Search

Studies on advanced footwear technology (AFT) often investigate potential performance benefits for constraint populations, and high running speeds. This research compared running biomechanics, running economy and perception between males and females, when wearing three different AFT conditions at recreational running speeds. An innovation shoe sample (IM) at confirmation stage in the product creation process was compared to two commercial running shoes (MM, MF). Gender and shoe variable means were compared for main and interaction effects (p < 0.05) by a mixed 2 × 3 repeated measures analysis of variance (RM ANOVA), and effect size estimation. A main effect was seen for shoe condition, both the IM and MF showed higher vertical loading rates than MM, and higher peak vertical force 1. IM had less frontal plane rearfoot motion than both the MM and MF. At the MTPJ, IM had lower maximum dorsiflexion angle, dorsiflexion velocity leading to lower negative power and negative work than both the MM and MF. IM and MF showed significantly lower oxygen consumption than the MM. Perception measurements showed IM and MF to be significantly softer, responsive and had better propulsion than the MM. A main effect was seen for gender, females exhibited higher vertical loading rates, reduced frontal plane ankle motion and lower MTPJ motion, and lower oxygen consumption compared to males. There was no gender effect for perception. Despite biomechanical differences, both IM and MF showed improved performance compared to the MM. Males and females exhibit different biomechanics when wearing AFT, however this did not lead to differences in subjective perception. It is concluded that the specific AFT applied for IM samples in this research functions for both groups largely similarly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Running locomotion of western runners has been extensively researched, with biomechanical differences and variation in injury patterns found due to gender. Running popularity has severely increased in China over the past decade, but still little is known on Chinese running biomechanics. This indoor laboratory study compared continuous running biomechanics of 20 Chinese male and 20 Chinese female runners while running in the same running shoe model. Analysis included ground reaction forces (GRF), lower limb kinematics and joint moments, as well as shoe ground pressure, while running at 3.3 m/s. Additionally, a 9-point-Likert scale assessed shoe feature perception during outdoor field running in the same shoe model. Biomechanical variable magnitudes were compared between groups using independent t-tests, Mann–Whitney U-tests were performed on perception variables. At foot strike, females showed significantly increased internal hip rotation (9.6–3.0°), significantly increased knee flexion (18.6–15.5°) and abduction (4.0–1.8°), significantly reduced ankle inversion (1.6–4.2°), and a significantly reduced sagittal shoe ground angle (13.1–17.2°). Females exhibited significantly higher maximal (138.7–119.0 bw/s) and mean vertical force 1 and 2 loading rates (88.1–63.8 bw/s). Females showed significantly lower sagittal plane ankle (2.3–2.5 Nm/kg), knee (2.4–2.7 Nm/kg), and hip (1.7–1.9 Nm/kg) joint moments. Females showed significantly higher relative loads at the medial heel (4.3–3.3%), first metatarsal (11.1–9.3%) and toe 1 (8.6–4.7%). Despite the biomechanical loading differences observed females did not perceive rearfoot cushioning worse than males. Chinese females have a flatter foot strike, a more medial roll-over and push-off process than their male counterparts. Chinese female running shoe design may focus on these aspects to improve gender specific performance and comfort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Running and running shoe biomechanics are usually measured in laboratory settings, capturing discontinuous running trials. Continuous running measured outdoors doesn't allow comprehensive measurement equipment due to limited technology. This research compared biomechanical effects of continuous loop and discontinuous runway running on locomotion and running shoe characterisation. Twenty-two runners performed eight trials in three shoe conditions in a runway and a loop laboratory setting, while capturing ground reaction forces and lower limb kinematics. Running mode and shoe variable magnitudes and intra-participant variability, means were compared for main and interaction effects (p < 0.05) by a 2 × 3 within-participants repeated measures analysis of variance, and effect size estimation. Kinetic and kinematic variables indicated biomechanical effects induced by running mode. Continuous loop running significantly decreased ground contact time (241.31–234.47 ms), and braking force (0.37–0.35 bw). It showed a significantly flatter and inverted foot-strike at touchdown by reducing sagittal shoe ground angle (20.27–16.69°), and increasing ankle inversion angle (5.50–6.67°). Continuous loop running significantly increased intra-participant variability in ankle dorsiflexion (9.49–12.78) and maximal eversion angle (12.70–17.36). Kinetic and kinematics indicated biomechanical effects induced by running shoes, shoe classification was similar between modes. Running mode influences biomechanics, whilst shoe classification remains similar. Anterior-posterior braking force is overestimated in discontinuous runway running, combined with increased variability suggesting an inconsistent foot-strike. Variability at the ankle joint was seen to increase during continuous loop running, indicating a more rigid ankle complex during discontinuous runway running. Our findings suggest that continuous loop running should be used when precise absolute variable magnitudes are required while runway running tests appear sufficient for general comparative shoe evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study examined (a) the strength of four individual footwear perception factors to influence the overall preference of running shoes and (b) whether these perception factors satisfied the nonmulticollinear assumption in a regression model.Background: Running footwear must fulfill multiple functional criteria to satisfy its potential users. Footwear perception factors, such as fit and cushioning, are commonly used to guide shoe design and development, but it is unclear whether running-footwear users are able to differentiate one factor from another.Methods: One hundred casual runners assessed four running shoes on a 15-cm visual analogue scale for four footwear perception factors (fit, cushioning, arch support, and stability) as well as for overall preference during a treadmill running protocol.Results: Diagnostic tests showed an absence of multicollinearity between factors, where values for tolerance ranged from .36 to .72, corresponding to variance inflation factors of 2.8 to 1.4. The multiple regression model of these four footwear perception variables accounted for 77.7% to 81.6% of variance in overall preference, with each factor explaining a unique part of the total variance.Conclusion: Casual runners were able to rate each footwear perception factor separately, thus assigning each factor a true potential to improve overall preference for the users. The results also support the use of a multiple regression model of footwear perception factors to predict overall running shoe preference.Application: Regression modeling is a useful tool for running-shoe manufacturers to more precisely evaluate how individual factors contribute to the subjective assessment of running footwear. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]