Literature DB >> 23073217

Effects of foot strike on low back posture, shock attenuation, and comfort in running.

Traci L Delgado1, Emilia Kubera-Shelton, Robert R Robb, Robbin Hickman, Harvey W Wallmann, Janet S Dufek.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Barefoot running (BF) is gaining popularity in the running community. Biomechanical changes occur with BF, especially when initial contact changes from rearfoot strike (RFS) to forefoot strike (FFS). Changes in lumbar spine range of motion (ROM), particularly involving lumbar lordosis, have been associated with increased low back pain. However, it is not known if changing from RFS to FFS affects lumbar lordosis or low back pain. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a change from RFS to FFS would change lumbar lordosis, influence shock attenuation, or change comfort levels in healthy recreational/experienced runners.
METHODS: Forty-three subjects performed a warm-up on the treadmill where a self-selected foot strike pattern was determined. Instructions on running RFS/FFS were taught, and two conditions were examined. Each condition consisted of 90 s of BF with RFS or FFS, order randomly assigned. A comfort questionnaire was completed after both conditions. Fifteen consecutive strides from each condition were extracted for analyses.
RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between FFS and RFS shock attenuation (P < 0.001), peak leg acceleration (P < 0.001), and overall lumbar ROM (P = 0.045) were found. There were no statistically significant differences between FFS and RFS in lumbar extension or lumbar flexion. There was a statistically significant difference between FFS and RFS for comfort/discomfort of the comfort questionnaire (P = .007). There were no statistically significant differences between other questions or the average of all questions.
CONCLUSION: Change in foot strike from RFS to FFS decreased overall ROM in the lumbar spine but did not make a difference in flexion or extension in which the lumbar spine is positioned. Shock attenuation was greater in RFS. RFS was perceived a more comfortable running pattern.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23073217     DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182781b2c

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc        ISSN: 0195-9131            Impact factor:   5.411


  6 in total

1.  Barefoot running: does it prevent injuries?

Authors:  Kelly Murphy; Emily J Curry; Elizabeth G Matzkin
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 11.136

2.  Effect of Acute Alterations in Foot Strike Patterns during Running on Sagittal Plane Lower Limb Kinematics and Kinetics.

Authors:  Kevin A Valenzuela; Scott K Lynn; Lisa R Mikelson; Guillermo J Noffal; Daniel A Judelson
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2015-03-01       Impact factor: 2.988

3.  What are the Benefits and Risks Associated with Changing Foot Strike Pattern During Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Injury, Running Economy, and Biomechanics.

Authors:  Laura M Anderson; Daniel R Bonanno; Harvi F Hart; Christian J Barton
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 11.136

4.  The risks and benefits of running barefoot or in minimalist shoes: a systematic review.

Authors:  Kyle P Perkins; William J Hanney; Carey E Rothschild
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 3.843

5.  Reproducibility of the Evolution of Stride Biomechanics During Exhaustive Runs.

Authors:  Géraldine Martens; Dorian Deflandre; Cédric Schwartz; Nadia Dardenne; Thierry Bury
Journal:  J Hum Kinet       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 2.193

6.  Foot and Lower Limb Clinical and Structural Changes in Overuse Injured Recreational Runners Using Floating Heel Shoes: Preliminary Results of a Randomised Control Trial.

Authors:  Javier Gamez-Paya; Lirios Dueñas; Anna Arnal-Gómez; Josep Carles Benítez-Martínez
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-11-24       Impact factor: 3.576

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.