There are evidences to suggest that wearing footwear constrains the natural barefoot motion during locomotion. Unlike prior studies that deduced foot motions from shoe sole displacement parameters, the aim of this study was to examine the effect of footwear motion on forefoot to rearfoot relative motion during walking and running. The use of a multi-segment foot model allowed accurate both shoe sole and foot motions (barefoot and shod) to be quantified. Two pairs of identical sandals with different midsole hardness were used. Ten healthy male subjects walked and ran in each of the shod condition. The results showed that for barefoot locomotion there was more eversion of the forefoot and it occurred faster than for shod locomotion. In this later condition, the range of eversion was reduced by 20% and the rate of eversion in late stance by 60% in comparison to the barefoot condition. The sole constrained both the torsional (eversion/inversion) and adduction range of motion of the foot. Interestingly, during the push-off phase of barefoot locomotion the rate and direction of forefoot torsion varied between individuals. However, most subjects displayed a forefoot inversion direction of motion while shod. Therefore, this experiment showed that the shoes not only restricted the natural motion of the barefoot but also appeared to impose a specific foot motion pattern on individuals during the push-off phase. These findings have implications for the matching of footwear design characteristics to individual natural foot function.

Children experienced no apparent peripheral fatigue and higher central fatigue than adults. The greater fatigue resistance in children could be related to a strategy of the CNS aimed at limiting the recruitment of motor units to prevent any extensive peripheral fatigue.

In recent years, there has been a significant expansion in female participation in endurance (road and trail) running. The often reported sex differences in maximal oxygen uptake (VO 2max ) are not the only differences between sexes during prolonged running. The aim of this narrative review was thus to discuss sex differences in running biomechanics, economy (both in fatigue and non-fatigue conditions), substrate utilization, muscle tissue characteristics (including ultrastructural muscle damage), neuromuscular fatigue, thermoregulation and pacing strategies. Although males and females do not differ in terms of running economy or endurance (i.e. percentage VO 2max sustained), sex-specificities exist in running biomechanics (e.g. females have greater non-sagittal hip and knee joint motion compared to males) that can be partly explained by anatomical (e.g. wider pelvis, larger femur-tibia angle, shorter lower limb length relative to total height in females) differences. Compared to males, females also show greater proportional area of type I fibres, are more able to use fatty acids and preserve carbo-hydrates during prolonged exercise, demonstrate a more even pacing strategy and less fatigue following endurance running exercise. These differences confer an advantage to females in ultra-endurance performance, but other factors (e.g. lower O 2 carrying capacity, greater body fat percentage) counterbalance these potential advantages, making females outperforming males a rare exception. The present literature review also highlights the lack of sex comparison in studies investigating run-ning biomechanics in fatigue conditions and during the recovery process.

The lower ability of children to fully activate their motor units at long muscle length could account for their lower specific torque because no difference in theoretical specific torque was observed between groups at 90° and 100°.