The effects of shoe temperature on the kinetics and kinematics of running

Sinclair, Jonathan Kenneth; Naemi, Roozbeh; Chockalingam, Nachiappan; Taylor, Paul J.; Shore, Hannah

doi:10.1080/19424280.2015.1084389

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although research on shoe midsole material has been covered in many studies, the assessment of shoes used by military recruits has received less attention compared to sports shoes [7,16,17,26]. These studies were generally limited to the comparison of combat boots with users' own shoes [7] or custom-made shoes [17,27]. The main finding from the present study was that combat boots and military sports shoes presented reduced cushioning properties compared to a commercially available running shoe.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Comparison of Ground Reaction Forces between Combat Boots and Sports Shoes

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is unclear whether military shoes (combat boots and sports shoes) attenuate loading rate or affect force transfer during walking. Therefore, this study compared ground reaction forces (GRF) related to impact and force transfer between combat boots, military sports shoes, and running shoes. Ten army recruits walked over a walkway with two force plates embedded. GRF were measured when walking barefoot (for data normalisation) and with combat boots, military sports shoes, and running shoes. Loading rate, first and second peak forces, and push-off rate of force were computed along with temporal analysis of waveforms. Reduced loading rate was observed for the running shoe compared to the combat boot (p = 0.02; d = 0.98) and to the military sports shoe (p = 0.04; d = 0.92). The running shoe elicited a smaller second peak force than the combat boot (p < 0.01; d = 0.83). Walking with military shoes and combat boots led to larger force transfer than running shoes, potentially due to harder material used in midsole composition (i.e., styrene-butadiene rubber). Combat boots did not optimise load transmission and may lead, in a long-term perspective, to greater injury risk.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Comparison of Ground Reaction Forces between Combat Boots and Sports Shoes

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of the reviewed studies (n = 82) included both male and female participants, with eight examining differences between male and female participants [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] and three of these studies finding significant differences between sexes [32,36,37]. Thirty-nine studies had male participants only, while only three studies solely examined female participants [39][40][41], seven studies did not report the sex of participants [21,[42][43][44][45][46][47] and two studies did not provide a breakdown of the sexes [26,48]. The primary group of interest was healthy Wearable technology "Wearable*" OR "Wearable Technology" OR "Wearable Devices" OR "Wearable Sensors" OR "IMU" OR "Inertial Sensor" OR "Inertial Measurement Unit" OR "Gyroscope" OR "Magnetometer" OR Acceleromet* OR "Force Plate" OR "Pressure Plate" OR "Pressure Sensor" TITLE-ABS-KEY Running gait "Running" OR "Jogging" OR "Run" OR "Jog" OR "Sprint" OR "Sprinting" OR "Sprints" OR "Runners" OR "Joggers" OR "Athletics" TITLE-ABS-KEY young adults who were recreationally active (Fig.…”

Section: Participant Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 40 studies that stated they used single accelerometer configurations in their methodology, notably, 13 studies did not comment on the dimensions [31,41,51,58,60,63,64,[110][111][112][113][114][115], one-dimensional accelerometers were used exclusively in four studies [44,48,61,116], one study featured a two-dimensional accelerometer [53], one study used both one-dimensional and 3D accelerometers [117], and 21 studies used 3D accelerometers only (Table 2 of the ESM). Where reported, sampling frequency was between 30 Hz [117] and 1667 Hz [111], with 1000 Hz being the most common (n = 14) and the range of the accelerometers was between ± 0.05-2.0 g [117] and ± 50 g [118], with 16 g being the most frequently used (n = 8).…”

Section: Accelerometers Onlymentioning

confidence: 99%

Wearables for Running Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Running gait assessment has traditionally been performed using subjective observation or expensive laboratory-based objective technologies, such as three-dimensional motion capture or force plates. However, recent developments in wearable devices allow for continuous monitoring and analysis of running mechanics in any environment. Objective measurement of running gait is an important (clinical) tool for injury assessment and provides measures that can be used to enhance performance. Objectives We aimed to systematically review the available literature investigating how wearable technology is being used for running gait analysis in adults. Methods A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the following scientific databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus. Information was extracted from each included article regarding the type of study, participants, protocol, wearable device(s), main outcomes/measures, analysis and key findings. Results A total of 131 articles were reviewed: 56 investigated the validity of wearable technology, 22 examined the reliability and 77 focused on applied use. Most studies used inertial measurement units (n = 62) [i.e. a combination of accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers in a single unit] or solely accelerometers (n = 40), with one using gyroscopes alone and 31 using pressure sensors. On average, studies used one wearable device to examine running gait. Wearable locations were distributed among the shank, shoe and waist. The mean number of participants was 26 (± 27), with an average age of 28.3 (± 7.0) years. Most studies took place indoors (n = 93), using a treadmill (n = 62), with the main aims seeking to identify running gait outcomes or investigate the effects of injury, fatigue, intrinsic factors (e.g. age, sex, morphology) or footwear on running gait outcomes. Generally, wearables were found to be valid and reliable tools for assessing running gait compared to reference standards. Conclusions This comprehensive review highlighted that most studies that have examined running gait using wearable sensors have done so with young adult recreational runners, using one inertial measurement unit sensor, with participants running on a treadmill and reporting outcomes of ground contact time, stride length, stride frequency and tibial acceleration. Future studies are required to obtain consensus regarding terminology, protocols for testing validity and the reliability of devices and suitability of gait outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration CRD42021235527.

show abstract

“…The most commonly reported are peak TA-A magnitude, followed by peak TA-R [38,[45][46][47][48][49]. A smaller number of studies have also reported peak positive TA-ML [38] and TA-AP [38,48], as well as time to peak positive [25,32,38,58,[72][73][74][75], TA-A slope [73,74,76,77], TA-A loading rate [72], duration of peak positive [38], peak negative [38,46], duration of negative acceleration [38], and peak positive to peak negative acceleration [78,79] (Table 1). It should be noted, TA-A magnitude is currently the only parameter linked to running injury [29].…”

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%