Shoe drop has opposite influence on running pattern when running overground or on a treadmill

Chambon, Nicolas; Delattre, Nicolas; Guéguen, Nils; Berton, Éric; Rao, Guillaume

doi:10.1007/s00421-014-3072-x

Cited by 63 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When participants could not be divided evenly among the effects (e.g., nine participants for two effects), the remaining participant was allocated to the stiffer surface (e.g., concrete) as this best reflects the running environment of recreational runners [1,39] or to the higher running speed to increase statistical power as most studies used relatively slow to moderate speeds. When multiple study effects were reported that were not of direct interest to this review (e.g., separate effects for the left and right leg [19], separate effects for heel-strike and non-heel-strike runners [40], and separate effects for shoes with different rearfoot midsole thicknesses [41]), a combined effect was computed across these outcome measures as detailed by Borenstein et al [42] for dependent continuous outcomes. One study reported separate effects for males and females [13].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, this review was restricted to non-incline, shod, non-fatigued motorized MT and constant-velocity running below 25 km/h in healthy adults. Biomechanical differences are likely larger when accelerating [100,101] and when running at higher speeds (i.e., sprinting) on regular MT's [17,21] and may also be impacted by the use of shoes [41] and fatigue status [57,58] and the findings of this review can therefore not be generalized to these conditions. Indeed, special MTs have been developed for sprinting that may reduce biomechanical differences [102][103][104].…”

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is Motorized Treadmill Running Biomechanically Comparable to Overground Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Over Studies

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Treadmills are often used in research, clinical practice, and training. Biomechanical investigations comparing treadmill and overground running report inconsistent findings. Objective This study aimed at comparing biomechanical outcomes between motorized treadmill and overground running. Methods Four databases were searched until June 2019. Crossover design studies comparing lower limb biomechanics during non-inclined, non-cushioned, quasi-constant-velocity motorized treadmill running with overground running in healthy humans (18-65 years) and written in English were included. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed where possible. Results 33 studies (n = 494 participants) were included. Most outcomes did not differ between running conditions. However, during treadmill running, sagittal foot-ground angle at footstrike (mean difference (MD) − 9.8° [95% confidence interval: − 13.1 to − 6.6]; low GRADE evidence), knee flexion range of motion from footstrike to peak during stance (MD 6.3° [4.5 to 8.2]; low), vertical displacement center of mass/pelvis (MD − 1.5 cm [− 2.7 to − 0.8]; low), and peak propulsive force (MD − 0.04 body weights [− 0.06 to − 0.02]; very low) were lower, while contact time (MD 5.0 ms [0.5 to 9.5]; low), knee flexion at footstrike (MD − 2.3° [− 3.6 to − 1.1]; low), and ankle sagittal plane internal joint moment (MD − 0.4 Nm/kg [− 0.7 to − 0.2]; low) were longer/higher, when pooled across overground surfaces. Conflicting findings were reported for amplitude of muscle activity. Conclusions Spatiotemporal, kinematic, kinetic, muscle activity, and muscle-tendon outcome measures are largely comparable between motorized treadmill and overground running. Considerations should, however, particularly be given to sagittal plane kinematic differences at footstrike when extrapolating treadmill running biomechanics to overground running. Protocol registration CRD42018083906 (PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Is Motorized Treadmill Running Biomechanically Comparable to Overground Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Over Studies

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The incremental test was always performed first, and both submaximal running tests were performed in a random order. All sessions were performed at the same day period to avoid any circadian rhythm effects (Atkinson and Reilly 1996), and overground to be as close as possible to an ecological and a realistic running session (Saunders et al 2004;Chambon et al 2015;Barnes and Kilding 2015).…”

Section: Experimental Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does an increase in energy return and/or longitudinal bending stiffness shoe features reduce the energetic cost of running?

Flores

Delattre²,

Berton

et al. 2018

Eur J Appl Physiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does an increase in energy return and/or longitudinal bending stiffness shoe features reduce the energetic cost of running?. European AbstractPurpose This study focused on the effects of shoe energy return and shoe longitudinal bending stiffness on the energetic cost and biomechanics of running. Methods The energetic cost of running and biomechanical variables altering running economy (ground contact times, stride frequency, vertical and leg stiffness, ground reaction force impulses, alignment between the resultant ground reaction force and the leg) were measured for nineteen male recreational runners. Participants ran overground under their ventilatory anaerobic threshold (10.8 ± 1.1 km h −1 on average) using four shoe prototypes with features combining low or high magnitudes of energy return and longitudinal bending stiffness. Results Neither the energy return, nor the longitudinal bending stiffness, or the interaction of these shoe features altered the energetic cost of running. High energy return shoes induced significant increased ground contact time from 274.5 ± 18.3 to 277.1 ± 18.7 ms, and significant decreased stride frequency from 1.34 ± 0.05 to 1.33 ± 0.05 Hz. High bending stiffness shoes induced significant increased ground contact time from 273.8 ± 18.2 to 277.9 ± 18.7 ms, significant increased vertical stiffness from 23.2 ± 3.4 to 23.8 ± 3.0 kN m −1 , and significant decreased net vertical impulse from 245.4 ± 17.2 to 241.7 ± 17.5 BW ms. Conclusions Increased energy return and longitudinal bending stiffness induced subtle changes in the running biomechanics, but did not induce any decrease in the energetic cost of running.

show abstract

“…For injury prevention, most of the positive biomechanical changes attributed to barefoot running pattern would result from the adoption of a forefoot contact and reduced impact peak (Hall, Barton, Jones, & Morrissey, 2013;Paquette, Zhang, & Baumgartner, 2013). On the other hand, barefoot overground running would lead to increased loading rate (Chambon, Delattre, Guéguen, Berton, & Rao, 2015) and minimalist shoes to a greater incidence of foot stress injuries in newly "minimalist" runners (Ridge et al, 2013). No definitive conclusions can thus be drawn, even in the absence of fatigue, regarding specific risks or benefits to running barefoot, shod or in minimalist shoes (Perkins, Hanney, & Rothschild, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Neuro-mechanical adjustments to shod versus barefoot treadmill runs in the acute and delayed stretch-shortening cycle recovery phases

Morio

Sevrez

Chavet

et al. 2015

Journal of Sports Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In habitually shod recreational runners, we studied the combined influence of footwear and stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) fatigue on treadmill running pattern, paying special attention to neuro-mechanical adjustments in the acute and 2-day delayed recovery periods. The SSC exercise consisted of a series of 25 sub-maximal rebounds on a sledge apparatus repeated until exhaustion. The acute and delayed functional fatigue effects were quantified in a maximal drop jump test. The neuro-mechanical adjustments to fatigue were examined during two submaximal treadmill run tests of 3 min performed either barefoot or with shoes on. Surface electromyographic (EMG) activities, tibial accelerations and kinematics of the right lower limb were recorded during the first and last 15 s of each run. The main result was that neuro-mechanical differences between the shod and barefoot running patterns, classically reported in the absence of fatigue, persisted in the fatigued state. However, in the delayed recovery phase, rearfoot eversion was found to significantly increase in the shod condition. This specific footwear effect is considered as a potential risk factor of overuse injuries in longer runs. Therefore, specific care should be addressed in the delayed recovery phase of SSC fatigue and the use of motion control shoes could be of interest.

show abstract

Shoe drop has opposite influence on running pattern when running overground or on a treadmill

Cited by 63 publications

References 34 publications

Is Motorized Treadmill Running Biomechanically Comparable to Overground Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Over Studies

Is Motorized Treadmill Running Biomechanically Comparable to Overground Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Over Studies

Does an increase in energy return and/or longitudinal bending stiffness shoe features reduce the energetic cost of running?

Neuro-mechanical adjustments to shod versus barefoot treadmill runs in the acute and delayed stretch-shortening cycle recovery phases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About