Motion control springy shoes1/6/2024 All runners considered themselves heel-strikers, which is described as a runner who strikes his or her heel to the ground first when running (vs midfoot-striker or forefoot-striker). Before participating in the study, all participants were running in some form of traditional running shoe, including rearfoot control and neutral shoes. Participants were 15 female recreational runners (age range, 23-51 years mean age, 34 years) who ran a minimum of 15 miles per week and had not run in a minimal shoe for the 6 months prior to the study. We also hypothesized that the impact peak and loading rate would increase after the 5K run in the traditional neutral shoe but not in the maximal shoe. We hypothesized that the maximal shoe would result in lower vertical impact peak and loading rates, but there would be no change in peak ankle eversion, compared with a neutral shoe. 14 Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a maximal running shoe versus a neutral running shoe on lower extremity running biomechanics before and after a 5-km (5K) run. However, despite increased popularity of maximal shoes in the marketplace, no research to date has investigated the effect of a maximal shoe on biomechanical variables associated with injury, including the loading rate and impact peak of the vertical ground-reaction force 2, 13, 14 and peak eversion of the rearfoot. Anecdotally, runners have expressed in the popular press that maximal running shoes reduce or eliminate running-related pains that often appear several miles into their run. Since 2010, maximal shoes have slowly gained popularity, with more than 20 variations of maximal running shoes now on the market.Ĭonceptually, this increase in cushioning is thought to improve shock attenuation and reduce the risk of injury. Currently, there is no academic definition of a maximal shoe, but in industry, the defining feature is increased cushioning of the midsole. 7, 15, 19Īt about the same time that minimal shoe popularity was rising, a company called Hoka One One introduced a highly cushioned “maximal” running shoe, a stark contrast to the minimal shoe. 6 Research continues to examine how transitioning from a traditional shoe to a minimal shoe influences running style, lower extremity biomechanics, and risk for injury. 10 However, popularity of minimal shoes has declined, largely due to research suggesting that adopting a forefoot-strike pattern does not decrease injury risk, improve running economy, or reduce the impact peak or loading rate of the vertical ground-reaction force. 4 Popularity of these shoes spiked largely because their benefits were espoused by shoe manufacturers and authors of popular-press books, 12 who claimed that a lack of cushioning would reduce injuries by promoting a more natural forefoot-strike pattern. In 2009, the minimalist shoe, defined by very little cushioning and heel drop, became popular among runners. Up until the past 7 years, traditional running shoes tended to have a heel-toe drop, which refers to the difference between the heel elevation and forefoot elevation of the midsole, of greater than 10 mm. In general, individuals with a high amount of pronation were directed to a motion control shoe, those with a moderate amount of pronation were directed to a stability shoe, and those with a minimal amount of pronation, or individuals who supinated, were directed to a neutral shoe. Historically, running shoes fell into 1 of 3 cushioning classifications: (1) neutral, (2) stability, and (3) motion control. Footwear manufacturers have modified the basic components of their running shoe models to accommodate these differences, including midsole cushioning and heel-toe drop. Numerous variations of running shoes have been developed to accommodate different types of runners, running styles, and running conditions. ![]() Despite significant advances in shoe technology over the past 50 years, the rate of sustaining a running-related injury has remained relatively stable. Since the inception of the cushioned running shoe, its fundamental purpose has been to protect the foot in an effort to reduce running-related injuries. Taunton and colleagues 17, 18 reported that over a 13-week training period, 30% of runners incurred a running-related injury, most commonly patellofemoral pain, iliotibial band friction syndrome, and plantar fasciitis. Lower extremity injuries have consistently been problematic for runners regardless of footwear.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |