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.     

The effect of changing mediolateral center of pressure on rearfoot eversion during treadmill running

IntroductionAtypical rearfoot eversion is an important kinematic risk factor in running-related injuries. Prominent interventions for atypical rearfoot eversion include foot orthoses, footwear, and taping, yet a running gait retraining is lacking. Therefore, the aim was to investigate the effects of changing mediolateral center of pressure (COP) on rearfoot eversion, subtalar pronation, medial longitudinal arch angle (MLAA), hip kinematics and vertical ground reaction force (vGRF).MethodsFifteen healthy female runners underwent gait retraining under three conditions. Participants were instructed to run normally, on the lateral (COP lateral) and medial (COP medial) side of the foot. Foot progression angle (FPA) was controlled using real-time visual feedback. 3D measurements of rearfoot eversion, subtalar pronation, MLAA, FPA, hip kinematics, vGRF and COP were analyzed. A repeated-measures ANOVA followed by pairwise comparisons was used to analyze changes in outcome between three conditions. Data were also analyzed using statistic parameter mapping.ResultsRunning on the lateral side of the foot compared to normal running and running on the medial side of the foot reduced peak rearfoot eversion (mean difference (MD) with normal 3.3°, p < 0.001, MD with COP medial 6°, p < 0.001), peak pronation (MD with normal 5°, p < 0.001, MD with COP medial 9.6°, p=<0.001), peak MLAA (MD with normal 2.3°, p < 0.001, MD with COP medial 4.1°, p < 0.001), peak hip internal rotation (MD with normal 1.8°, p < 0.001), and peak hip adduction (MD with normal running 1°, p = 0.011). Running on the medial side of the foot significantly increased peak rearfoot eversion, pronation and MLAA compared to normal running.SignificanceThis study demonstrated that COP translation along the mediolateral foot axis significantly influences rearfoot eversion, MLAA, and subtalar pronation during running. Running with either more lateral or medial COP reduced or increased peak rearfoot eversion, peak subtalar pronation, and peak MLAA, respectively, compared to normal running. These results might use as a basis to help clinicians and researchers prescribe running gait retraining by changing mediolateral COP for runners with atypical rearfoot eversion or MLAA.     

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.

Effects of medially wedged insoles on the biomechanics of the lower limbs of runners with excessive foot pronation and foot varus alignment

BackgroundExcessive foot pronation during running in individuals with foot varus alignment may be reduced by medially wedged insoles.Research questionThis study investigated the effects of a medially wedged insole at the forefoot and at the rearfoot on the lower limbs angles and internal moments of runners with excessive foot pronation and foot varus alignment.MethodsKinematic and kinetic data of 19 runners (11 females and 8 males) were collected while they ran wearing flat (control condition) and medially wedged insoles (insole condition). Both insoles had arch support. We used principal component analysis for data reduction and dependent t-test to compare differences between conditions.ResultsThe insole condition reduced ankle eversion (p = 0.003; effect size = 0.63); reduced knee range of motion in the transverse plane (p = 0.012; effect size = 0.55); increased knee range of motion in the frontal plane in early stance and had earlier knee adduction peak (p = 0.018; effect size = 0.52); reduced hip range of motion in the transverse plane (p = 0.031; effect size = 0.48); reduced hip adduction (p = 0.024; effect size = 0.50); reduced ankle inversion moment (p = 0.012; effect size = 0.55); and increased the difference between the knee internal rotation moment in early stance and midstance (p = 0.012; effect size = 0.55).SignificanceInsoles with 7˚ medial wedges at the forefoot and rearfoot are able to modify motion and moments patterns that are related to lower limb injuries in runners with increased foot pronation and foot varus alignment with some non-desired effects on the knee motion in the frontal plane.     

The effects of shoe design parameters on rearfoot control in running

Control of the amount and/or rate of pronation of the foot which occurs during distance running has been cited as an important consideration for runners when selecting a running shoe. In this study, high-speed movie film was taken from the rear while 10 subjects ran on a treadmill at a pace of 3.8 m X s-1. These subjects wore 36 different shoes in combinations of three midsole hardnesses, three heel flares, and four heel heights. The film data were digitized and used to determine the eversion or inversion of the heel relative to the lower leg throughout foot contact. Because eversion of the foot is a component of pronation it was used as a predictor of how much pronation was occurring. It was found that shoes with soft midsoles (25 durometer, Shore A scale) allowed significantly more maximum pronation (MP) and total rearfoot movement (TRM) than shoes with either medium (35 durometer) or hard (45 durometer) midsoles. Shoes with 0 degrees heel flare allowed significantly more MP and TRM than shoes with either 15 degrees or 30 degrees heel flares. Heel height was found to have no significant effect on either MP or TRM. These data provide guidelines for the construction of running shoes designed to limit rearfoot movement.     

Association of footwear with patellofemoral pain syndrome in runners

Patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) is a common knee problem with a diverse aetiology. One of the clinically well accepted risk factors is malalignment of the lower extremities, including excessive foot pronation, tibial and femoral rotations. A feature of footwear technology entitled 'motion control' aims to reduce excessive movements of the rearfoot during sports activities, and has been developed and used by runners. However, no studies have reported a causal relationship between footwear and PFPS. This review attempts to explore a possible link between the footwear and PFPS so as to shed light on whether proper selection of shoes may be an adjunct therapeutic consideration in the management of patients with PFPS.     

Effects of a foot strengthening program on foot muscle morphology and running mechanics: A proof-of-concept,single-blind randomized controlled trial

ObjectivesTo investigate the effects of a foot training program on muscle morphology and strength as well as running biomechanics in healthy recreational runners.DesignProof-of-concept, single-blind randomized controlled trial.SettingsRunners were allocated to a control (CG) or an intervention (IG) group. The intervention focused on strengthening the intrinsic foot muscles and their activation during weight-bearing activities. All participants were assessed at baseline and after 8-weeks.ParticipantsTwenty-eight healthy recreational long-distance runners not habituated to minimalist running shoes or barefoot running.Main outcomes measuresOutcomes were hallux and toes strength; foot function, cross-sectional area and volume of the abductor hallucis (ABH), abductor digiti minimi (ABV), flexor digitorum brevis (FDB), and flexor hallucis brevis; medial longitudinal arch range of motion and stiffness; vertical and antero-posterior propulsive impulses during running.ResultsCompared to the CG, an increase was found in the IG for the volume of all muscles investigated and for vertical propulsive impulse during running. Correlations were found between vertical propulsive impulse and volume of ABH(r = 0.40), ABV(r = 0.41), and FDB(r = 0.69).ConclusionThe foot exercise protocol effectively increased intrinsic foot muscle volume and propulsive forces in recreational runners. This shows that intrinsic muscle strengthening affects running mechanics and suggests that it may improve running performance.     

Acute responses to barefoot 5 km treadmill running involve changes in landing kinematics and delayed onset muscle soreness

BackgroundBarefoot running has gained popularity among physical activity practitioners, but there is a lack of information regarding the acute adaptations to this running technique without supervision. Information about acute adaptations can help to define the best way to insert barefoot running in the routine of runners willing to, and also provide orientation for those people who want to experience this technique.Research questionWhat acute adaptations can be observed among recreational runners exposed to barefoot running?MethodsSagittal 2D kinematics, plantar pressure, foot sensitivity and delayed onset muscle soreness were compared between conditions of shod and barefoot running in 13 recreational runners who performed two trials of 5 km treadmill running.ResultsWe found an acute effect of barefoot running on foot landing that changes from a rearfoot strike to a forefoot strike pattern. This change most likely contributed to the increase in neuromuscular recruitment of calf muscles (i.e. gastrocnemius and soleus) resulting in higher perception of delayed onset muscle soreness. Barefoot running also elicited higher stride cadence. Plantar pressure before and after running revealed higher pressure in the different foot regions after barefoot running. Foot sensitivity increased after running regardless of the footwear condition.ConclusionBarefoot running has acute effects on running technique including higher perception of delayed onset muscle soreness in the 48 h following the exercise.SignificanceOur results highlight the importance of following participants for days after a first session of barefoot running in order to properly manage the acute adaptation periods as well provide precise advices for those trying the barefoot technique.     

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.     

Classification of medial longitudinal arch kinematics during running and characteristics of foot muscle morphology in novice runners with pronated foot

BackgroundNovice runners with pronated feet are at an increased risk of running-related injuries. However, not all runners with pronated feet have increased foot pronation during running. Moreover, although foot muscle morphology is related to static foot alignment, the relationship between foot muscle morphology and foot kinematics during running remains unclear. We aimed to determine foot kinematic patterns during running among novice runners with pronated feet and the presence of a relationship between these foot kinematic patterns and foot muscle morphology.MethodsTwenty-one novice runners with pronated feet participated in this study, and data on 39 lower limbs were collected. Data on foot kinematics during running (rearfoot strike) were collected using a three-dimensional motion capture system in terms of navicular height (NH) at initial contact and dynamic navicular drop (DND). A hierarchical cluster analysis method was used to identify the optimal number of clusters based on these two foot-related kinematic variables. Following identification of the clusters, differences in cluster variables and cross-sectional areas of selected foot muscles assessed using ultrasonography in each cluster were examined. The muscles of interest included the abductor hallucis, flexor hallucis brevis and longus, flexor digitorum brevis and longus, and peroneus longus.ResultsThree subgroups were identified based on foot kinematics during running: cluster 1, lowest NH at initial contact and larger DND; cluster 2, moderate NH at initial contact and smaller DND; and cluster 3, highest NH at initial contact and larger DND. Clusters 1 and 3 had a larger abductor hallucis compared with cluster 2, and cluster 3 had a larger flexor hallucis brevis compared with cluster 2.SignificanceThese subgroups may differ in terms of resistance to and type of running-related injury. Moreover, foot kinematics during running is possibly impacted by the morphology and function of medial intrinsic foot muscles.     

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.     

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.     

Analysis of foot motion during running using a joint co-ordinate system

The amount and rate of pronation and supination have been the subject of interest to runners for some time. Exact determination of the motions has been hampered by their complexities and use of a two-dimensional data collection protocol. "Rearfoot motion," measured by determining the projection of the angle between a line on the posterior of the shank and a line on the heel, has been a common approach. This projection measures a rotation about a laboratory axis and not a body segment axis and has a potential of error due to projection onto a plane. The angle measured in rearfoot motion is not the true angle between these lines in space and has projection distortion errors which are compounded during plantar and dorsiflexion and medial and lateral foot rotations. The rearfoot motion angle, however, does approximate foot inversion-eversion during much of stance phase. The proposed change in research protocol allows analysis of the three-dimensional position data of targets to construct a "joint coordinate system" which gives more accurate data on inversion-eversion and data on plantar-dorsiflexion and medial-lateral rotation of the foot. This analysis may allow the examination of measurable differences between individuals and running shoes of various design.     

The effect of footwear and footfall pattern on running stride interval long-range correlations and distributional variability

The presence of long-range correlations (self-similarity) in the stride-to-stride fluctuations in running stride interval has been used as an indicator of a healthy adaptable system. Changes to footfall patterns when running with minimalist shoes could cause a less adaptable running gait. The purpose of this study was to investigate stride interval variability and the degree of self-similarity of stride interval in runners wearing minimalist and conventional footwear. Twenty-six trained habitual rearfoot footfall runners, unaccustomed to running in minimalist footwear, performed 6-min sub-maximal treadmill running bouts at 11, 13 and 15 km·h⁻¹ in minimalist and conventional shoes. Force sensitive resistors were placed in the shoes to quantify stride interval (time between successive foot contacts). Footfall position, stride interval mean and coefficient of variation (CV), were used to assess performance as a function of shoe type. Long-range correlations of stride interval were assessed using detrended fluctuation analysis (α). Mean stride interval was 1-1.3% shorter (P = 0.02) and 27% of runners adopted a midfoot footfall (MFF) in the minimalist shoe. There was a significant shoe effect on α and shoe*speed*footfall interaction effect on CV (P < 0.05). Runners that adopted a MFF in minimalist shoes, displayed reduced long-range correlations (P < 0.05) and CV (P < 0.06) in their running stride interval at the 15 km·h⁻¹ speed. The reduced variability and self-similarity observed for runners that changed to a MFF in the minimalist shoe may be suggestive of a system that is less flexible and more prone to injury.     

Effect of training volume on footstrike patterns over an exhaustive run

BackgroundAlthough footstrike pattern (FP) may not be a factor influencing running performance, 11–75% of world-class distance runners use a non-rearfoot FP. However, little attention has been paid to describe the effect of running volume on FP changes when a runner is fatigued.Research questionDoes the training volume provide an adequate stimulus to mitigate FP changes during an exhaustive run in non-rearfoot, habitual minimalist footwear runners?MethodsThe objective of this study was to compare FP between non-rearfoot, habitual minimalist footwear runners with a moderate training volume (MT) and a high training volume (HT) during an exhaustive run on a motorized treadmill. Based on their weekly training volume (distance), twenty-eight runners were arranged into two groups paired by height and age. At the first visit, runners underwent a VO2max test to acquire their velocity for the exhaustive run. During the second visit, biomechanical and physiological analysis of the beginning and the end phase of the exhaustive run was done.ResultsThe frontal plane foot angle, the sagittal plane ankle angle at the initial contact (IC), and the foot eversion ROM showed a significant interaction effect (P < 0.05). Additionally, the sagittal plane footstrike angle, the frontal plane foot angle, the sagittal plane ankle angle, knee flexion angle at IC and foot eversion ROM showed a significant effect of fatigue (P < 0.05). Finally, the frontal plane foot angle, the sagittal plane footstrike angle, the sagittal plane ankle angle, and the knee flexion angle showed significant group effects (P < 0.05).SignificanceThe training volume affects the footstrike pattern of non-rearfoot, habitual minimalist footwear runners when they are fatigued. The highly trained runners maintained their ankle angle throughout the exhaustive running protocol, whereas the moderately trained group changed the frontal and sagittal plane characteristics of their footstrike pattern.     

有鞋带跑鞋和松紧鞋舌跑鞋跑步主观舒适度、足底压力和后足运动参数比较

目的:比较穿着鞋带跑鞋和采用松紧鞋舌跑鞋在主观舒适度、足底压力分布和后足运动参数方面的区别。方法:15名有经验的跑步者自愿参与本研究。采用一份可靠的问卷进行主观舒适度调查;采用Novel pedar足底压力测试系统记录受试者穿着两种跑鞋跑步时的足底压力分布;采用二维高速摄像系统和Ariel动作解析系统记录、分析受试者穿着两种跑鞋跑步时后足的运动图像及足跟相对小腿的内、外翻参数。结果:与穿着有鞋带跑鞋比较,受试者在穿着松紧鞋舌跑鞋跑步时的主观舒适度较差,第4和第5跖趾关节分区足底压强明显增加,后足外翻角度较大。结论:松紧鞋舌式设计并不适用于跑鞋。有鞋带跑鞋合脚性更好,可以帮助跑步者固定鞋内的脚。     

Tibial rotation in running: Does rearfoot adduction matter?

ObjectiveTo quantify the magnitude of global rearfoot motion, in particular, rearfoot adduction and to investigate its relationship to tibial rotation.DesignOne hundred and four participants ran barefoot on an Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA) foam. Global range of motion values for the shank, rearfoot and medial metatarsal segment as well as foot motion within the transverse plane were determined using an optoelectric motion capture system. Relationships between parameters were assessed using partial correlation analysis.ResultsGlobal rearfoot adduction amounts to 6.1° (±2.7). Furthermore global rearfoot adduction and rearfoot eversion were significantly related to internal tibial rotation (partial correlation: r = 0.37, p < 0.001 and r = −0.24, p = 0.015, respectively). Furthermore, a strong relationship between rearfoot adduction and transverse within foot motion (r = −0.65, p < 0.001) was found.ConclusionNext to rearfoot eversion, rearfoot adduction may be also important to the understanding of ankle joint coupling. Controlling rearfoot adduction and transverse within foot motion may be a mechanism to control excessive tibial rotation.     

A comparison of the spatiotemporal parameters, kinematics, and biomechanics between shod, unshod, and minimally supported running as compared to walking

Recreational running has many proven benefits which include increased cardiovascular, physical and mental health. It is no surprise that Running USA reported over 10 million individuals completed running road races in 2009 not to mention recreational joggers who do not wish to compete in organized events. Unfortunately there are numerous risks associated with running, the most common being musculoskeletal injuries attributed to incorrect shoe choice, training errors and excessive shoe wear or other biomechanical factors associated with ground reaction forces. Approximately 65% of chronic injuries in distance runners are related to routine high mileage, rapid increases in mileage, increased intensity, hills or irregular surface running, and surface firmness. Humans have been running barefooted or wearing minimally supportive footwear such as moccasins or sandals since the beginning of time while modernized running shoes were not invented until the 1970s. However, the current trend is that many runners are moving back to barefoot running or running in “minimal” shoes. The goal of this masterclass article is to examine the similarities and differences between shod and unshod (barefoot or minimally supportive running shoes) runners by examining spatiotemporal parameters, energetics, and biomechanics. These running parameters will be compared and contrasted with walking. The most obvious difference between the walking and running gait cycle is the elimination of the double limb support phase of walking gait in exchange for a float (no limb support) phase. The biggest difference between barefoot and shod runners is at the initial contact phase of gait where the barefoot and minimally supported runner initiates contact with their forefoot or midfoot instead of the rearfoot. As movement science experts, physical therapists are often called upon to assess the gait of a running athlete, their choice of footwear, and training regime. With a clearer understanding of running and its complexities, the physical therapist will be able to better identify faults and create informed treatment plans while rehabilitating patients who are experiencing musculoskeletal injuries due to running.     

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.