2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.humov.2015.05.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Eight weeks gait retraining in minimalist footwear has no effect on running economy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
25
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
1
25
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Each item was scored 0 to represent a high risk of bias or 1 to represent a low risk of bias. Studies that scored a total of 0 to 6 were classified as “high risk of bias”, from 7 to 13 as “moderate risk of bias”, and from 14 to 20 as “low risk of bias” Checklist Studies Wilson et al [ 9 ] Warne and Warrington [ 38 ] Warne et al [ 7 ] Bellar and Judge [ 34 ] Warne et al [ 8 ] Khowailed et al [ 35 ] Moore et al [ 36 ] Warne et al [ 32 ] Johnson et al [ 11 ] Ridge et al [ 24 ] Ridge et al [ 25 ] Ryan et al [ 31 ] McCarthy et al [ 28 ] Miller et al [ 29 ] Joseph et al [ 37 ] Dubois et al [ 30 ] Campitelli et al [ 26 ] Azevedo et al [ 39 ] Chen et al [ 27 ] Fuller et al [ 33 ] Is the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly described? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Are the main outcomes to be measured clearly described in the Introduction or Methods section?…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each item was scored 0 to represent a high risk of bias or 1 to represent a low risk of bias. Studies that scored a total of 0 to 6 were classified as “high risk of bias”, from 7 to 13 as “moderate risk of bias”, and from 14 to 20 as “low risk of bias” Checklist Studies Wilson et al [ 9 ] Warne and Warrington [ 38 ] Warne et al [ 7 ] Bellar and Judge [ 34 ] Warne et al [ 8 ] Khowailed et al [ 35 ] Moore et al [ 36 ] Warne et al [ 32 ] Johnson et al [ 11 ] Ridge et al [ 24 ] Ridge et al [ 25 ] Ryan et al [ 31 ] McCarthy et al [ 28 ] Miller et al [ 29 ] Joseph et al [ 37 ] Dubois et al [ 30 ] Campitelli et al [ 26 ] Azevedo et al [ 39 ] Chen et al [ 27 ] Fuller et al [ 33 ] Is the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly described? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Are the main outcomes to be measured clearly described in the Introduction or Methods section?…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Manuscript submitted for publication]. Few prospective studies which evaluated the effects of regular barefoot running interventions in habitually shod people reported no or controversial findings regarding relative injury rates [9], biomechanics [10] and running economy [11, 12]. …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The few data available on literature about this issue are related to studies that investigated habitual SH runners under short periods of familiarization or running training programs based on simulated barefoot (through minimalist shoes) [2428]. Evidence shows that 4–12 weeks of simulated barefoot running induced to reduced plantar pressure [26], changes in muscle activation [27], a mid/forefoot strike pattern [24,26] and improvements in running economy [29].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%