TY - JOUR
T1 - Lower impact forces but greater burden for the musculoskeletal system in running shoes with greater cushioning stiffness
AU - Malisoux, Laurent
AU - Gette, Paul
AU - Backes, Anne
AU - Delattre, Nicolas
AU - Theisen, Daniel
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2023/2
Y1 - 2023/2
N2 - In a recent randomised trial investigating running shoe cushioning, injury risk was greater in recreational runners who trained in the shoe version with greater cushioning stiffness (Stiff) compared to those using the Soft version. However, vertical impact peak force (VIPF) was lower in the Stiff version. To investigate further the mechanisms involved in the protective effect of greater cushioning, the present study used an intra-subject design and analysed the differences in running kinematics and kinetics between the Stiff and Soft shoe versions on a subsample of 41 runners from the previous trial. Data were recorded in the two shoe conditions using an instrumented treadmill at 10 km.h−1. VIPF was confirmed to be lower in the Stiff version compared to the Soft version (1.39 ± 0.25 vs. 1.50 ± 0.25 BW, respectively; p = 0.009, d = 0.42), but not difference was observed in vertical loading rate (p = 0.255 and 0.897 for vertical average and instantaneous loading rate, respectively). Ankle eversion maximal velocity was not different (p = 0.099), but the Stiff version induced greater ankle negative work (−0.55 ± 0.09 vs. −0.52 ± 0.10 J.kg−1; p = 0.009, d = 0.32), maximal ankle negative power (−7.21 ± 1.90 vs. −6.96 ± 1.92 W.kg−1; p = 0.037, d = 0.13) and maximal hip extension moment (1.25 ± 0.32 vs.1.18 ± 0.30 N.m.kg−1; p = 0.009, d = 0.22). Our results suggest that the Stiff shoe version is related to increased mechanical burden for the musculoskeletal system, especially around the ankle joint. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03115437.
AB - In a recent randomised trial investigating running shoe cushioning, injury risk was greater in recreational runners who trained in the shoe version with greater cushioning stiffness (Stiff) compared to those using the Soft version. However, vertical impact peak force (VIPF) was lower in the Stiff version. To investigate further the mechanisms involved in the protective effect of greater cushioning, the present study used an intra-subject design and analysed the differences in running kinematics and kinetics between the Stiff and Soft shoe versions on a subsample of 41 runners from the previous trial. Data were recorded in the two shoe conditions using an instrumented treadmill at 10 km.h−1. VIPF was confirmed to be lower in the Stiff version compared to the Soft version (1.39 ± 0.25 vs. 1.50 ± 0.25 BW, respectively; p = 0.009, d = 0.42), but not difference was observed in vertical loading rate (p = 0.255 and 0.897 for vertical average and instantaneous loading rate, respectively). Ankle eversion maximal velocity was not different (p = 0.099), but the Stiff version induced greater ankle negative work (−0.55 ± 0.09 vs. −0.52 ± 0.10 J.kg−1; p = 0.009, d = 0.32), maximal ankle negative power (−7.21 ± 1.90 vs. −6.96 ± 1.92 W.kg−1; p = 0.037, d = 0.13) and maximal hip extension moment (1.25 ± 0.32 vs.1.18 ± 0.30 N.m.kg−1; p = 0.009, d = 0.22). Our results suggest that the Stiff shoe version is related to increased mechanical burden for the musculoskeletal system, especially around the ankle joint. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03115437.
KW - Footwear
KW - joint kinetics
KW - landing impact
KW - shoe stiffness
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85122962139&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35014593
U2 - 10.1080/17461391.2021.2023655
DO - 10.1080/17461391.2021.2023655
M3 - Article
C2 - 35014593
SN - 1746-1391
VL - 23
SP - 210
EP - 220
JO - European Journal of Sport Science
JF - European Journal of Sport Science
IS - 2
ER -