Influence of different midsole foam in advanced footwear technology use on running economy and biomechanics in trained runners.

BACKGROUND: Ethylene and vinyl acetate (EVA) and polyether block amide (PEBA) are recently the most widely used materials for advanced footwear technology (AFT) that has been shown to improve running economy (RE). This study investigated the effects of these midsole materials on RE and biomechanics, in both fresh and worn state (after 450 km). METHODS: Twenty-two male trained runners participated in this study. Subjects ran four 4-min trials at 13 km‧h-1 with both fresh EVA and PEBA AFT and with the same models with 450 km of wear using a randomized crossover experimental design. We measured energy cost of running (W/kg), spatiotemporal, and neuromuscular parameters. RESULTS: There were significant differences in RE between conditions (p = 0.01; n2 = 0.17). There was a significant increase in energy cost in the worn PEBA condition compared with new (15.21 ± 1.01 and 14.87 ± 0.99 W/kg; p < 0.05; ES = 0.54), without differences between worn EVA (15.13 ± 1.14 W/kg; p > 0.05), and new EVA (15.15 ± 1.13 w/kg; ES = 0.02). The increase in energy cost between new and worn was significantly higher for the PEBA shoes (0.32 ± 0.38 W/kg) but without significant increase for the EVA shoes (0.06 ± 0.58 W/kg) (p < 0.01; ES = 0.51) with changes in step frequency and step length. The new PEBA shoes had lower energy cost than the new EVA shoes (p < 0.05; ES = 0.27) with significant differences between conditions in contact time. CONCLUSION: There is a clear RE advantage of incorporating PEBA versus EVA in an AFT when the models are new. However, after 450 km of use, the PEBA and EVA shoes had similar RE.

Relationship Between Advanced Footwear Technology Longitudinal Bending Stiffness and Energy Cost of Running.

INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE: Shoe longitudinal bending stiffness (LBS) is often considered to influence running economy (RE) and thus, running performance. However, previous results are mixed and LBS levels have not been studied in advanced footwear technology (AFT). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of increased LBS from curved carbon fiber plates embedded within an AFT midsole compared to a traditional running shoe on RE and spatiotemporal parameters. METHODS: Twenty-one male trained runners completed three times 4 min at 13 km/h with two experimental shoe models with a curved carbon fiber plate embedded in an AFT midsole with different LBS values (Stiff: 35.5 N/mm and Stiffest: 43.1 N/mm), and a Control condition (no carbon fiber plate: 20.1 N/mm). We measured energy cost of running (W/kg) and spatiotemporal parameters in one visit. RESULTS: RE improved for the Stiff shoe condition (15.71 ± 0.95 W/kg; p < 0.001; n2 = 0.374) compared to the Control condition (16.13 ± 1.08 W/kg; 2.56%) and Stiffest condition (16.03 ± 1.19 W/kg; 1.98%). However, we found no significant differences between the Stiffest and Control conditions. Moreover, there were no spatiotemporal differences between shoe conditions. CONCLUSION: Changes in LBS in AFT influences RE suggesting that moderately stiff shoes have the most effective LBS to improve RE in AFT compared to very stiff shoes and traditional, flexible shoe conditions while running at 13 km/h.

Clustering Runners' Response to Different Midsole Stack Heights: A Field Study.

Advanced footwear technology featuring stack heights higher than 30 mm has been proven to improve running economy in elite and recreational runners. While it is understood that the physiological benefit is highly individual, the individual biomechanical response to different stack heights remains unclear. Thirty-one runners performed running trials with three different shoe conditions of 25 mm, 35 mm, and 45 mm stack height on an outdoor running course wearing a STRYD sensor. The STRYD running variables for each participant were normalized to the 25 mm shoe condition and used to cluster participants into three distinct groups. Each cluster showed unique running patterns, with leg spring stiffness and vertical oscillation contributing most to the variance. No significant differences were found between clusters in terms of body height, body weight, leg length, and running speed. This study indicates that runners change running patterns individually when running with footwear featuring different stack heights. Clustering these patterns can help understand subgroups of runners and potentially support running shoe recommendations.

Marathon shoes vs. track spikes: a crossover pilot study on metabolic demand at different speeds in experienced runners.

The aim of this study was to assess the metabolic cost (Cr) with marathon shoes (Adidas Adizero 3 [AA]) vs. track spikes (Nike Zoom Matumbo 3 [NZM]) on track. For this, five experienced runners were randomly assessed (NZM/AA) on a running track at 73% and 85% of best performance speed on 1500-m race. At first, speed (4.39 ± 0.53 m·s-1), Crs with AA and NZM resulted 3.63 ± 0.29 and 3.64 ± 0.43 J·kg-1·m-1 (+0.3% with NZM, effect size [ES] small and p = 0.951), respectively. Besides, at second speed (5.20 ± 0.18 m·s-1), Crs were 4.09 ± 0.28 and 4.07 ± 0.22 J·kg-1·m-1 (-0.5% with NZM, ES small and p = 0.919) with AA and NZM, respectively. It resulted in an increased Cr (+12.2%) between s1 and s2 with both shoe conditions (ES large and p = 0.009 and 0.011 with AA and NZM, respectively). There is a pattern yet to be confirmed for track spikes to become more beneficial at higher speeds (when duty factor becomes lower and therefore grip on track is crucial).

Age differences in running biomechanics during footstrike between preschool children and adults.

This study aimed to compare impact loading between two age groups of preschool children (3-4 and 5-6 years old) and one group of young adults representing mature level of running skill (n = 15 per group). Three-dimensional biomechanical data were collected during running barefoot, in minimalist and running shoes. A two-way mixed ANOVA was performed to assess age and footwear differences in vertical instantaneous loading rate (VILR). An interaction was found in VILR. Older (5-6) preschoolers had 30-31% lower VILR than younger (3-4) (p = 0.012, d = 1.02; p = 0.001, d = 1.18) and adults had 51-77% lower VILR than younger preschoolers (p = 0.001, d = 1.85; p = 0.001, d = 2.82) in minimalist and running shoes, respectively. Additionally, adults had lower VILR than older preschoolers in running shoes (p = 0.001, d = 2.68). No differences were found between older children and adults in barefoot and minimalist shoes. Loading decreased with increasing age, particularly in minimalist and running shoes. Unchanged cadence and running speed did not explain the decrease of VILR during preschool age. The explanation likely underlies in lower limb alignment during footstrike and developmental ontogenetic changes.

Biomechanical analysis of two runners who developed leg injuries during a six-week transition to maximal running shoes: A case series.

Achilles tendinopathy (AT) and medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS) are two of the most common running-related injuries. In a previous study investigating running biomechanics before and after a six-week transition to maximal running shoes, two runners dropped out of this study due to Achilles pain and shin pain, respectively. The purpose of this case series was to investigate running biomechanics in those two runners, identifying potential causes for injury in relation to maximal shoe use. Running biomechanics were collected in a laboratory setting for these two runners wearing both a maximal running shoe and traditional running shoe before the six-week transition using an 8-camera motion capture system and two embedded force plates. Both runners displayed prolonged eversion in the maximal shoe, which has been previously cited as a potential risk factor for developing Achilles tendinopathy and medial tibial stress syndrome. Relatively high loading rates and impact forces were also observed in the runner with shin pain in the maximal shoe, which may have contributed to their pain. More prospective research on injury rates in individuals running in maximal shoes is needed.

Standardized Lab Shoes Do Not Decrease Loading Rate Variability in Recreational Runners.

Studies of running mechanics often use a standardized lab shoe, ostensibly to reduce variance between subjects; however, this may induce unnatural running mechanics. The purpose of this study was to compare the step rate, vertical average loading rate, and ground contact time when running in standardized lab shoes versus participants' normal running shoes. Ground reaction forces were measured while the participants ran overground in both shoe conditions at a self-selected speed. The Student's t-test revealed that the vertical average loading rate magnitude was smaller in lab shoes versus normal shoes (42.09 [11.08] vs 47.35 [10.81] body weight/s, P = .013), while the step rate (170.92 [9.43] vs 168.98 [9.63] steps/min, P = .053) and ground contact time were similar (253 [25] vs 251 [20] ms, P = .5227) and the variance of all outcomes was similar in lab shoes versus normal shoes. Our results indicate that using standardized lab shoes during testing may underestimate the loads runners actually experience during their typical mileage.

Biomechanical Analysis of Running Foot Strike in Shoes of Different Mass.

Different shoes and strike patterns produce different biomechanical characteristics that can affect injury risk. Running shoes are mainly designed as lightweight, minimal, or traditional cushioned types. Previous research on different shoes utilized shoes of not only different mass but also different shoe structures. However, it is unclear whether biomechanical changes during running in different shoe types with differing mass are the result of the structural design or the mass of the shoe. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of shoes of different mass on running gait biomechanics. Twenty male runners participated in this study. The experimental shoe masses used in this study were 175, 255, 335 and 415 g. The peak vertical ground reaction force increased with shoe mass (p < 0.05), but the strike index, ankle plantarflexion at initial contact, peak moment of the ankle during the stance phase, and initial contact angles of the lower extremity joints did not change. During the pre-activation phase, the integrated EMG data showed that the tibialis anterior muscle was the most activated with the 175 g and 415 g shoes (p < 0.05). During the push-off phase, the semitendinosus, lateral gastrocnemius and soleus muscles displayed higher activation with the heavier shoes (p < 0.05). The center of pressure also moves forward; resulting in mid foot striking. The lightest shoes might increase gastrocnemius muscle fatigue during the braking phase. The heaviest shoes could cause semitendinosus and triceps surae muscle fatigue during the push-off phase. Therefore, runners should consider their lower extremity joints, muscle adaptation and cushioning to remain in their preferred movement path.

Systematic Review of the Role of Footwear Constructions in Running Biomechanics: Implications for Running-Related Injury and Performance.

Although the role of shoe constructions on running injury and performance has been widely investigated, systematic reviews on the shoe construction effects on running biomechanics were rarely reported. Therefore, this review focuses on the relevant research studies examining the biomechanical effect of running shoe constructions on reducing running-related injury and optimising performance. Searches of five databases and Footwear Science from January 1994 to September 2018 for related biomechanical studies which investigated running footwear constructions yielded a total of 1260 articles. After duplications were removed and exclusion criteria applied to the titles, abstracts and full text, 63 studies remained and categorised into following constructions: (a) shoe lace, (b) midsole, (c) heel flare, (d) heel-toe drop, (e) minimalist shoes, (f) Masai Barefoot Technologies, (g) heel cup, (h) upper, and (i) bending stiffness. Some running shoe constructions positively affect athletic performance-related and injury-related variables: 1) increasing the stiffness of running shoes at the optimal range can benefit performance-related variables; 2) softer midsoles can reduce impact forces and loading rates; 3) thicker midsoles can provide better cushioning effects and attenuate shock during impacts but may also decrease plantar sensations of a foot; 4) minimalist shoes can improve running economy and increase the cross-sectional area and stiffness of Achilles tendon but it would increase the metatarsophalangeal and ankle joint loading compared to the conventional shoes. While shoe constructions can effectively influence running biomechanics, research on some constructions including shoe lace, heel flare, heel-toe drop, Masai Barefoot Technologies, heel cup, and upper requires further investigation before a viable scientific guideline can be made. Future research is also needed to develop standard testing protocols to determine the optimal stiffness, thickness, and heel-toe drop of running shoes to optimise performance-related variables and prevent running-related injuries.

Using a Support-Vector Machine Algorithm to Classify Lower Extremity EMG Signals During Running Shod/Unshod With Different Foot Strike Patterns.

The present study aimed to use a Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithm to identify and classify shod and barefoot running as well as rearfoot and forefoot landings. Ten habitually shod runners ran at self-selected speed. Thigh and leg muscle surface electromyography (EMG) were recorded. Discrete Wavelet transformation (DWT) and Fast Fourier transformation (FFT) were used for the assembly of vectors for training and classification of a SVM. Using the FFT coefficients for the gastrocnemius and tibialis anterior muscles presented the best results for differentiating between rearfoot/forefoot running in the window before foot-floor contact possibly due to these muscles' critical role in determining which part of the foot will first touch the floor. The classification rate was 76% and 67% respectively, with a probability of being random of 0.5% and 4% respectively. For the same terms and conditions of classification, the DWT produced a reduction in the percentage of correctness of 60% and 53% with a probability of having reached these levels randomly of 15% and 35%. In conclusion, based on EMG signals, the use a FFT to train a SVM was a better option to differentiate running forefoot/rearfoot than to use the DWT. Shod/barefoot running could not be differentiated.

Injury risk in runners using standard or motion control shoes: a randomised controlled trial with participant and assessor blinding.

BACKGROUND/AIM: This randomised controlled trial investigated if the usage of running shoes with a motion control system modifies injury risk in regular leisure-time runners compared to standard shoes, and if this influence depends on foot morphology. METHODS: Recreational runners (n=372) were given either the motion control or the standard version of a regular running shoe model and were followed up for 6 months regarding running activity and injury. Foot morphology was analysed using the Foot Posture Index method. Cox regression analyses were used to compare injury risk between the two groups, based on HRs and their 95% CIs, controlling for potential confounders. Stratified analyses were conducted to evaluate the effect of motion control system in runners with supinated, neutral and pronated feet. RESULTS: The overall injury risk was lower among the participants who had received motion control shoes (HR=0.55; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85) compared to those receiving standard shoes. This positive effect was only observed in the stratum of runners with pronated feet (n=94; HR=0.34; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.84); there was no difference in runners with neutral (n=218; HR=0.78; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.37) or supinated feet (n=60; HR=0.59; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.73). Runners with pronated feet using standard shoes had a higher injury risk compared to those with neutral feet (HR=1.80; 95% CI 1.01 to 3.22). CONCLUSIONS: The overall injury risk was lower in participants who had received motion control shoes. Based on secondary analysis, those with pronated feet may benefit most from this shoe type.

Examining injury risk and pain perception in runners using minimalist footwear.

BACKGROUND: This study examines the effect of progressive increases in footwear minimalism on injury incidence and pain perception in recreational runners. METHODS: One hundred and three runners with neutral or mild pronation were randomly assigned a neutral (Nike Pegasus 28), partial minimalist (Nike Free 3.0 V2) or full minimalist shoe (Vibram 5-Finger Bikila). Runners underwent baseline testing to record training and injury history, as well as selected anthropometric measurements, before starting a 12-week training programme in preparation for a 10 km event. Outcome measures included number of injury events, Foot and Ankle Disability (FADI) scores and visual analogue scale pain rating scales for regional and overall pain with running. RESULTS: 99 runners were included in final analysis with 23 injuries reported; the neutral shoe reporting the fewest injuries (4) and the partial minimalist shoe (12) the most. The partial minimalist shoe reported a significantly higher rate of injury incidence throughout the 12-week period. Runners in the full minimalist group reported greater shin and calf pain. CONCLUSIONS: Running in minimalist footwear appears to increase the likelihood of experiencing an injury, with full minimalist designs specifically increasing pain at the shin and calf. Clinicians should exercise caution when recommending minimalist footwear to runners otherwise new to this footwear category who are preparing for a 10 km event.

Take your shoes off to reduce patellofemoral joint stress during running.

AIM: Elevated patellofemoral joint stress is thought to contribute to the development and progression of patellofemoral pain syndrome. The purpose of this study was to determine if running barefoot decreases patellofemoral joint stress in comparison to shod running. METHODS: Lower extremity kinematics and ground reaction force data were collected from 22 trained runners during overground running while barefoot and in a neutral running shoe. The kinematic and kinetic data were used as input variables into a previously described mathematical model to determine patellofemoral joint stress. Knee flexion angle, net knee extension moment and the model outputs of contact area, patellofemoral joint reaction force and patellofemoral joint stress were plotted over the stance phase of the gait cycle and peak values compared using paired t tests and standardised mean differences calculated. RESULTS: Running barefoot decreased peak patellofemoral joint stress by 12% (p=0.000) in comparison to shod running. The reduction in patellofemoral joint stress was a result of reduced patellofemoral joint reaction forces (12%, p=0.000) while running barefoot. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated patellofemoral joint stress during shod running might contribute to patellofemoral pain. Running barefoot decreases patellofemoral joint stress.

Barefoot running: an evaluation of current hypothesis, future research and clinical applications.

Barefoot running has become a popular research topic, driven by the increasing prescription of barefoot running as a means of reducing injury risk. Proponents of barefoot running cite evolutionary theories that long-distance running ability was crucial for human survival, and proof of the benefits of natural running. Subsequently, runners have been advised to run barefoot as a treatment mode for injuries, strength and conditioning. The body of literature examining the mechanical, structural, clinical and performance implications of barefoot running is still in its infancy. Recent research has found significant differences associated with barefoot running relative to shod running, and these differences have been associated with factors that are thought to contribute to injury and performance. Crucially, long-term prospective studies have yet to be conducted and the link between barefoot running and injury or performance remains tenuous and speculative. The injury prevention potential of barefoot running is further complicated by the complexity of injury aetiology, with no single factor having been identified as causative for the most common running injuries. The aim of the present review was to critically evaluate the theory and evidence for barefoot running, drawing on both collected evidence as well as literature that have been used to argue in favour of barefoot running. We describe the factors driving the prescription of barefoot running, examine which of these factors may have merit, what the collected evidence suggests about the suitability of barefoot running for its purported uses and describe the necessary future research to confirm or refute the barefoot running hypotheses.

Influence of midsole hardness of standard cushioned shoes on running-related injury risk.

BACKGROUND: In this double-blind randomised controlled trial, we tested if leisure-time runners using shoes with less compliant midsoles have a higher running-related injury (RRI) risk. METHOD: We provided 247 runners with standard running shoes having either a soft study shoes (soft-SS) or a hard study shoes (hard-SS) midsole and followed them prospectively for 5 months regarding RRI. All information about sports practice and injuries was uploaded on a dedicated internet platform and checked for consistency and completeness. RRI was defined as any first-time pain sustained during or as a result of running practice and impeding normal running activity for at least 1 day. Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to identify RRI risk factors. RESULT: The type of study shoes used for running was not associated with RRIs (HR=0.92; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.48). The hard-SS had a 15% greater overall stiffness in the heel region. The two study groups were similar regarding personal and sports participation characteristics, except for years of running experience, which was higher (p<0.05) in the hard-SS group. Global RRI incidence was 12.1 RRI/1000 h of running. No between-group differences were found regarding injury location, type, severity or category. Nevertheless, the adjusted regression model revealed positive associations with RRI risk for body mass index (HR=1.126; 95% CI 1.033 to 1.227), previous injury (HR=1.735; 95% CI 1.037 to 2.902) and mean session intensity (HR=1.396; 95% CI 1.040 to 1.874). Protective factors were previous regular running activity (HR=0.422; 95% CI 0.228 to 0.779) and weekly volume of other sports activities (HR=0.702; 95% CI 0.561 to 0.879). CONCLUSIONS: Midsole hardness of modern cushioned running shoes does not seem to influence RRI risk.

Foot pronation is not associated with increased injury risk in novice runners wearing a neutral shoe: a 1-year prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate if running distance to first running-related injury varies between foot postures in novice runners wearing neutral shoes. DESIGN: A 1-year epidemiological observational prospective cohort study. SETTING: Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 927 novice runners equivalent to 1854 feet were included. At baseline, foot posture on each foot was evaluated using the foot-posture index and categorised into highly supinated (n=53), supinated (n=369), neutral (n=1292), pronated (n=122) or highly pronated (n=18). Participants then had to start running in a neutral running shoe and to use global positioning system watch to quantify the running distance in every training session. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: A running-related injury was defined as any musculoskeletal complaint of the lower extremity or back caused by running, which restricted the amount of running for at least 1 week. RESULTS: During 1 year of follow-up, the 1854 feet included in the analyses ran a total of 326 803 km until injury or censoring. A total of 252 participants sustained a running-related injury. Of these, 63 were bilateral injuries. Compared with a neutral foot posture, no significant body mass index-adjusted cumulative risk differences (RD) were found after 250 km of running for highly supinated feet (RD=11.0% (-10% to 32.1%), p=0.30), supinated feet (RD=-1.4% (-8.4% to 5.5%), p=0.69), pronated feet (RD=-8.1% (-17.6% to 1.3%), p=0.09) and highly pronated feet (RD=9.8% (-19.3% to 38.8%), p=0.51). In addition, the incidence-rate difference/1000 km of running, revealed that pronators had a significantly lower number of injuries/1000 km of running of -0.37 (-0.03 to -0.70), p=0.03 than neutrals. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study contradict the widespread belief that moderate foot pronation is associated with an increased risk of injury among novice runners taking up running in a neutral running shoe. More work is needed to ascertain if highly pronated feet face a higher risk of injury than neutral feet.

Acute physiological, biomechanical, and perceptual responses of runners wearing downward-curved carbon fiber insoles.

In a randomized controlled cross-over study ten male runners (26.7 ± 4.9 years; recent 5-km time: 18:37 ± 1:07 min:s) performed an incremental treadmill test (ITT) and a 3-km time trial (3-km TT) on a treadmill while wearing either carbon fiber insoles with downwards curvature or insoles made of butyl rubber (control condition) in light road racing shoes (Saucony Fastwitch 9). Oxygen uptake, respiratory exchange ratio, heart rate, blood lactate concentration, stride frequency, stride length and time to exhaustion were assessed during ITT. After ITT, all runners rated their perceived exertion, perceived shoe comfort and perceived shoe performance. Running time, heart rate, blood lactate levels, stride frequency and stride length were recorded during, and shoe comfort and shoe performance after, the 3-km TT. All parameters obtained during or after the ITT did not differ between the two conditions [range: p = 0.188 to 0.948 (alpha value: 0.05); Cohen's d = 0.021 to 0.479] despite the rating of shoe comfort showing better scores for the control insoles (p = 0.001; d = -1.646). All parameters during and after the 3-km TT showed no differences (p = 0.200 to 1.000; d = 0.000 to 0.501) between both conditions except for shoe comfort showing better scores for control insoles (p = 0.017; d = -0.919). Running with carbon fiber insoles with downwards curvature did not change running performance or any submaximal or maximal physiological or biomechanical parameter and perceived exertion compared to control condition. Shoe comfort is impaired while running with carbon fiber insoles. Wearing carbon fiber insoles with downwards curvature during treadmill running is not beneficial when compared to running with control insoles.