Lower impact forces but greater burden for the musculoskeletal system in running shoes with greater cushioning stiffness

Abstract

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.

Reference Values and Determinants of Spatiotemporal and Kinetic Variables in Recreational Runners

“…Notably, shoe type was included in the reference equation for only 3 of the biomechanical variables (VIP, time to VIP, and peak breaking force), consistent with previous findings. 19,22 As the participants were tested in 1 of the 2 study shoe versions (ie, greater or lower cushioning properties), 22 clinicians should consider the cushioning properties of the shoe that the patient is being tested in when performing gait analysis and record it as hard (eg, racing flat or minimalist shoe) or soft (eg, maximalist or highly cushioned shoe). Additional explanations on the use of the regression equations are provided in the spreadsheet (Supplemental Material 2).…”

Towards functionally individualized designed footwear recommendation for overuse injury prevention: A Scoping Review

“…When considering the effects of midsole hardness on BRFs in general, ve studies found reduced peak rearfoot eversion in harder midsoles than in softer midsoles (42)(43)(44)(45)(46). However, four studies found unchanged peak rearfoot eversion angles when running in soft and hard midsoles (36, [47][48][49]. Four studies reported that different midsole hardness could not systematically affect rearfoot eversion range of motion (42,46,47,50).…”

“…However, four studies found unchanged peak rearfoot eversion angles when running in soft and hard midsoles (36, [47][48][49]. Four studies reported that different midsole hardness could not systematically affect rearfoot eversion range of motion (42,46,47,50). In contrast, one study found a reduction in rearfoot eversion range of motion in hard midsoles (49), and another study found that the range of motion of the rearfoot was lower when runners were running in softer midsoles (51).…”

“…In contrast, another study found lower peak knee abduction angles when the midsole was manufactured with harder material (49). A study by Malisoux and colleagues found that both soft and hard midsoles were incapable of changing peak hip abduction angles and moments and peak hip internal rotation angles (47). When considering ground contact time as BRF for PFPS, most studies found no effect of midsole cushioning (33,38,41,47,51,53,53,(56)(57)(58).…”

“…A study by Malisoux and colleagues found that both soft and hard midsoles were incapable of changing peak hip abduction angles and moments and peak hip internal rotation angles (47). When considering ground contact time as BRF for PFPS, most studies found no effect of midsole cushioning (33,38,41,47,51,53,53,(56)(57)(58). Interestingly, the footwear comfort perception tends to be higher in regions where softer material is allocated than those with harder materials (44,51,59,60).…”