The effect of shoes, surface conditions and sex on leg geometry at touchdown in habitually shod runners

Leg geometry at touchdown has a critical effect on joint loading in the initial contact phase in running. The purpose of this study was to systematically investigate the effects of footwear, surface conditions and sex on the kinematic striking configuration of the lower extremity when running at a constant speed (3.5 m/s). Three-dimensional touchdown kinematics were captured from 20 male and 19 female participants when running barefoot and with a neutral running shoe on four different surfaces. On harder surfaces and when running barefoot, subjects tended to land with a more plantarflexed foot position and ankle angle as well as a more vertical shank alignment. Different adaptation strategies to running surface stiffness were observed between barefoot and shod conditions. It seems that touchdown behaviour is adapted to compensate for the force distributing and energy absorption potentials of distinct surface x shoe combinations. If the combined compliance of the shoe plus surface combination exceeds a certain level, touchdown kinematics seem to be adapted to improve joint stability during early stance. Sex effects were identified mainly in shank and thigh frontal plane orientation and knee flexion angle.

[1]  R. Ferber,et al.  Gender differences in lower extremity mechanics during running. , 2003, Clinical biomechanics.

[2]  P R Cavanagh,et al.  Ground reaction forces in distance running. , 1980, Journal of biomechanics.

[3]  Irene S. McClay,et al.  Lower Extremity Mechanics in Runners with a Converted Forefoot Strike Pattern , 2000 .

[4]  S. Maxwell,et al.  On Using Analysis Of Covariance In Repeated Measures Designs. , 1981, Multivariate behavioral research.

[5]  J. Taunton,et al.  A retrospective case-control analysis of 2002 running injuries , 2002, British journal of sports medicine.

[6]  Daniel P. Ferris,et al.  Running in the real world: adjusting leg stiffness for different surfaces , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[7]  Youlian Hong,et al.  Comparison of Plantar Loads During Running on Different Overground Surfaces , 2012, Research in sports medicine.

[8]  Daniel P. Ferris,et al.  Runners adjust leg stiffness for their first step on a new running surface. , 1999, Journal of biomechanics.

[9]  C. Reinschmidt,et al.  The movement of the heel within a running shoe. , 1992, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[10]  Peer Eysel,et al.  Footwear affects the gearing at the ankle and knee joints during running. , 2010, Journal of biomechanics.

[11]  A. Belli,et al.  Mechanical comparison of barefoot and shod running. , 2005, International journal of sports medicine.

[12]  Martyn Shorten,et al.  The ‘heel impact’ force peak during running is neither ‘heel’ nor ‘impact’ and does not quantify shoe cushioning effects , 2011 .

[13]  Paul Allard,et al.  Forefoot-rearfoot coupling patterns and tibial internal rotation during stance phase of barefoot versus shod running. , 2007, Clinical biomechanics.

[14]  Cara M. Wall-Scheffler,et al.  Gender differences in walking and running on level and inclined surfaces. , 2008, Clinical biomechanics.

[15]  Frank Mayer,et al.  Stiffness adaptations in shod running. , 2005, Journal of applied biomechanics.

[16]  Erin Higgins,et al.  Foot strike patterns of recreational and sub-elite runners in a long-distance road race , 2011, Journal of sports sciences.

[17]  P J McNair,et al.  Kinematic and kinetic parameters associated with running in different shoes. , 1994, British journal of sports medicine.

[18]  I. Davis,et al.  Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners , 2010, Nature.

[19]  D. Lieberman,et al.  Effects of footwear and strike type on running economy. , 2012, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[20]  Joseph Hamill,et al.  Impact characteristics in shod and barefoot running , 2011 .

[21]  M. G. Horton,et al.  Quadriceps femoris muscle angle: normal values and relationships with gender and selected skeletal measures. , 1989, Physical therapy.

[22]  Vitor Tessutti,et al.  In-shoe plantar pressure distribution during running on natural grass and asphalt in recreational runners. , 2010, Journal of science and medicine in sport.

[23]  Ba Kerr,et al.  Footstrike patterns in distance running , 1983 .

[24]  W E Garrett,et al.  A comparison of knee joint motion patterns between men and women in selected athletic tasks. , 2001, Clinical biomechanics.

[25]  Steffen Willwacher,et al.  IS AVERAGE SPEED CONTROL SENSITIVE ENOUGH TO ENSURE NONACCELERATED RUNNING IN THE ANALYSIS OF RUNNING MECHANICS , 2011 .

[26]  A. Cappozzo,et al.  Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry. Part 1: theoretical background. , 2005, Gait & posture.

[27]  Stephan Dill,et al.  Kinetics of cross-slope running. , 2013, Journal of biomechanics.

[28]  Kevin G. Hatala,et al.  Variation in Foot Strike Patterns during Running among Habitually Barefoot Populations , 2013, PloS one.

[29]  Brigit De Wit,et al.  Biomechanical analysis of the stance phase during barefoot and shod running. , 2000, Journal of biomechanics.

[30]  Amy E. Kerdok,et al.  Energetics and mechanics of human running on surfaces of different stiffnesses. , 2002, Journal of applied physiology.

[31]  R. McNeill Alexander,et al.  Principles of Animal Locomotion , 2002 .

[32]  G Mornieux,et al.  Barefoot-shod running differences: shoe or mass effect? , 2008, International journal of sports medicine.

[33]  W. Kraemer,et al.  FOOT STRIKE PATTERNS OF RUNNERS AT THE 15‐KM POINT DURING AN ELITE‐LEVEL HALF MARATHON , 2007, Journal of strength and conditioning research.