Search

We compared biomechanical and subjective data from outdoor running in: habitual (OWN), Saucony Endorphin Racer 2 minimal (FLAT) and Nike Vaporfly 4% (VP4) shoes. We also explored relationships between comfort measures and the collected data. Eighteen male recreational runners ran three 1.5-km trials outdoors, once per shoe. The first 1.1 km was run at a self-selected comfortable (slower) speed, and last 400 m at perceived 5-km race pace (faster). A GPS-enabled smartwatch, 15-m Optojump system, high-speed camera and tibial accelerometer collected biomechanical data. Subjective data on comfort, shoe properties and overall running experience were collected using visual analogue scales (VAS) and rankings. Cadence, leg stiffness and vertical stiffness were greater in FLAT than both OWN and VP4 at the slower speed (trivial to small ES). At both speeds, footstrike angles were smaller in FLAT (small to large ES), while propulsion phase was shorter in VP4 (moderate to large ES). FLAT was ranked as the least comfortable at the slower speed and most likely to cause injury, whereas OWN as the most comfortable and least likely to cause injury. Comfort was not significantly different at the faster speed between shoes. Comfort measures were more strongly correlated to subjective than biomechanical data. The two experimental shoes generally had non-significant or small effects on running biomechanics versus OWN. As VP4 are more like traditional than minimal shoes, these were perceived as more comfortable. Running speed appeared to affect subjective measures. Speed should be considered when prescribing and selecting shoes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of footwear, foot orthoses and training-related strategies to prevent lower extremity bone stress injury (BSI). Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: Four bibliographic databases (from inception until November 2021): Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Eligibility criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the risk of developing a BSI when using particular footwear, foot orthoses or training-related strategies such as muscle strengthening, stretching, and mechanical loading exercises. Results: Eleven studies were included in this systematic review. When wearing foot orthoses, the risk ratio of developing a BSI on any lower extremity bone is 0.47 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.87; p = 0.02). When doing pre-exercise dynamic stretching, the risk ratio of suffering a tibial BSI is 1.06 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.68; p = 0.79). No meta-analyses could be performed for footwear or training-related strategies. The quality of evidence for all these results is low considering the high risk of bias in each study, the low number of studies and the low number of cases in each study. Conclusion: This systematic review reveals the lack of high-quality studies in BSI prevention. Based on studies at high risk of bias, foot orthoses could potentially help prevent BSIs in the military setting. It is still unknown whether footwear and training-related strategies have any benefits. It is crucial to further investigate potential BSI prevention strategies in women and athletes. Research is also needed to assess the influence of running shoes and loading management on BSI incidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objectives of this study were (1) to compare opinions of runners and non-runners about running footwear, and (2) to identify where runners seek information when selecting their shoes. Using an online survey, we collected data on demographics and opinions about running footwear in runners and in non-runners. Runners answered additional questions about their training, running experience, and sources of information. Questions about running shoes were the same for both groups. These addressed opinions about the influence of footwear on injuries, performance and biomechanics, as well as the opinion about appropriate footwear features for novice runners, children or overweight individuals. In total, 1601 responses (59% runners, 41% non-runners) were analyzed. With the exception of kids' running shoes recommendations, runners and non-runners shared similar perceptions towards running shoes. In addition, runners mostly relied on running stores, sports stores, the internet, running clubs or magazines when seeking information about running shoes. Some opinions of runners may not be in line with the current literature. Given the similar perceptions in runners and non-runners, our findings suggest that runners' knowledge is mostly influenced by popular beliefs rather than scientific evidence. Thus, runners might benefit from evidence-based education initiatives on footwear, although it remains unknown if this could benefit running performance or injury rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The growing interest of the scientific community in trail running has highlighted the acute effects of practice at the time of these races on isolated aspects of physiological and structural systems; biological, physiological, cognitive, and muscular functions; and the psychological state of athletes. However, no integrative study has been conducted under these conditions with so many participants and monitoring of pre-, per-, and postrace variables for up to 10 days over a distance close to 100 miles. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the kinetics of the performance parameters during a 156 km trail run and 6000 m of elevation gain in pre-, per-, and postrace conditions. The general hypothesis is based on significant alterations in the psychological, physiological, mechanical, biological, and cognitive parameters. Methods: The Trail Scientifique de Clécy took place on November 11, 2021. This prospective experimental study provides a comprehensive exploration of the constraints and adaptations of psychophysiological and sociological variables assessed in real race conditions during a trail running of 156 km on hilly ground and 6000 m of elevation gain (D+). The study protocol allowed for repeatability of study measurements under the same experimental conditions during the race, with the race being divided into 6 identical loops of 26 km and 1000 m D+. Measurements were conducted the day before and the morning of the race, at the end of each lap, after a pit stop, and up to 10 days after the race. A total of 55 participants were included, 43 (78%) men and 12 (22%) women, who were experienced in ultra-trail-running events and with no contraindications to the practice of this sport. Results: The launch of the study was authorized on October 26, 2021, under the trial number 21-0166 after a favorable opinion from the Comité de Protection des Personnes Ouest III (21.09.61/SIRIPH 2G 21.01586.000009). Of the 55 runners enrolled, 41 (75%) completed the race and 14 (25%) dropped out for various reasons, including gastric problems, hypothermia, fatigue, and musculoskeletal injuries. All the measurements for each team were completed in full. The race times (ie, excluding the measurements) ranged from 17.8206 hours for the first runner to 35.9225 hours for the last runner. The average time to complete all measurements for each lap was 64 (SD 3) minutes. Conclusions: The Trail Scientifique de Clécy, by its protocol, allowed for a multidisciplinary approach to the discipline. This approach will allow for the explanation of the studied parameters in relation to each other and observation of the systems of dependence and independence. The initial results are expected in June 2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to compare the effects of low load resistance combined with blood flow restriction (BFR) versus conventional quadriceps strengthening on knee symptoms and function as well as knee extensor strength and muscle thickness in adults with knee conditions. LITERATURE SURVEY: Guidelines based on the latest evidence highlight the importance of quadriceps strengthening to reduce pain and improve function in patients with knee conditions. Blood flow restriction is based on brief periods of vascular occlusion which cause muscle hypertrophy and increased strength. Before it can be recommended for individuals with knee conditions, quadriceps strengthening with low load resistance combined with BFR (LL-BFR) must show beneficial effects on clinical outcomes in addition to quadriceps strength and mass. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to identify relevant studies through PubMed, PEDro, and ScienceDirect up to January 2019. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019121306). Differences in pre- and post-intervention means and standard deviations were extracted to calculate the standardized mean difference for each intervention in each included study. SYNTHESIS: Eight studies were included. Limited evidence suggests that LL-BFR is more beneficial on quadriceps strength and thickness in patients with knee conditions than LL training alone or in addition to a rehabilitation program. Limited evidence indicates that LL-BFR training is equally effective in improving function and muscle thickness compared with a HL quadriceps strengthening program but elicits less knee pain, corresponding to additional benefits of 22 (95% confidence interval 1 to 43) mm on a 0–100 mm visual analogue scale. CONCLUSIONS: BFR could be a useful option for patients with knee conditions where conventional quadriceps strengthening program exacerbate knee symptoms. Future investigations should compare different BFR protocols to help establish better guidelines for clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A wide range of outcome measures is available for the assessment of individuals with shoulder disorders. Since outcome measures are used to orientate treatment decision-making, clinicians must make sure that the ones they intend to use present adequate properties for their clinical purpose. Objectives: To review the psychometric evidence relating to five categories of shoulder outcome measures: range of motion, scapular position and motion, strength, functional performance, and self-report questionnaires. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness were reviewed for each category. Major findings: For most of the shoulder outcomes reviewed, evidence relating to relative reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients) and construct validity was favorable. Globally, intrarater and test-retest reliability indices were excellent, while interrater indices were good to excellent. Favorable evidence on responsiveness (effect size, standardized response mean, clinically important difference) and absolute reliability (minimal detectable change) was also found for self-report questionnaires. However, for range of motion, scapular position and motion, strength and functional performance tests, evidence on responsiveness and absolute reliability was limited or non-existent. Conclusions: Self-reported scales, such as the DASH, ASES, WORC, or WOSI, should be first line tests as they are highly responsive. Furthermore, they are the only shoulder outcomes for which most useful clinical benchmarks are established, such as minimal detectable change or clinically important difference. As for more conventional measures such as range of motion and strength, while still clinically relevant, they require further investigations to define their responsiveness, minimal detectable change, or clinically important difference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]