Does maximalist footwear lower impact loading during level ground and downhill running?

Chan, Zoe Y. S.; Au, Ivan P.H.; Lau, Fannie O.Y.; Ching, Eric; Zhang, Janet H.; Cheung, Roy T.H.

doi:10.1080/17461391.2018.1472298

Cited by 34 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3 a Schematic representation of the time course of alterations following downhill running (DR) and b current scientific evidence on the benefits of different adaptation strategies to DR (i.e. prior exposure to DR [46,63,67,68,85,92,121,141,143,165,181,184,185,192,193,196,197], preconditioning strategies [16,81], DR training [14,209,210,254], changes in stride pattern [32,67,68,218,219,221,220,228,255], the use of lower limb compression garments [15,236,237], and the use of specific footwear [28,149,253,256]. In a and b, orange, blue, red, purple, and green spheres correspond to isometric MVC force/torque loss, changes in running economy and mechanics, ultrastructural alterations, inflammation and oedema, and muscle soreness, respectively.…”

Section: Prior Exposure To Downhill Runningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In parallel, additional cushioning provided by maximalist shoes has been claimed by manufacturers to provide shock absorption during running, potentially reducing the impact loading and the risk of injury. However, wearing maximalist shoes might not be capable of reducing the impact loading on a level surface and might even increase the external impact loading during short DR treadmill sessions [253].…”

Section: The Use Of Specific Running Footwearmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Downhill Running: What Are The Effects and How Can We Adapt? A Narrative Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Downhill running (DR) is a whole-body exercise model that is used to investigate the physiological consequences of eccentric muscle actions and/or exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD). In a sporting context, DR sections can be part of running disciplines (off-road and road running) and can accentuate EIMD, leading to a reduction in performance. The purpose of this narrative review is to: (1) better inform on the acute and delayed physiological effects of DR; (2) identify and discuss, using a comprehensive approach, the DR characteristics that affect the physiological responses to DR and their potential interactions; (3) provide the current state of evidence on preventive and in-situ strategies to better adapt to DR. Key findings of this review show that DR may have an impact on exercise performance by altering muscle structure and function due to EIMD. In the majority of studies, EIMD are assessed through isometric maximal voluntary contraction, blood creatine kinase and delayed onset muscle soreness, with DR characteristics (slope, exercise duration, and running speed) acting as the main influencing factors. In previous studies, the median (25th percentile, Q1; 75th percentile, Q3) slope, exercise duration, and running speed were − 12% (− 15%; − 10%), 40 min (30 min; 45 min) and 11.3 km h−1 (9.8 km h−1; 12.9 km h−1), respectively. Regardless of DR characteristics, people the least accustomed to DR generally experienced the most EIMD. There is growing evidence to suggest that preventive strategies that consist of prior exposure to DR are the most effective to better tolerate DR. The effectiveness of in-situ strategies such as lower limb compression garments and specific footwear remains to be confirmed. Our review finally highlights important discrepancies between studies in the assessment of EIMD, DR protocols and populations, which prevent drawing firm conclusions on factors that most influence the response to DR, and adaptive strategies to DR.

show abstract

Section: Prior Exposure To Downhill Runningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Use Of Specific Running Footwearmentioning

confidence: 99%

Downhill Running: What Are The Effects and How Can We Adapt? A Narrative Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While research has yet to show the superiority of maximalist or minimalist shoes in preventing injuries, it is apparent that various types of footwear cause runners to run differently and shift loads to different body parts. 14 Greater running shoe cushioning tends to increase VLR [15][16][17] and knee joint forces, 18 but decrease ankle forces and peak foot pressure. Conversely, lower cushioning tends to shift initial foot contact closer to the midfoot or forefoot, thus decreasing VLR 19 and knee joint forces, [20][21][22] but increasing ankle forces and foot pressure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What are the perceptions of runners and healthcare professionals on footwear and running injury risk?

Dhillon¹,

Hunt

Reid

et al. 2020

BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThere is a gap in research exploring perceptions of runners and healthcare professionals (HCPs) about running footwear and injury risk. The objectives of this study were: (1) to document factors considered by runners when selecting footwear; (2) to compare perceptions on footwear and injury risk in runners and HCPs; and (3) to evaluate the perceived usefulness of an online educational module.MethodsUsing an online survey, we collected information on demographics and perceptions about footwear and injury risk. Runners reported their footwear selection strategy, and HCPs their typical recommendations. An evidence-based educational module was presented, and participants rated its usefulness.ResultsThe survey was completed by 2442 participants, of which 1035 completed the optional postmodule questions. Runners reported relying mostly on comfort and advice from retailers when selecting shoes. Perceptions regarding the effects of specific footwear types (minimalist, maximalist), characteristics (softness, drop) and selection strategy (foot type, transition) on biomechanics and injury risk were different between HCPs and runners. Overall, runners perceived footwear as more important to prevent injury than did HCPs (7.6/10, 99% CI 7.4 to 7.7 vs 6.2/10, 99% CI 6.0 to 6.5; p<0.001). Both runners (8.1/10, 99% CI 7.9 to 8.3) and HCPs (8.7/10, 99% CI 8.6 to 8.9) found the educational module useful. A majority of respondents indicated the module changed their perceptions.ConclusionFootwear is perceived as important in reducing running injury risk. This online module was deemed useful in educating about footwear evidence. Future studies should evaluate if changes in perceptions can translate to behaviour change and, ultimately, reduced injury risk.

show abstract

“…Indeed, it has been estimated that for runners covering between 50 and 70 miles a week, there is a 50% chance of knee injury due to repetitive loading of the joint, furthermore it is mentioned that the material used to construct the midsole of runners shoes is the limiting factor in terms of shoe performance, and that this must be improved in order to offer runners a more long-term form of protection [22]. It should be noted, however, that running shoes built with extreme cushioning and an oversized midsole (referred to as maximalist shoes) have not been found to lower the external impact loading when compared to traditional running shoes [23]. There is now a great need for further studies using AMG with a larger sample size, as well as different shoe and surface types.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A non-Invasive Assessment of Ground Reaction Forces in the Human Leg in Response to Walking, Jogging, Running and Jumping

Pingel¹,

Harrison²

2020

OJO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Running is one of the most popular forms of exercise. Even though regular exercise is beneficial to human health, running is also often associated with an increased risk of injury. Lack of shock absorption in running shoes has often been stated as one of the main reasons for why running-related injuries have been on the increase. The aim of the present study was to assess the degree to which ground reaction forces (GRF) can be dissipated in the human leg in a barefoot subject, in connection with diverse physical activities. Acoustic myography (AMG), a non-invasive technique that records pressure waves from contracting muscles as well as the harmonic damping of ligaments, was applied to four anatomical sites on the subject's leg, during barefoot walking, jogging, running and jumping. The data for walking on a hard surface show much lower ESTi TM parameters than those for the soft surface, and these lower values are observed mainly for sites 1 (toes; 65%) and 2 (ankle; 53%), respectively. AMG parameters for jogging reveal this gait to have very low ES-Ti TM parameters for site 1 and site 2 (ESTi 2-3), yet similar for both surfaces. The data for running on a hard and soft surface revealed much lower ESTi TM parameters (38%) than those for sites 3 (knee) and 4 (hip). The data from the big jump, reveal that on a hard surface, the lowest ESTi TM parameters were for sites 1 (toes; 46%) and 2 (ankle; 27%), compared to values on a soft surface. The speed with which GRFs were transmitted up the leg varied from site to site and also with the type of activity, ranging from undetectable to approx. 60 m/sec. The present study reveals that the ankle joint is exposed to the greatest forces during jumping and running. In addition, this study has confirmed that exercising on a hard surface does indeed increase the stress forces on the toes and ankles. It is interesting to note that the data reveal that toes and ankles absorb most of the GRF during running, while the knee and hip How to cite this paper:

show abstract

Does maximalist footwear lower impact loading during level ground and downhill running?

Cited by 34 publications

References 51 publications

Downhill Running: What Are The Effects and How Can We Adapt? A Narrative Review

Downhill Running: What Are The Effects and How Can We Adapt? A Narrative Review

What are the perceptions of runners and healthcare professionals on footwear and running injury risk?

A non-Invasive Assessment of Ground Reaction Forces in the Human Leg in Response to Walking, Jogging, Running and Jumping

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About