Search

Shock-induced vibrations to the feet have been related to the feel of comfort, the biomechanical control of performance, and the risk of fatigue or injury. Up to recently, the complexity of measuring the human biodynamic response to vibration exposure implied to focus most of the research on the axial acceleration at the tibia. Using wireless three-dimensional accelerometers, this paper investigates the propagation of shock-induced vibrations through the whole lower-limb during running in the temporal and the spectral domains. Results indicated that the vibrations were not consistent across the lower-limb, showing various spatial and spectral distributions of energy. The amount of energy was not constantly decreasing from the distal to the proximal extremity of the runner's lower-limb, especially regarding the lateral epicondyle of the femur. Vibrations in the transversal plane of the segments were substantial compared to the longitudinal axis regarding the distal extremity of the tibia, and the lateral epicondyle of the femur. Further, the spectral content was wider at the distal than at the proximal end of the lower-limb. Finally, to get a thorough understanding of the risks incurred by the runners, the need to account for shock-induced vibrations up to 50 Hz has been stressed when investigating three-dimensional vibrations. The overall study raises attention on the substantial importance of the transverse components of the acceleration, and their potential relation to shear fatigue and injury during running., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background/aim: This randomised controlled trial investigated if the usage of running shoes with a motion control system modifies injury risk in regular leisure-time runners compared to standard shoes, and if this influence depends on foot morphology., Methods: Recreational runners (n=372) were given either the motion control or the standard version of a regular running shoe model and were followed up for 6 months regarding running activity and injury. Foot morphology was analysed using the Foot Posture Index method. Cox regression analyses were used to compare injury risk between the two groups, based on HRs and their 95% CIs, controlling for potential confounders. Stratified analyses were conducted to evaluate the effect of motion control system in runners with supinated, neutral and pronated feet., Results: The overall injury risk was lower among the participants who had received motion control shoes (HR=0.55; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85) compared to those receiving standard shoes. This positive effect was only observed in the stratum of runners with pronated feet (n=94; HR=0.34; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.84); there was no difference in runners with neutral (n=218; HR=0.78; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.37) or supinated feet (n=60; HR=0.59; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.73). Runners with pronated feet using standard shoes had a higher injury risk compared to those with neutral feet (HR=1.80; 95% CI 1.01 to 3.22)., Conclusions: The overall injury risk was lower in participants who had received motion control shoes. Based on secondary analysis, those with pronated feet may benefit most from this shoe type., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

There are evidences to suggest that wearing footwear constrains the natural barefoot motion during locomotion. Unlike prior studies that deduced foot motions from shoe sole displacement parameters, the aim of this study was to examine the effect of footwear motion on forefoot to rearfoot relative motion during walking and running. The use of a multi-segment foot model allowed accurate both shoe sole and foot motions (barefoot and shod) to be quantified. Two pairs of identical sandals with different midsole hardness were used. Ten healthy male subjects walked and ran in each of the shod condition. The results showed that for barefoot locomotion there was more eversion of the forefoot and it occurred faster than for shod locomotion. In this later condition, the range of eversion was reduced by 20% and the rate of eversion in late stance by 60% in comparison to the barefoot condition. The sole constrained both the torsional (eversion/inversion) and adduction range of motion of the foot. Interestingly, during the push-off phase of barefoot locomotion the rate and direction of forefoot torsion varied between individuals. However, most subjects displayed a forefoot inversion direction of motion while shod. Therefore, this experiment showed that the shoes not only restricted the natural motion of the barefoot but also appeared to impose a specific foot motion pattern on individuals during the push-off phase. These findings have implications for the matching of footwear design characteristics to individual natural foot function.