Small changes in the varus alignment of running shoes allow gradual pronation control

Abstract

Introduction: Excessive pronation is discussed to be the cause of various overuse injuries in distance running which makes stability features of running shoes a huge research interest. Several authors have shown the reduction of pronation range and velocity induced by shoes with extreme varus angles (VA) of 8-10 . However, a reduction of cushioning properties was also observed in those shoes. Therefore, this study is aimed to investigate if shoes with moderate VA, usable for everyday running, are suited to reduce pronation parameters while maintaining cushioning properties. Methods: In two laboratory studies (n ¼ 11, n ¼ 10) the effects of gradually (1 steps) increasing VA between 0 and 4 were investigated with two different samples of running shoes. Additionally, a field study (n ¼ 17) determined subjects' perception of the different VA conditions. Results and discussion: Linear reductions of pronation excursion ( p50.01) and pronation velocity ( p50.01) were observed with increasing VA between shoes, whereas cushioning parameters remained unaltered. Runners did not perceive changes in shoe properties due to different VA nor did they favour any condition. Conclusion: In running shoe designs, small varus perturbations can be implemented to fine tune the pronation parameters and thereby create the runner specific pronation control.

Traction on artificial turf: development of a soccer shoe outsole

“…Perception testing also required players to give a rating of their traction suitability perception (TSP) TSP was rated by use of a nine-point perception scale (1, very good to 9, very bad, Figure 2). Similar scales were already used earlier in athletic footwear testing (Coyles et al 1998, NSRL 2003, Sterzing and Hennig 2005, Brauner et al 2009). Prior to providing their rating, players performed several, non-standardized, cutting, turning, acceleration, and deceleration movements in the respective shoe condition.…”

The position of medial dual density midsole elements in running shoes does not influence biomechanical variables

“…Shoe and sole constructions of running shoes influence the biomechanical running behaviour due to alteration of material, geometry and insoles (Grau et al 2003). This interaction was analysed for change of shoe geometry like varus perturbation (Milani et al 1995, Grau and Horstmann 2007, Brauner et al 2009a, heel flare (Nigg and Morlock 1987, Nigg and Bahlsen 1988, Stacoff et al 2001) and entire shoe sole modification (Boyer and Andriacchi 2009) or insoles (Chen et al 1994, Stacoff et al 2000, Mu¨ndermann et al 2003, Nigg et al 2003, Grau and Horstmann 2007. Further investigations focused on the modification of heel counter properties (Ferrandis et al 1994, van Gheluwe et al 1995, sole construction (e.g.…”

Segmented midsole hardness in the midfoot to forefoot region of running shoes alters subjective perception and biomechanics during heel-toe running revealing potential to enhance footwear

“…The biomechanical instability observed for shoes inducing bigger forefoot to shank relative motion, was not reflected by stability perception ratings. Regarding rearfoot stability it was already shown that runners are not able to perceive running shoe stability differences (Brauner et al, 2009). The present research indicates that similar inability to perceive biomechanical forefoot stability has to be considered.…”