Nice morning here in Goldie; its on; will update as the 3 days transpire ... check back for updates
Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
Tags:
<
Spatiotemporal and plantar pressure patterns of 1000 healthy individuals aged 3-101 years
|
Torsional Stiffness of Running Shoes
>
-
Attached Files:
-
-
Here are the updates from the last meeting in 2015:
https://podiatryarena.com/index.php...biomechanics-symposium-liverpool-2015.103326/ -
First up: Joe Hamilton on `Evaluating Footwear`
He started with the usual issues related to cushioning and pronation/motion control --- it is still used by many researchers and manufacturers, but data says otherwise - applying those concepts is not effective and has no affect on our goals.
--> need a new paradigm
Preferred motion pathway is a good start. Joe likes what he calls the Habitual Joint Motion Pathway ... as a study for minimal resistance pathway ... it is very individual and very subject specific.
Determines pathway via 3D and squats and look at deviation from pathway; if low deviation --> neutral shoe so as not to interfere ; if high deviation --> more supportive shoe to move habitual pathway ... this is basis of Brook`s Stride Signature.
Joe proposed concept of `Eversion Buffer Paradigm` Quoted Engberg et al 1996 (note to self: look it up) - greater risk for injury at the limits
Also Rodigue et al 2013 on anterior knee pain eversion buffer was greater in those with AKP. No differences between groups in typical measures pronation.
Comment made at end about pseudoscientific stuff in JAPMA! - that was embarassingLast edited by a moderator: Jul 20, 2017 -
Fischer et al: effect of footwear design on rearfoot addiction in running
Brooks adrenaline reduced rearfoot eversion and was associated with greater rearfoot adduction compare to othe Brooks models
Results statistically significant, but magnitudes small =
(Who said shoe don`t alter motion) -
Flores et al: Effects of shoe energy and bending stiffness on running economy and kinetics
Shoes used in study differed only in energy return and bending stiffness;
No differences in running economy
There were kinetic differences ... low energy return reduced ground reaction forces-
Disagree x 1 - List
-
-
DeClercq et al; striking the ground with a neutral ankle angle results in higher impacts during distance running.
Compared typical rfs to atypical rfs to mfs
Atypical rfs = initial cop position at lateral side of rearfoot--> fast anterior displacement ... 20% of runners have this; first met contact at 4% of stance (typical rfs at 20% of stance)
Found differences in kinematics and kinetics between patterns -
Giandolini et al: footwear influences soft tissue vibrations in rearfoot strike runners.
Showed footwear has big effect on soft tissue vibrations
Response appears to be subject specific -
langley et al: the influence of motion control, neutral and cushioned running shoes on foot kinematics
Used asics motion control, neutral and cushioned running shoes
Motion control shoes reduced foot motion- reduced arch angle, midfoot eversion, but not peak rearfoot eversion
Results statistically significant, but magnitudes small -
Zhang et al
Effects of habitual running shoe type on foot soft tissue morphology
3 groups of runners:
- conventional running shoes
- minimalist running shoes
- conventional running shoes with orthotics
Ultrasound to capture soft tissues images and used Arch Height Index
Found:
- arch height index same between all 3 groups
- minimalist group had stiffer longitudinal arch
- minimalist group had tinners plantar fascia and thicker achilles -
Starbuck et al: The influence of an off-the-shelf lateral wedge orthotic on knee loading during running
used arch supported lateral wedge insole --> no changes in lower limb biomechanics -
Asmussen et al: Does a less torsionally stiff cycling shoe reduce knee moments during cycling?
no
subject specific responses. -
Herbaut et al; Long term effects of gradual shoe drop reduction on young tennis players kinematics
prospective; 2 groups:
-control (12mm drop shoes)
-experimental (8 mm drop and then 4 mm drop)
6 of 12 in experimental group changed from heel strike to forefoot strike -
Delattre et al: Women perception of shoe cushioning as a function of mechanical properties of footwear
What they felt about how cushioning felt predicted 75% of the variance of what the mechanical data on the cushioning showed. -
Hennig: Running shoe quality perception of runners can be predicted from biomechanical variables
Which biomechanical footwear properties are related to shoe quality as judged by runners?
60% of prediction of quality of shoe was related to the name of the running shoe company!
Results:
r squared for overall liking a shoe:
- peak tibial acceleration (0.47)
- max GRF rate (0.36)
- max pronation (0.01)
- max pronation velocity (p.01)
- peak heel pressure (0.22)
- peak forefoot pressure (0.21)
Stepwise regression - tibial acceleration was prime factor; peak forefoot pressure was a second step variable -
Willems et al: Is consumer behaviour towards footwear predisposing for lower extremity injuries in runners and walkers? A prospective study.
300 runners + 280 walkers; baseline questionnaire on whole lot of stuff about choice, price, advertising etc
49% had self reported injury during follow up (that high)
Logistic regression analysis showed that the following were risk factors for injury:
- a gait analysis before buying footwear
- not caring for the model or closure mechanism of the shoe
- feeling very much co0ncerned about the price quality ratio
Risk decreased by:
- buying shoes specific for the requested sport activity
- buying the correct size -
Mohr et al: The relationship between footwear comfort and variability of running kinematics
36 runners; VAS on running shoe comfort
whole lot of with accelerometer and gyroscope to get a relative variability measure
--> lower perceived comfort associated with reduction in variability ... esp during late swing
"We speculate that a less comfortable shoe offers a lower number of solutions for a runner to execute the running movement comfortably, leading to a more repetitive kinematic pattern. This may be particularly true for the preparation of heel strike during late swing" -
... that's it; I done and dusted for the day; time for a beer ... see you tomorrow.
-
Craig that is a great effort, well done and thank you.
I was particularly interested in the Hamil study you quote below - I did a quick search for the two refs but drew a blank - do you have any more details on them?
Also, was he doing there 3d whilst they performed the squats?
T
First up: Joe Hamilton on `Evaluating Footwear`
He started with the usual issues related to cushioning and pronation/motion control --- it is still used by many researchers and manufacturers, but data says otherwise - applying those concepts is not effective and has no affect on our goals.
--> need a new paradigm
Preferred motion pathway is a good start. Joe likes what he calls the Habitual Joint Motion Pathway ... as a study for minimal resistance pathway ... it is very individual and very subject specific.
Determines pathway via 3D and squats and look at deviation from pathway; if low deviation --> neutral shoe so as not to interfere ; if high deviation --> more supportive shoe to move habitual pathway ... this is basis of Brook`s Stride Signature.
Joe proposed concept of `Eversion Buffer Paradigm` Quoted Engberg et al 1996 (note to self: look it up) - greater risk for injury at the limits
Also Rodigue et al 2013 on anterior knee pain eversion buffer was greater in those with AKP. No differences between groups in typical measures pronation. -
I was typing as fast as I could as he spoke! ... so missed bits etc; will get the info as I want to know more too. -
I think this is the Engberg reference:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...pronation_in_overpronating_and_normal_runners
Will work on finding the other one.-
Like x 1 - List
-
-
This paper from Hamill's group in 1999 touches on same general idea... if you are using all the ROM that you have ... it stresses the same structures more and increases likelihood of injury.
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...g_injuries/links/0c96052e95e3b38b10000000.pdf-
Like x 1 - List
-
-
Thanks Matt - will follow them up next week.
First up this AM is CK!
Not sure if I going to be able to write anything as probably will laughing so much!Attached Files:
-
-
Frankin et al: Do minimalist shoes improve balance and foot strength in older adults.
26 subjects; mean age 71 yrs; randomized to 2 groups; measure balance and women strength measures; intervention group wore vivobarefoot`s
No changes in balance
Increase in hallux plantarflexion force -
This one interesting :
Mills et al: Is immediate comfort while running in cushioned versus minimal footwear related to plantar foot sensitivity?
75 runners
Quantaive sensory testing
Ran in NB1030v3 and NBminimus
Then rated which shoe most comfortable
47 said cushioned shoe more comfortable; 28 said minimus
Then analysis based on QST
`participants who rank cushioned running shoes as most comfortable have plantar foot sensitivity profiles that were more sensitive to mechanical pain, but less sensitive to vibration, compared to those who rank minimal running shoes as most comfortable. This suggests that cushioning may be preferred to avoid pain, or because it offers a vibration dampening that reduces the need for a muscle tuning response. This may have implications when advising runners on wearing a cushioned or a minimal running shoe, as comfort preference may be an indication of intrinsic capacity to tune impact force`
Long term data coming to see if any adaptationLast edited: Jul 21, 2017 -
Semal et al: Minimalist running: evolution of spatiotemporal parameters and plantar pressure following a training of specific running technique in novice subjects
Aim was to see if it was possible to teach the "technique of minimalist running" with standard shoes.
.. yes you can -
Firminger et al: Effect of minimalist footwear and stride length on the probability of metatarsal stress fracture.
--> minimalist shoe associated with increased risk for stress fracture (due to smaller met angles at time of peak plantar force --> greater bending moments)
--> reduced stride length does not reduce risk -
Stebbins et al: Effect of shoe type on rearfoot motion
looked at frontal plane rearfoot motion in Nike Free vs Ascent Sustain vs barefoot
Minimalist shoe > rearfoot valgus than supportive shoe and less varus motion than barefoot
BUT - no differences in rearfoot motion between barefoot and shod (!!!!) -
Brauner et al: Does heel offset alter tensile load in the Achilles tendon during treadmill walking?
Load in Achilles higher in shoes compared to barefoot (except when heel raise >14.8mm) -
... missed a few; I done for the second day; time for a quiet night ...
-
Day 3; first up; Martyn Shorten; Science , pseudoscience and footwear science.
Looking forward to this one ...Attached Files:
-
-
`ideas are useless unless you allow others to take ownership of them` ... that resonates with me!A
Minimalism has left a legacy
Economics , cost f materials att eh time also drove running shoe companies to minimalism
Unstable shoes disappeared from market quicker than minimalism
Evidence came after the fact of loss of market share
Questions answered by lawyers not scientists
Innocent people hurt (injury; lost jobs)
Epidemic of fake news affect this industry.
What is our role as scientists?Attached Files:
-
-
Needs of the commercial imperative important to company.
Science needs to fit into that --> not a good fit
`up to 70% of runners inured each year` .... bullshit
N=188952 online survey , 57% runners not injured in previous 12 month
Injury rate ~70% in 1980; 43% in 2017 --> shoe reduce injury!!!!! (Others get into pseudoscience, why not us?)
`Permissable puffery` --> marketing claims --> it is legal
`scientifically proven` = bullshit
Corporate culture and short product time frames a problem
Comfort is psychological and not a biomechanical problem
40% self identify a heel strikers; in reality 94% are
`midfoot and forefoot strikers are outliers`
New touch down foot angle 16.9 degrees --> normally distributed about that --> foot strike is just a continuum with no distinct pattern
Too many `everriculum trinus` .... fishing trips into data
Commercial conflicts:
- attention seeking
- attention span
-consumer driven paradigms
...not about integrity but about culture
2d frontal plane nonsense hung around as consumers understood it; but no excuse for researchers
(...my head just grew a bit - Martyn just gave a shout out to my blog!!!!)Last edited: Jul 22, 2017
<
Spatiotemporal and plantar pressure patterns of 1000 healthy individuals aged 3-101 years
|
Torsional Stiffness of Running Shoes
>
Loading...
- Similar Threads - Live Updates Footwear
-
- Replies:
- 27
- Views:
- 4,461
-
- Replies:
- 61
- Views:
- 15,286
-
- Replies:
- 17
- Views:
- 7,980
-
- Replies:
- 30
- Views:
- 5,391
-
- Replies:
- 16
- Views:
- 15,147
-
- Replies:
- 37
- Views:
- 8,965
-
- Replies:
- 40
- Views:
- 10,214