1 Centre for Applied Sport and Exercise Sciences, School of Sport and Wellbeing, College of Health and Wellbeing, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
2 International Institute of Nutritional Sciences and Applied Food Safety Studies, School of Sport and Wellbeing, College of Health and Wellbeing, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Purpose. The aim of the current study was to comparatively examine the effects of energy return, spring and conventional footwear on the kinetics and kinematics of running.
Methods. Twelve male runners ran over an embedded force platform at 4.0 m · s−1 in the three footwear conditions. Lower limb kinematics were collected using an 8 camera motion capture system and tibial accelerations were obtained using an accelerometer. Differences in kinetic and kinematic parameters between footwear were examined using one-way repeated measures ANOVA.
Results. The results showed that there were no significant differences in kinetic parameters between footwear. However, it was shown that that spring footwear were associated with significantly greater angles of peak eversion (−12.49°) and tibial internal rotation (13.09°) in comparison to the conventional footwear (eversion = −10.52° & tibial internal rotation = 10.84°).
Conclusions. Therefore, the findings from the current investigation indicate that spring footwear may place runners at increased risk from chronic injury related to excessive ankle eversion/tibial internal rotation.
Taunton J.E., Ryan M.B., Clement D.B., McKenzie D.C., Lloyd-Smith D.R., Zumbo B.D., A prospective study of running injuries: the Vancouver Sun Run “In Training” clinics. Br J Sports Med, 2003, 37 (3), 239–244, .
van Gent R.N., Siem D., van Middelkoop M., van Os A.G., Bierma-Zeinstra S.M.., Koes B.W., Incidence and determinants of lower extremity running injuries in long distance runners: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med, 2007, 41 (8), 469–480, .
Milgrom C., Finestone A., Shlamkovitch N., Wosk J., Laor A., Voloshin A. et al., Prevention of overuse injuries of the foot by improved shoe shock attenuation. A randomized prospective study. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1992, (281), 189–192, .
Sinclair J., Fau-Goodwin J., Richards J., Shore H., The influence of minimalist and maximalist footwear on the kinetics and kinematics of running. Footwear Sci, 2016 (in press).
Sinclair J., Franks C., Goodwin J.F., Naemi R., Chockalingam N., Influence of footwear designed to boost energy return on the kinetics and kinematics of running compared to conventional running shoes. Comp Exerc Phys, 2014, 10 (3), 199–206.
Sinclair J., Mcgrath R., Brook O., Taylor P.J., Dillon S., Influence of footwear designed to boost energy return on running economy in comparison to a conventional running shoe. J Sports Sci, 2016, 34 (11), 1094–1098, .
Sinclair J., Hobbs S.J., Taylor P.J., Currigan G., Greenhalgh A., The influence of different force and pressure measuring transducers on lower extremity kinematics measured during running. J Appl Biomech, 2014, 30 (1), 166–172, .
Cappozzo A., Catani F., Croce U.D., Leardini A., Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: anatomical frame definition and determination. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon), 1995, 10 (4), 171–178, .
Sinclair J., Greenhalgh A., Brooks D., Edmundson C.J., Hobbs S.J., The influence of barefoot and barefoot-inspired footwear on the kinetics and kinematics of running in comparison to conventional running shoes. Footwear Sci, 2013,5 (1), 45–53, .