Robert J Butler1, Joseph Hamill, Irene Davis. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Evansville, 1800 Lincoln Avenue, Evansille, IN 47722, USA. rb83@evansville.edu
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Érica Q Silva; Andreia N Miana; Jane S S P Ferreira; Henry D Kiyomoto; Mauro C M E Dinato; Isabel C N Sacco Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 2.988
Authors: Nicola Relph; Henrike Greaves; Ross Armstrong; Trevor D Prior; Sally Spencer; Ian B Griffiths; Paola Dey; Ben Langley Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-08-22
Authors: Rachel Mason; Liam T Pearson; Gillian Barry; Fraser Young; Oisin Lennon; Alan Godfrey; Samuel Stuart Journal: Sports Med Date: 2022-10-15 Impact factor: 11.928