ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE:With the popularity of simulated barefoot running,minimalist shoes have become a new way of foot exercise.As an important muscle group of the foot,the maintenance of foot muscle morphology is important for the execution of foot functions.In this paper,by combing the literature about the effect of minimalist shoes on foot muscle morphology in recent years,we systematically evaluate the effect of minimalist shoes on foot muscle morphology compared with traditional running shoes. METHODS:The relevant articles published from 2012 to 2022 were searched in Chinese and English databases(PubMed,Web of Science,ProQuest,CNKI and WanFang databases)with"minimal shoes,minimal footwear,minimalist shoes,minimalist footwear,foot muscle,feet muscle"as Chinese and English keywords,respectively.Meta-analysis,sensitivity tests were performed on the included literature using Review Manager 5.4.1 and Stata 14 software,the Egger method was used to test for publication bias in the literature,and Meta-regression was used to identify the subgroups with heterogeneity. RESULTS:Compared with traditional running shoes,minimalist shoes increased muscle circumference of the abductor hallucis[standardized mean difference=2.034,95%confidence interval(1.192,2.877),Z=4.73,P＜0.001].And the results were not reversed after clipping and patching,with a more robust combined effect size(P＜0.05).For the toe short flexors,the total combined effect size did not show a difference between traditional running shoes and minimalist shoes[standardized mean difference=0.470,95%confidence interval(-0.45,1.39),Z=1.00,P=0.318]. CONCLUSION:Compared with traditional running shoes,minimalist shoes intervention can effectively improve muscle circumference of the abductor hallucis,but the promoting effect on the flexor digitorum brevis muscle is not obvious.Running in minimalist shoes has positive implications for the maintenance of the medial longitudinal arch,but it is necessary to enrich the research content of minimalist shoes on different foot muscles and different populations in order to further explore the mechanisms by which minimalist shoe interventions promote foot function.
ABSTRACT
Objective To evaluate the difference of foot-ankle function for subjects with different foot types from both dynamic and static aspects by means of sports biomechanics, so as to provide theoretical support and references for the study of foot-ankle movement. Methods According to the arch index, 65 subjects were divided into three groups: flat foot, low arch foot and normal foot. One-way ANOVA was used to analyze the difference of static and dynamic foot-ankle function indexes among the three groups. Results In terms of static foot-ankle function, the malleolar valgus flexibility (MVF) of normal foot and ankle was significantly higher than that of low arch foot and flat foot (P<0.05), while in terms of arch height flexibility (AHF), the effect of weight bearing on normal foot was smaller than that of flat foot (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in transverse arch flexibility (TAF) among the three groups. In terms of dynamic foot-ankle function, the force offset amplitude and time of normal foot at buffer stage were higher than those of the other two groups (P<0.05), and at transition stage, the transition time of normal foot was significantly lower than that of low arch foot and flat foot (P<0.05). At pedal-extension stage, the pedal-extension time and speed of normal foot were significantly higher than those of flat foot (P<0.05). Conclusions The posture maintenance ability and longitudinal arch shape maintenance ability of low arch foot and flat foot are worse than those of normal foot with the load increasing, and the arch rigidity and plantar elasticity of low arch foot and flat foot are worse than those of normal foot, and normal foot shows better load-bearing cushioning ability, elastic-to-rigid transition ability and pedal extension efficiency during walking. A systematic and comprehensive evaluation system is of great significance to the prediction of foot-ankle injury risk and the evaluation of sports ability.