The effects of systematically altered footwear features on biomechanics, injury, performance, and preference in runners of different skill level: a systematic review

Hoitz, Fabian; Mohr, Maurice; Asmussen, Michael J.; Lam, Wing-Kai; Nigg, Sandro; Nigg, Benno M.

doi:10.1080/19424280.2020.1773936

Cited by 35 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 87 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Future, novel research can be performed with these features to add to the collective knowledge of how footwear features can affect the running biomechanics of runners from different levels. Interestingly, participants in this Delphi study did not come to a consensus for the recommended footwear properties for some of the most researched shoe features: forefoot and rearfoot midsole hardness [12,13]. Previous research has shown that a softer rearfoot midsole can reduce ground reaction force loading metrics such as vertical loading rate or peak impact forces [25][26][27], which have been hypothesized to reduce running-related injuries [28,29].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In total, 142 experts from 18 countries were contacted by e-mail to participate in this Delphi study: 44 academics, 35 journalists, 25 coaches, 24 scientists in the footwear industry, seven bloggers and seven physicians. The participants for this Delphi study were compiled from: authors that appeared on multiple papers from a recent literature review [ 13 ], podium presenters at the 2019 Footwear Biomechanics Symposium, coaches of national and/or college track and field teams with publicly available e-mail addresses, scientists working in research and development at the leading running footwear brands, running shoe bloggers and journalists identified from an online search of popular running blogs and magazines and running and/or footwear journalists that Professor Benno Nigg has compiled over the years. All potential participants were contacted via e-mail to participate in this Delphi study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…cushioning, stability, heel-to-toe transition, energy return). Some of these shoe features have been studied more extensively than others [ 12 , 13 ]. A strong research focus on certain footwear features does not necessarily translate into agreement on how modifying these features may affect the running mechanics, performance, injury risk or footwear comfort in runners of different levels.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A strong research focus on certain footwear features does not necessarily translate into agreement on how modifying these features may affect the running mechanics, performance, injury risk or footwear comfort in runners of different levels. For example, a recent review found inconclusive evidence regarding the biomechanical effects of different midsole hardness—one of the most studied footwear features [ 13 ]. On the other hand, there has been little scientific attention on footwear features such as outsole traction or forefoot flares.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Shoe feature recommendations for different running levels: A Delphi study

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Providing runners with footwear that match their functional needs has the potential to improve footwear comfort, enhance running performance and reduce the risk of overuse injuries. It is currently not known how footwear experts make decisions about different shoe features and their properties for runners of different levels. We performed a Delphi study in order to understand: 1) definitions of different runner levels, 2) which footwear features are considered important and 3) how these features should be prescribed for runners of different levels. Experienced academics, journalists, coaches, bloggers and physicians that examine the effects of footwear on running were recruited to participate in three rounds of a Delphi study. Three runner level definitions were refined throughout this study based on expert feedback. Experts were also provided a list of 20 different footwear features. They were asked which features were important and what the properties of those features should be. Twenty-four experts, most with 10+ years of experience, completed all three rounds of this study. These experts came to a consensus for the characteristics of three different running levels. They indicated that 12 of the 20 footwear features initially proposed were important for footwear design. Of these 12 features, experts came to a consensus on how to apply five footwear feature properties for all three different running levels. These features were: upper breathability, forefoot bending stiffness, heel-to-toe drop, torsional bending stiffness and crash pad. Interestingly, the experts were not able to come to a consensus on one of the most researched footwear features, rearfoot midsole hardness. These recommendations can provide a starting point for further biomechanical studies, especially for features that are considered as important, but have not yet been examined experimentally.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Shoe feature recommendations for different running levels: A Delphi study

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A second limitation is that our sample consisted of physically active, young adults but not necessarily trained runners and thus, our results may not be generalized to other running populations such as elite/experienced or elderly runners. Nevertheless, our findings are applicable to (1) novice runners who are an interesting population due to their relatively high risk of running injury (Nielsen et al, 2012) and (2) recreational runners who form the largest running population (Hoitz et al, 2020). Third, part of our discussion revolves around whole-body rotational moments, which we did not assess directly in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Sex-Specific Hip Movement Is Correlated With Pelvis and Upper Body Rotation During Running

Mohr

Pieper

Löffler

et al. 2021

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a sex bias for common overuse running injuries that are associated with sex-specific hip kinematics. Gait retraining programs aimed at altering hip kinematics may be more efficient if they incorporated an understanding of how hip kinematics are correlated with the movement of the remaining body segments. We applied a principal component analysis to structure the whole-body running kinematics of 23 runners (12 ♀) into k = 12 principal movements (PMk), describing correlated patterns of upper and lower body movements. We compared the time-dependent movement amplitudes with respect to each PMk between males and females using a waveform analysis and interpreted our findings according to stick figure animations. The movement amplitudes of two PMs (PM6 and PM8) showed statistically significant effects of “sex,” which were independent of running speed. According to PM8, females showed more hip adduction, which correlated with increased transverse rotation of the pelvis and upper body compared to men. We propose that increased hip adduction and upper body rotation in female runners may be a strategy to compensate for a less efficient arm and upper body swing compared to men. Gait interventions aimed at reducing hip adduction and running-related injuries in female runners should consider instructions for both upper and lower body to maximize training efficacy.

show abstract

Running shoes for preventing lower limb running injuries in adults

Relph

Greaves

Armstrong

et al. 2022

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do different types of running shoes change the risk of developing a lower-limb injury? Key messagesNeutral / cushioned shoes may make little or no difference to the number of runners sustaining injuries or footwear satisfaction compared with minimalist shoes .It is uncertain if motion control shoes reduce the number of runners sustaining injuries compared with neutral/ cushioned shoes.Soft midsole shoes may make little or no difference to the number of runners sustaining injuries compared with hard midsole shoes.It is uncertain if stability shoes reduce the number of runners sustaining injuries compared with neutral/ cushioned shoes.It is uncertain whether or not motion control shoes reduce the number of runners sustaining a lower limb running injuries when compared with stability shoes.Prescribing running shoes and selecting on foot posture probably makes little or no difference to running injuries Future researchers should develop a consensus definition of running shoe design to help standardise classification. The definition of a running injury should be used consistently and confirmed via health practitioners. Researchers should consider a RCT design to increase the evidence in this area and explore the influence of different types or running shoes upon injury rates in specific subgroups.

show abstract

The effects of systematically altered footwear features on biomechanics, injury, performance, and preference in runners of different skill level: a systematic review

Cited by 35 publications

References 87 publications

Shoe feature recommendations for different running levels: A Delphi study

Shoe feature recommendations for different running levels: A Delphi study

Sex-Specific Hip Movement Is Correlated With Pelvis and Upper Body Rotation During Running

Running shoes for preventing lower limb running injuries in adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About