendations can be based empirically on the individual's arch type.     

Acute effect of engineered thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer knockoff running footwear on foot loading and comfort during heel-to-toe running

BackgroundBetter midsole materials and comfort have been incorporated into more expensive shoes and are popular with runners. Consequently, knockoff running shoes are currently widely distributed in the Chinese market and and cost only 30%–50% of the total price of genuine branded products.Research questionUncertainty exists concerning the beneficial effects of advanced shoe material application in decreasing foot loading or impact force during running. Additionally, using comfort as a criterion to identify genuine branded running shoes may exclude brand factor.MethodsFifteen healthy male volunteers were asked to perform two different tests, including running and a comfort evaluation. Each participant was asked to identify which footwear was the Adidas brand shoe based on their perception of comfort.ResultsTime to the first peak of the vertical ground reaction force occurred significantly later when subjects wore the genuine branded shoe compared to knockoff shoe 1 (p = 0.003) and knockoff shoe 2 (p = 0.015) footwea. The genuine branded shoe (p = 0.005) and knockoff shoe 1 (p = 0.029) were significantly more comfortable compared to the knockoff shoe 2. Only four subjects selected the genuine branded shoe, whereas six subjects selected both the genuine branded shoe and knockoff shoe 1.SignificanceKnockoff running footwear significantly increases impact loading compared to the genuine branded product, thereby posing greater risk of running injury.     

The influence of lateral heel flare of running shoes on pronation and impact forces

The purpose of this investigation was to study the influence of the flare at the lateral side of the heel of running shoes on: initial and total pronation; impact forces in heel-toe running; and to explain the results with a mechanical model. The experimental part of the study was performed by using 14 male runners. Their running movement (4 m/s) was quantified by using a force platform and high-speed film (100 frames X s-1). Three shoes were used, identical except in their lateral heel flare, one shoe with a conventional flare of 16 degrees, a second shoe with no flare, and a third shoe with a rounded heel (negative flare). The experimental results indicate that (for the used set of shoes); increasing heel flare increases the amount of initial pronation; changes in heel flare do not affect the magnitude of the total pronation; and changes in heel flare do not alter the magnitude of the impact force peaks. Since shoes with rounded lateral heels do reduce initial pronation, it is speculated that this construction could be used to prevent anterior medial compartment syndrome at the tibia of runners. It was concluded that more research is needed to specify whether the reported result is representative for various shoe types or is shoe specific.     

Does running speed affect the response of joint level mechanics in non-rearfoot strike runners to footwear of varying longitudinal bending stiffness?

BackgroundModifying the longitudinal bending stiffness (LBS) of footwear has become a popular method to improve sport performance. It has been demonstrated to influence running economy by altering lower extremity joint level mechanics. Previous studies have only examined within-participant effects at one running speed.Research questionDo joint level mechanics differ in response to varying footwear LBS at a range of running speeds?MethodsThis study utilized a cross-sectional repeated measure study design using a convenience sample. Ten well trained non-rearfoot strike male distance runners ran at 3.89, 4.70, and 5.56 m/s (14, 17, 20 km/hr) in footwear of three different LBS levels. Mechanics and energetics of the metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ), ankle, knee, and hip joints during stance phase were assessed using an 8-camera optical motion capture system (f_s = 200 Hz), a force instrumented treadmill (f_s = 1000 Hz) and standard inverse dynamics theory.ResultsRange of motion and negative work decreased and angular stiffness increased for the MTPJ with increasing LBS at all speeds (p < .001). Peak MTPJ moment did not change at any speed in response to increased LBS. Negative work at the ankle decreased in the stiff shoe at 17 km/hr (p = .036). Peak ankle plantar flexion velocity decreased with increasing LBS at all speeds (p < .05).SignificanceWhile changes in MTPJ mechanics were consistent across speeds, decreased negative ankle work was only observed at 17 km/hr in the stiff shoe, suggesting that perhaps tuned footwear LBS may need to focus primarily on metabolically beneficial changes in ankle plantar flexor mechanical behavior to improve performance in distance runners. Tuning footwear stiffness may also be beneficial to clinical populations, as clinicians seek to optimize their patients’ locomotion economy.     

The morphology of foot soft tissues is associated with running shoe type in healthy recreational runners

Objectives

To determine the differences in the morphology of foot soft tissues between runners using different types of running shoes.

The effects of shoes on the torsion and rearfoot motion in running.

Excessive pronation is accepted as a good indicator for various running injuries. The least amount of pronation takes place when running barefoot. The latest investigations show that this is connected to a large torsional movement between forefoot and rearfoot which can be influenced by the shoe sole construction. The shoes which are in use among runners in track and field are basically of two types, running shoes (in general torsionally stiff) and spikes (torsionally flexible). The possibly varying effect of these shoes on the shoe/foot motion in running is not known. The purpose of this investigation was therefore to show whether the pronation angle and the torsion angle differ when running barefoot, with spikes, and with running shoes (forefoot touchdown, N = 9 left and right). A film analysis provided the angular movements of the lower leg, rearfoot, and forefoot as well as pronation and torsion in the frontal plane. The results show that at touchdown the torsional movements with both shoe types are quite different from those of running barefoot. With shoes, the torsion angle is reduced back to zero--with running shoes more than with spikes--and the pronation angle is increased beyond the barefoot values (P less than 0.01). In order to reduce the risk of injury, both shoe types should be improved--the running shoes with respect to torsion and the spikes with respect to pronation.     

Shock absorption characteristics of running shoes

The change in shock absorption properties of running shoes was evaluated as a function of miles run. Different models of running shoes encompassing a wide range in retail price were obtained and mechanically tested to simulate the repeated heel strikes of running. The energy absorbed by the shoes was determined from the area under the load deformation curve at the equivalent of 0, 5, 10, 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 200, 250, 300, and 500 miles of running. Shoes were also tested at similar intervals after having been worn by volunteers during normal training. An approximate 33% difference in the initial shock absorption was observed in the different shoe models. In general, the shoes retained approximately 75% of their initial shock absorption capability after 50 miles of simulated running, and approximately 67% after 100 to 150 miles. Between 250 and 500 miles the shoes retained less than 60% of their initial shock absorption capacity. No differences in shock absorption characteristics were apparent based upon either shoe price or the manufacturer model. The results of shoes tested by the volunteer runners also showed a marked reduction in shock absorption with mileage. The loss, however, was not as great as in the machine-simulated running, with approximately 70% of initial shock absorption retained at 500 miles.     

Kinematic and kinetic parameters associated with running in different shoes.

The characteristics of the midsole were examined in four pairs of running shoes by a materials test. The variables of interest were the peak acceleration, time to peak acceleration and the kinetic energy absorbed. Ten subjects then ran at a recreational jogging pace (3.5 ms-1) barefoot and in the shoes. An accelerometer secured to the lower tibia was used to measure the peak acceleration and time to peak acceleration associated with footstrike. Subjects were also videoed and a kinematic analysis was undertaken at the knee and ankle joints. The results from the materials test showed that the shoes differed in their midsole characteristics, however, no significant differences (P > 0.05) were observed in the peak acceleration and time to peak acceleration during running in shoes. These variables were significantly greater in the barefoot running condition (P < 0.05), as compared with running in shoes. Small and subtle kinematic differences were observed between the barefoot and shoe conditions. It appears that the differences observed between the shoes in the materials test were not sufficient to elicit the kinematic changes observed between the barefoot and shoe conditions. It is suggested that runners operate within a 'kinetic bandwidth' when responding to impact stresses.     

Acute shoe effects on Achilles tendon loading in runners with habitual rearfoot strike pattern

Objectives: Although the overuse injury rate of the Achilles tendon (AT) for running is high, the effect of shoe conditions on AT loading remains unclear. Hence, this study aims to determine the mechanical properties of AT during running under different shoe conditions (minimalist vs. conventional shoes).Design:This work is a controlled laboratory study.Methods:Sixteen healthy male rearfoot strike runners were recruited to complete over ground running trials at 3.33 m/s (±5%) under two shoe conditions (minimalist shoes: INOV-8 Bare-XF 210; conventional shoes: NIKE AIR ZOOM PEGASUS 34). Sagittal plane ankle kinematics and ground reaction forces were simultaneously recorded. Ankle joint mechanics (ankle joint angle and moment) and the mechanical properties (peak force, impulse, stress, strain, and their corresponding peak rate) of the AT were calculated.Results: In comparison with conventional shoes, wearing minimalist shoes showed significant changes (p < 0.05): (1) decreased strike angle (48.92 ± 9.01 vs. 41.04 ± 8.69°); (2) increased ankle moment (2.34 ± 0.44 vs. 2.55 ± 0.46 Nm/kg); (3) increased peak AT force (5.85 ± 1.22 vs. 6.24 ± 1.13 BW), AT force impulse (0.65 ± 0.13 vs. 0.70 ± 0.13 BW·s), peak AT loading rate (109.94 ± 9.33 vs. 118.84 ± 26.62 BW/s), and average loading rate (48.42 ± 15.64 vs. 54.90 ± 17.47 BW/s); (4) decreased time to peak AT force (126.31 ± 20.68 vs. 117.77 ± 17.62 ms); (5) increased AT stress (66.96 ± 14.59 vs. 71.89 ± 14.74 MPa), strain (8.19 ± 1.77 vs. 8.78 ± 1.80 %), peak AT stress rate (66.96 ± 14.59 vs. 71.89 ± 14.74 MPa/s), and strain rate (148.71 ± 48.52 vs. 167.28 ± 42.82 %/s).Conclusion: Increased AT force, loading rate, and stress were observed in runners who habitually wear conventional shoes with rearfoot strike patterns when they wore minimalist shoes. Hence, we recommend a gradual transition to minimalist shoes for runners who habitually wear conventional shoes with rearfoot strike patterns.     

Comparing walking biomechanics of older females in maximal,minimal, and traditional shoes

BackgroundKnee osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative joint disease that affects millions of individuals each year. Several biomechanical variables during walking have been identified as risk factors for developing knee OA, including the peak external knee adduction moment (KAM) and the knee flexion angle at initial contact. Many interventions have been studied to help mitigate these risk factors, including footwear. However, it is largely unknown how varying shoe cushioning may affect walking biomechanics related to knee OA risk.Research QuestionWhat is the effect of maximally and minimally cushioned shoes on walking biomechanics compared to a traditionally cushioned shoe in older females?MethodsWalking biomechanics in three shoes (maximal, traditional, minimal) were collected on 16 healthy females ages 50–70 using an 8-camera 3D motion capture system and two embedded force plates. Key biomechanical variables related to knee OA disease risk were compared between shoes using repeated measures ANOVAs.ResultsThe KAM was significantly larger in the maximal shoe (p = 0.005), while the knee flexion angle at initial contact was significantly larger in both the maximal and minimal shoe compared to the traditional shoe (p = .000). Additionally, the peak knee flexion angle (p = .000) and the loading rates of the vertical ground reaction force were (instantaneous: p = 0.001; average: p = .010) were significantly higher in the minimal shoe.SignificanceWhile these results are specific to the shoes used in this study, clinicians should exercise caution in prescribing maximal or minimal shoes to females in this age group who may be at risk of knee OA given these results. Research is needed on the effect of these shoes in patients with knee OA.     

Increased knee flexion and varus moments during gait with high-heeled shoes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundHigh-heeled shoes have been thought to alter lower extremity joint mechanics during gait, however its effects on the knee remain unclear.Research questionThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effects of high-heeled shoes on the sagittal- and frontal-plane knee kinetics/kinematics during gait.Methods1449 studies from 6 databases were screened for the following criteria: 1) healthy adult females, 2) knee joint kinematics/kinetics reported for the early stance phase during gait under varying shoe heel heights (including barefoot). Excluded studies included those mixing different shoe styles in addition to altering the heel heights. A total of 14 studies (203 subjects) met the selection criteria, resulting in 51 and 21 Cohen’s d effect sizes (ESs) comparing the differences in knee sagittal- (flexion) and frontal-plane (varus) moment/angle, respectively, between shoes with higher heels and shoes with lower heels/barefoot.ResultsMeta-analyses yielded a significant medium-to-large effect of higher heels compared to lower heels on increasing knee flexion moment (overall ES = 0.83; P < 0.01), flexion angle (overall ES=0.46; P < 0.01), and varus moment (overall ES=0.52; P < 0.01) during the early stance phase of gait. The results of meta-regressions used to explore factors explaining the heterogeneity among study ESs revealed that a greater ES in the knee flexion moment was associated with an elevated heel height of the high-heeled shoes (P = 0.02) and greater body mass of the individuals (P = 0.012). A greater ES in the knee varus moment during high-heeled gait was associated with a greater body height (P = 0.003) and mass (P = 0.006).SignificanceGiven the association between increased knee flexion/varus moments and risk of developing knee osteoarthritis (OA), women who wear high-heel shoes frequently and for a long period may be more susceptible to knee OA. Preventive treatments, such as lower extremity muscle strengthening, may help improve shock absorption to decrease knee loading in high-heel users.     

The effect of heel-to-toe drop of running shoes on patellofemoral joint stress during running

BackgroundTraditional running shoes with heel-to-toe drops is thought to be a contributor to increased patellofemoral joint stress, which is proposed as a mechanism of patellofemoral pain.Research questionIs there an increase in patellofemoral joint stress when running in shoes with drops compared to running in shoes without a drop?MethodsLower limbs kinematics and ground reaction force were collected from eighteen healthy runners during over-ground running in shoes with 15 mm, 10 mm, 5 mm drops, and without a drop. Patellofemoral joint force and stress were calculated from the kinematic and kinetic data using a biomechanical model of the patellofemoral joint.ResultsThe peak patellofemoral joint stress was increased by more than 15% when running in shoes with 15 mm and 10 mm drops compared to running in shoes without a drop (p = 0.003, p = 0.001). The knee flexion angle was significantly increased when running in shoes with 15 mm, 10 mm and 5 mm drops (p = 0.014, p = 0.003, p = 0.002), the knee extension moment (p = 0.009, p = 0.002) and patellofemoral joint force (p = 0.003, p = 0.001) were increased when running in shoes with 15 mm and 10 mm drops, compared to running in shoes without a drop.SignificanceCompared to running in shoes without a drop, running in shoes with drops > 5 mm increase the peak patellofemoral joint stress significantly, which is mainly due to the increased knee extension moment.     

How do training experience and geographical origin of a runner affect running biomechanics?

BackgroundSeveral studies compared African runners with runners from other places with difference ethnicities to identify biomechanical factors that may contribute to their extraordinary running performance. However, most studies only assessed runners at the elite level. Whether the performance difference was a result of nature or nurture remains unclear.Research questionsThis case study aimed to assess the effect of geographical origin and the effect of training on running biomechanics.MethodsWe recruited twenty male runners from two regions (Asian and Africa) at two performance levels (elite and recreational), and asked them to run on an instrumented treadmill at 12 km∙h⁻¹. We measured running kinetics and kinematics parameters, and focused on the parameters that have been shown associated with running performance. We used Friedman test to compare the effect of geographical origin and training on running biomechanics.ResultsCompared to recreational runners, elite runners applied higher amount of ground reaction force in both vertical and anterior-posterior directions (P < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 1.63–2.03), together with a longer aerial time (P = 0.039, Cohen’s d = 1.11). On the other hand, African runners expressed higher vertical stiffness than Asian runners (P = 0.027, Cohen’s d = 0.98). However, the increased vertical stiffness in African runners did not lead to a higher vertical loading rate (P > 0.555, Cohen’s d < 0.3), which could be a result of a lower footstrike angle during landing (P = 0.012, Cohen’s d = 1.36).SignificanceFor elite runners, the higher amount of ground reaction force might facilitate a longer aerial time, but could also lead to higher amount of mechanical energy loss. African runners expressed higher vertical stiffness and higher step rate, which might lead to a lower CoM vertical displacement, and furthermore reduce mechanical energy loss.     

Effects of shoes and foot orthotics on VO2 and selected frontal plane knee kinematics

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of shoes and foot orthotics on running economy and selected frontal plane knee kinematics during the support phase of running. Twenty-one male runners who had been fitted with orthotics served as subjects. Subjects participated in three submaximal runs on a treadmill under the following conditions: barefoot, shoes, and shoes plus orthotics. A run consisted of 1 min at 161 m . min-1, 2 min at 180 m . min-1, and 4 min at 201 m . min-1. VO2 was calculated for the last 3 min of each test. Frontal plane motion was filmed during the sixth min of each submaximal run, and linear and angular displacement of the knee were then calculated from film data. Results from the mechanical aspect of this study indicate that there were no significant differences among the means for linear displacement of the knee. Angular displacement of the knee during barefoot running was significantly (P less than 0.05) less than shoe and shoe-plus-orthotic conditions. There was no difference, however, between shoes and shoes plus orthotics. The economy results revealed that the aerobic cost of running increased as the amount of mass added to the foot increased. In absolute terms (1 . min-1), running in shoes plus orthotics was significantly (P less than 0.05) more costly than running barefoot. It appears that if orthotics do, in fact, improve running economy by improving running mechanics, the amount of improvement is negated by the additional cost of running associated with the mass of the orthotics.     

Injuries observed in a prospective transition from traditional to minimalist footwear: correlation of high impact transient forces and lower injury severity

Objectives: Minimalist running is increasing in popularity based upon a concept that it can reduce impact forces and decrease injury rates. The purpose of this investigation is to identify the rate and severity of injuries in runners transitioning from traditional to minimalist footwear. The secondary aims were to identify factors correlated with injuries.

Methods: Fourteen habitually shod (traditional running shoes) participants were enrolled for this prospective study investigating injury prevalence during transition from traditional running shoes to 5-toed minimalist shoes. Participants were uninjured, aged between 22-41 years, and ran at least twenty kilometers per week in traditional running shoes. Participants were given industry recommended guidelines for transition to minimalist footwear and fit with a 5-toed minimalist running shoe. They completed weekly logs for identification of injury, pain using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), injury location, and severity. Foot strike pattern and impact forces were collected using 3D motion analysis at baseline, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks. Injuries were scored according to a modified Running Injury Severity Score (RISS).

Results: Fourteen runners completed weekly training and injury logs over an average of 30 weeks. Twelve of 14 (86%) runners sustained injuries. Average injury onset was 6 weeks (range 1–27 weeks). Average weekly mileage of 23.9 miles/week prior to transition declined to 18.3 miles/week after the transition. The magnitude of the baseline impact transient peak in traditional shoes and in minimalist shoes negatively correlated with RISS scores (r = ?0.45, p = 0.055 and r = ?0.53, p = 0.026, respectively).

Conclusion: High injury rates occurred during the transition from traditional to minimalist footwear. Non-compliance to transition guidelines and high injury rates suggest the need for improved education. High impact transient forces unexpectedly predicted lower modified RISS scores in this population.     

The influence of cadence and shoes on patellofemoral joint kinetics in runners with patellofemoral pain

Objectives

To determine the effect of a combination of a minimalist shoe and increased cadence on measures of patellofemoral joint loading during running in individuals with patellofemoral pain.

Effect of footwear on high and low arched runners' mechanics during a prolonged run

INTRODUCTION: Running shoes are designed specifically for different foot types in order to reduce injuries. Running in the correct footwear matched for foot type may have a greater influence on mechanics when runners become exerted. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate changes in kinematics and kinetics over the course of a prolonged run when low (LA) and high (HA) arched runners wear motion control and cushioning shoes. METHODS: Twelve HA and 12 LA recreational runners were recruited for this study. Subjects ran in a motion control (MC) and cushion trainer (CT) shoe. Lower extremity kinematics and tibial accelerometry were collected while the runners ran at a self-selected training pace. The data were analyzed using a two-way (footwear x time) repeated measures ANOVA (p=0.05) for each arch type. RESULTS: Low arched runners: Peak tibial internal rotation decreased in the MC shoe and was increased in the CT over the course of the prolonged run. However, no interactions or main effects were noted for peak eversion or eversion excursion. High arched runners: No shoe by time interaction was observed for tibial shock. However, there was a main effect for shoe, with lower tibial shock associated with the CT shoe. CONCLUSION: In LA runners, MC shoes decreased tibial internal rotation compared to CT shoes over the course of a prolonged run. In HA runners, running in the CT shoes reduced tibial shock compared to the MC shoes.