Differences in running biomechanics between a maximal,traditional, and minimal running shoe |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands;2. Center for Sports Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands;3. Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands;4. School of Sports Studies, Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen, The Netherlands;1. Faculty of Sports Science, Ningbo University, Ningbo, China;2. Research Academy of Grand Health, Ningbo University, Ningbo, China;3. Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand;4. Department of Engineering Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand;1. Department of Sports and Exercise Medicine, Institute of Human Movement Science, University of Hamburg, Germany;2. Department of Cardiology, Internal Medicine I, Helios Albert-Schweitzer-Hospital, Germany;3. Institute of Sports Science, Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Germany;4. Department of Economics, University of Mannheim, Germany;5. Department of Sports and Rehabilitation Medicine, BG Trauma Hospital of Hamburg, Germany;1. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong;2. Spaulding National Running Center, Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Harvard Medical School, Bostan, MA, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | Gait analysis Shoes Ankle Pronation Cushioning Loading rate |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
