Does Advanced Footwear Technology Improve Track and Road Racing Performance? An Explorative Analysis Based on the 100 Best Yearly Performances in the World Between 2010 and 2022.

Advanced footwear technology (AFT) is currently being debated in sports. There is a direct evidence that distance running in AFT improves running economy. In addition, there is indirect evidence from competition performance for improved running performance from using AFTs in middle- and long-distance running and sprinting events. However, the extent to which world-class performance is affected across the full range of track and road racing events between genders has not been systematically analyzed. This study examined publicly available performance datasets of annual best track and road performances for evidence of potential systematic performance effects following the introduction of AFT. The analysis was based on the 100 best performances per year for men and women in outdoor events from 2010 to 2022, provided by the world governing body of athletics (World Athletics). We found evidence of progressing improvements in track and road running performances after the introduction of AFT for road races in 2016 and AFT for track racing in 2019. This evidence is more pronounced for distances longer than 1500 m in women and longer than 5000 m in men. Women seem to benefit more from AFT in distance running events than men. For the sprint events (100 m to 400 m hurdles), the peak performance gains in 2021 and 2022 compared to the pre-AFT period ranged from 0.6 to 1.1% and from 0.4 to 0.7% for women and men, respectively. For middle-distance events (400 m to 3000 m steeplechase), peak performance gains ranged from 0.6 to 1.9% and from 0.6 to 0.7% for women and men, respectively. For distances from 5000 m to the marathon, performance gains ranged from 2.2% to 3.5% and 0.7% to 1.4% for women and men, respectively. While the observational study design limits causal inference, this study provides a database on potential systematic performance effects after introducing advanced shoes/spikes in track and road running events in world-class athletes. Further research is needed to examine the underlying mechanisms and, in particular, potential gender differences in the performance effects of AFT.

Towards functionally individualised designed footwear recommendation for overuse injury prevention: a scoping review.

Injury prevention is essential in running due to the risk of overuse injury development. Tailoring running shoes to individual needs may be a promising strategy to reduce this risk. Novel manufacturing processes allow the production of individualised running shoes that incorporate features that meet individual biomechanical and experiential needs. However, specific ways to individualise footwear to reduce injury risk are poorly understood. Therefore, this scoping review provides an overview of (1) footwear design features that have the potential for individualisation; and (2) the literature on the differential responses to footwear design features between selected groups of individuals. These purposes focus exclusively on reducing the risk of overuse injuries. We included studies in the English language on adults that analysed: (1) potential interaction effects between footwear design features and subgroups of runners or covariates (e.g., age, sex) for running-related biomechanical risk factors or injury incidences; (2) footwear comfort perception for a systematically modified footwear design feature. Most of the included articles (n = 107) analysed male runners. Female runners may be more susceptible to footwear-induced changes and overuse injury development; future research should target more heterogonous sampling. Several footwear design features (e.g., midsole characteristics, upper, outsole profile) show potential for individualisation. However, the literature addressing individualised footwear solutions and the potential to reduce biomechanical risk factors is limited. Future studies should leverage more extensive data collections considering relevant covariates and subgroups while systematically modifying isolated footwear design features to inform footwear individualisation.

[Motion analysis systems in research and for practicing orthopedists]. / Bewegungsanalysesysteme in der Forschung und für niedergelassene Orthopädinnen und Orthopäden.

BACKGROUND: Complex biomechanical motion analysis can provide relevant information for a variety of orthopedic problems. When purchasing motion analysis systems, in addition to the classical measurement quality criteria (validity, reliability, objectivity), spatial and temporal conditions, as well as the requirements for the qualification of the measuring personnel should be considered. APPLICATION: In complex movement analysis, systems are used to determine kinematics, kinetics and muscle activity (electromyography). This article gives an overview of methods of complex biomechanical motion analysis for use in orthopaedic research or for individual patient care. In addition to the use for pure movement analysis, the use of movement analysis methods in the field of biofeedback training is discussed. ACQUISITION: For the specific acquisition of motion analysis systems, it is recommended to contact professional societies (e.g., the German Society for Biomechanics),universities with existing motion analysis facilities or distributors in the field of biomechanics.

A Multidimensional Assessment of a Novel Adaptive Versus Traditional Passive Ankle Sprain Protection Systems.

BACKGROUND: Ankle braces aim to reduce lateral ankle sprains. Next to protection, factors influencing user compliance, such as sports performance, motion restriction, and users' perceptions, are relevant for user compliance and thus injury prevention. Novel adaptive protection systems claim to change their mechanical behavior based on the intensity of motion (eg, the inversion velocity), unlike traditional passive concepts of ankle bracing. PURPOSE: To compare the performance of a novel adaptive brace with 2 passive ankle braces while considering protection, sports performance, freedom of motion, and subjective perception. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: The authors analyzed 1 adaptive and 2 passive (one lace-up and one rigid brace) ankle braces, worn in a low-cut, indoor sports shoe, which was also the no-brace reference condition. We performed material testing using an artificial ankle joint system at high and low inversion velocities. Further, 20 male, young, healthy team sports athletes were analyzed using 3-dimensional motion analysis in sports-related movements to address protection, sports performance, and active range of motion dimensions. Participants rated subjective comfort, stability, and restriction experienced when using the products. RESULTS: Subjective stability rating was not different between the adaptive and passive systems. The rigid brace was superior in restricting peak inversion during the biomechanical testing compared with the passive braces. However, in the material test, the adaptive brace increased its stiffness by approximately 400% during the fast compared with the slow inversion velocities, demonstrating its adaptive behavior and similar stiffness values to passive braces. We identified minor differences in sports performance tasks. The adaptive brace improved active ankle range of motion and subjective comfort and restriction ratings. CONCLUSION: The adaptive brace offered similar protective effects in high-velocity inversion situations to those of the passive braces while improving range of motion, comfort, and restriction rating during noninjurious motions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Protection systems are only effective when used. Compared with traditional passive ankle brace technologies, the novel adaptive brace might increase user compliance by improving comfort and freedom of movement while offering similar protection in injurious situations.

Physical Activity During Lockdowns Associated with the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Multilevel Meta-analysis of 173 Studies with 320,636 Participants.

BACKGROUND: Many countries have restricted public life in order to contain the spread of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2). As a side effect of related measures, physical activity (PA) levels may have decreased. OBJECTIVE: We aimed (1) to quantify changes in PA and (2) to identify variables potentially predicting PA reductions. METHODS: A systematic review with random-effects multilevel meta-analysis was performed, pooling the standardized mean differences in PA measures before and during public life restrictions. RESULTS: A total of 173 trials with moderate methodological quality (modified Downs and Black checklist) were identified. Compared to pre-pandemic, total PA (SMD - 0.65, 95% CI - 1.10 to - 0.21) and walking (SMD - 0.52, 95% CI - 0.29 to - 0.76) decreased while sedentary behavior increased (SMD 0.91, 95% CI: 0.17 to 1.65). Reductions in PA affected all intensities (light: SMD - 0.35, 95% CI - 0.09 to - 0.61, p = .013; moderate: SMD - 0.33, 95% CI - 0.02 to - 0.6; vigorous: SMD - 0.33, - 0.08 to - 0.58, 95% CI - 0.08 to - 0.58) to a similar degree. Moderator analyses revealed no influence of variables such as sex, age, body mass index, or health status. However, the only continent without a PA reduction was Australia and cross-sectional trials yielded higher effect sizes (p < .05). CONCLUSION: Public life restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in moderate reductions in PA levels and large increases in sedentary behavior. Health professionals and policy makers should therefore join forces to develop strategies counteracting the adverse effects of inactivity.

Running-Related Biomechanical Risk Factors for Overuse Injuries in Distance Runners: A Systematic Review Considering Injury Specificity and the Potentials for Future Research.

BACKGROUND: Running overuse injuries (ROIs) occur within a complex, partly injury-specific interplay between training loads and extrinsic and intrinsic risk factors. Biomechanical risk factors (BRFs) are related to the individual running style. While BRFs have been reviewed regarding general ROI risk, no systematic review has addressed BRFs for specific ROIs using a standardized methodology. OBJECTIVE: To identify and evaluate the evidence for the most relevant BRFs for ROIs determined during running and to suggest future research directions. DESIGN: Systematic review considering prospective and retrospective studies. (PROSPERO_ID: 236,832). DATA SOURCES: PubMed. Connected Papers. The search was performed in February 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English language. Studies on participants whose primary sport is running addressing the risk for the seven most common ROIs and at least one kinematic, kinetic (including pressure measurements), or electromyographic BRF. A BRF needed to be identified in at least one prospective or two independent retrospective studies. BRFs needed to be determined during running. RESULTS: Sixty-six articles fulfilled our eligibility criteria. Levels of evidence for specific ROIs ranged from conflicting to moderate evidence. Running populations and methods applied varied considerably between studies. While some BRFs appeared for several ROIs, most BRFs were specific for a particular ROI. Most BRFs derived from lower-extremity joint kinematics and kinetics were located in the frontal and transverse planes of motion. Further, plantar pressure, vertical ground reaction force loading rate and free moment-related parameters were identified as kinetic BRFs. CONCLUSION: This study offers a comprehensive overview of BRFs for the most common ROIs, which might serve as a starting point to develop ROI-specific risk profiles of individual runners. We identified limited evidence for most ROI-specific risk factors, highlighting the need for performing further high-quality studies in the future. However, consensus on data collection standards (including the quantification of workload and stress tolerance variables and the reporting of injuries) is warranted.