Surface effects on in-shoe plantar pressure and tibial impact during running

Fu, Weijie; Fang, Ying; Liu, David Ming Shuo; Wang, Lin; Ren, Sicong; Liu, Yu

doi:10.1016/j.jshs.2015.09.001

Cited by 44 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, it might lower the risk of musculoskeletal injuries when running on grass surface rather than other surfaces like asphalt, concrete and synthetic rubber [14][15][16]. However, these different surfaces (synthetic, grass, concrete, and treadmill surfaces) did not change the pressure-time integral, the 1st and 2nd maximal plantar pressures and peak pressure distribution for habitual rearfoot strike pattern runners [13]. Overall, results comparing different overground surfaces may show lower plantar loads when running on a softer surface.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Three different running surfaces were used artificial grass, concrete and synthetic rubber. The mechanical characteristics of the three surfaces were tested by measuring the index of ball rebound from American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) standard [13]. The rebound height was calculated from five trials with a standard basketball (size 7#) which was dropped vertically on each surface from a height of 2 m for each surface.…”

Section: Running Surfacesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pedar-X was calibrated utilizing a standard device before the beginning of the protocol (Trublu Calibration, Version 25.3.6e, Novel, Munich, Germany, 2009) [14,23]. Before the formal test, participants' strike pattern at the target velocity (3.3 ± 0.2 m/s) [13] was verified using the Pedar-X system and by calculating the centre of pressure (COP) to verify the participants' strike pattern. If COP was anterior to 33% of foot length at initial loading contact at the speed of 3.3 ± 0.2 m/s [29,30], the foot striking pattern was confirmed as a forefoot strike.…”

Section: Data Acquisitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The order of the three different running surfaces was randomised for each participant. The target running velocity of 3.3 ± 0.2 % m/s was chosen to reduce the impact of running speed on the plantar pressure [13]. During the test, the running velocity was controlled by a 3-m photoelectric timing system (WittySEM, Microgate, Bolzano, Italy) which was placed in the middle of the 15-m runway.…”

Section: Data Acquisitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different surfaces may be associated with different plantar loads, which may contribute to running injuries [13][14][15]. Compared to an asphalt surface, running on a natural grass surface has been shown to lower peak pressures at the lateral forefoot, lateral and central rearfoot [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Plantar Loads of Habitual Forefoot Strikers during Running on Different Overground Surfaces

Zhang

et al. 2020

Applied Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study is to investigate plantar loads characteristics of habitual forefoot strike runners while running on different surfaces. Twenty-six runners (age: 28.2 ± 6.8 y, height: 172.9 ± 4.1 cm, weight: 67.7 ± 9.6 kg, BMI (body mass index): 22.6 ± 2.8 kg/m2, running age: 5.0 ± 4.2 y, running distance per week: 14.6 ± 11.7 km) with habitual forefoot strike participated in the study. Runners were instructed to run at 3.3 ± 0.2 m/s on three surfaces: grass, synthetic rubber and concrete. An in-shoe pressure measurement system was used to collect and analyze plantar loads data. Running on the synthetic rubber surface produced a lower plantar pressure in the lateral forefoot (256.73 kPa vs. 281.35 kPa, p = 0.006) than running on concrete. Compared with the concrete surface, lower pressure–time integrals were shown at the central forefoot (46.71 kPa⋅s vs. 50.73 kPa⋅s, p = 0.001) and lateral forefoot (36.13 kPa⋅s vs. 39.36 kPa⋅s, p = 0.004) when running on the synthetic rubber surface. The different surfaces influence plantar loads of habitual forefoot strikers and runners should choose appropriate overground surface to reduce the risk of lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Running Surfacesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Data Acquisitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Data Acquisitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Plantar Loads of Habitual Forefoot Strikers during Running on Different Overground Surfaces

Zhang

et al. 2020

Applied Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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

et al. 2019

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

Acute Effects of Gait Interventions on Tibial Loads During Running: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Changing running technique or equipment can alter tibial loads. The efficacy of interventions to modify tibial loads during running is yet to be synthesised and evaluated. This article reviewed the effect of running technique and footwear interventions on tibial loading during running. Methods Electronic databases were searched using terms relevant to tibial load and running. Interventions were categorised according to their approach (i.e., footwear; barefoot running; speed; surface; overground versus treadmill; orthotics, insoles and taping; and technique); if necessary, further subgrouping was applied to these categories. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for changes in tibial loading were calculated and meta-analyses performed where possible. Results Database searches yielded 1617 articles, with 36 meeting the inclusion criteria. Tibial loading increased with (1) barefoot running (SMD 1.16; 95% CI 0.50, 1.82); (2) minimalist shoe use by non-habitual users (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.40, 1.39); (3) motion control shoe use (SMD 0.46; 95% CI 0.07, 0.84); (4) increased stride length (SMD 0.86; 95% CI 0.18, 1.55); and (5) increased running speed (SMD 1.03; 95% CI 0.74, 1.32). Tibial loading decreased when (1) individuals ran on a treadmill versus overground (SMD − 0.83; 95% CI − 1.53, − 0.12); and (2) targeted biofeedback was used (SMD − 0.93; 95% CI − 1.46, − 0.41). Conclusions Running barefoot, in motion control shoes or in unfamiliar minimalist shoes, and with an increased stride length increases tibial loads and may increase the risk of a tibial stress injury during periods of high training load. Adopting interventions such as running on a treadmill versus overground, and using targeted biofeedback during periods of high loads could reduce tibial stress injury.

show abstract

Surface effects on in-shoe plantar pressure and tibial impact during running

Cited by 44 publications

References 40 publications

Plantar Loads of Habitual Forefoot Strikers during Running on Different Overground Surfaces

Plantar Loads of Habitual Forefoot Strikers during Running on Different Overground Surfaces

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

Acute Effects of Gait Interventions on Tibial Loads During Running: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About