Biomechanical Analysis of Running Foot Strike in Shoes of Different Mass
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
©Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2020) 19, 130-137 http://www.jssm.org ` Research article Biomechanical Analysis of Running Foot Strike in Shoes of Different Mass I-Lin Wang 1, Ryan B. Graham 2, Eric J.P. Bourdon 2, Yi-Ming Chen 1, Chin-Yi Gu 3 and Li-I Wang 4 1 Health Technology College, Jilin Sport University, Jilin Province, China; 2 School of Human Kinetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; 3 Department of Curriculum Design and Human Potentials Develop- ment, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien, Taiwan, R.O.C.; 4 Department of Physical Education and Kinesiology, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien, Taiwan, R.O.C. through adaptation to a forefoot strike (FFS) as opposed to Abstract a rearfoot strike (RFS), thereby reducing landing impact Different shoes and strike patterns produce different biomechan- transients (Lieberman et al., 2010). Thus, the collision ical characteristics that can affect injury risk. Running shoes are force is one of the main factors causing lower extremity mainly designed as lightweight, minimal, or traditional cushioned running injuries during the running braking phase types. Previous research on different shoes utilized shoes of not (Lieberman et al., 2010; Shih et al., 2013). Another com- only different mass but also different shoe structures. However, it parison between barefoot running and shod running found is unclear whether biomechanical changes during running in dif- that the barefoot running stride was shorter, with decreased ferent shoe types with differing mass are the result of the struc- tural design or the mass of the shoe. Thus, the purpose of this contact time and higher stride frequency (De Wit et al., study was to investigate the effect of shoes of different mass on 2000; Divert et al., 2005). Shod running attenuates the foot- running gait biomechanics. Twenty male runners participated in ground impact by adding damping material to avoid direct this study. The experimental shoe masses used in this study were contact with the ground. Therefore, shod running may lead 175, 255, 335 and 415 g. The peak vertical ground reaction force to a decrease in the storage and restitution of elastic energy increased with shoe mass (p < 0.05), but the strike index, ankle and lower net efficiency (Divert et al., 2008). Furthermore, plantarflexion at initial contact, peak moment of the ankle during a comparison of the effects of running barefoot, shod and the stance phase, and initial contact angles of the lower extremity in Vibram Fivefingers (Vibram SpA, Albizzate, Italy), a joints did not change. During the pre-activation phase, the inte- lightweight minimalist shoe, revealed that runners in Vi- grated EMG data showed that the tibialis anterior muscle was the most activated with the 175 g and 415 g shoes (p < 0.05). During bram Fivefingers demonstrated longer strides and lower the push-off phase, the semitendinosus, lateral gastrocnemius and stride frequency relative to barefoot conditions and de- soleus muscles displayed higher activation with the heavier shoes creased contact time relative to shod conditions (p < 0.05). The center of pressure also moves forward; resulting (Squadrone and Gallozzi, 2009). in mid foot striking. The lightest shoes might increase gas- Forefoot or midfoot strikes (MFS) are a major com- trocnemius muscle fatigue during the braking phase. The heaviest ponent of barefoot running, while most shod runners use a shoes could cause semitendinosus and triceps surae muscle fa- heel strike pattern (De Wit et al., 2000; Hasegawa et al., tigue during the push-off phase. Therefore, runners should con- 2007; Lieberman et al., 2010). The cushioning capabilities sider their lower extremity joints, muscle adaptation and cushion- of some minimalist shoes allow the runner to adopt a heel ing to remain in their preferred movement path. strike pattern and avoid painful heel contact with the Key words: Running shoes, injury prevention, electromyogra- ground (Bonacci et al., 2013; Willy and Davis, 2014). As phy. the heel strike pattern is associated with greater dorsiflex- ion of the ankle joint, this pattern can reduce the ability of the ankle to attenuate impact forces (Hollander et al., 2014; Introduction Willy and Davis, 2014). However, shod running prevents a direct heel to running-surface impact during landing, lead- Recently, in the field of sports medicine, there has been a ing to longer strides through modification of the contact large amount of research conducted on the biomechanical geometry (De Wit et al., 2000). It is essential to understand adaptations to running in modified footwear. Specifically, how foot strike strategies are modulated by different foot- there has been an increased focus on barefoot running wear, as it has been established that different strike patterns (Becker et al., 2014; Cheung and Rainbow, 2014; Powell can affect the risk of lower extremity injuries (Hamill et al., et al., 2014; Rao et al., 2015; Strauts et al., 2015; 1999; Wang et al., 2018). Therefore, if we understand how Thompson et al., 2015), running strike patterns (Ahn et al., these factors change foot strike patterns, we can prescribe 2014; Lieberman et al., 2010; Shih et al., 2013), and vari- footwear more appropriately to individuals. ous running shoe styles (Barnes et al., 2010; Bonacci et al., Researchers have also previously found that differ- 2013; Hollander et al., 2014; Squadrone and Gallozzi, ent types of running shoes (e.g., Vibram Fivefingers, light- 2009). Researchers have found that different shoes and dif- weight shoes, and minimalist shoes) can affect running bio- ferent strike patterns produce different biomechanical mechanics and, therefore, influence the risk of injury characteristics that can affect injury risk. Previous research (Bonacci et al., 2013; Sinclair, 2014; Squadrone and comparing barefoot and shod running has demonstrated Gallozzi, 2009; Willy and Davis, 2014). Along with that barefoot running can change the landing strategy changes in design, there are also differences in the mass of Received: 07 February 2019 / Accepted: 19 December 2019 / Published (online): 24 February 2020 Wang et al. 131 running shoes: approximately 150-200 g for marathon data collection, participants were asked to habituate to the running and Vibram Fivefingers shoes, 200-300 g for a runway at a comfortable self-selected pace and were given neutral running shoe and 360 g for a traditional running 5 practice trials in each footwear condition to become fa- shoe (Mizuno, 2018). In the past, few have explored the miliarized with the shoe mass. Allowing the participants to independent effect of mass, and its influence on running self-select the running pace facilitated a more natural re- biomechanics is not well understood. Related studies have sponse to running with additional mass on the shoes. Fol- observed that minimalist shoes have moderate beneficial lowing familiarization, participants were instructed to run effects on running economy (Perl et al., 2012). It has been down the runway, in which two force plates were posi- demonstrated that there is no detrimental effect of shoe tioned to capture a right and left foot impact. Participants mass on metabolic cost if the combined mass of both shoes completed five trials for each mass condition, and three tri- is less than 440 g. However, if the combined mass of the als with stable foot contact were selected and averaged to shoes exceeds 440 g, there is a positive correlation with increase the stability of measurements. Data utilized in the metabolic cost (Fuller et al., 2015). analysis were recorded from the participant’s right foot It is well established that the human body will contact with the first force plate to left foot toe-off on the change its foot strike pattern during running in response to second force plate (Figure 2). different designs of running shoes. The majority of shod runners use a RFS, and minimal shoes or barefoot runners use FFS and MFS, respectively (Hasegawa et al., 2007; Larson, 2014). Currently, running shoes are mainly de- signed as lightweight shoes, minimal shoes, and traditional cushioned running shoes. Therefore, it is unclear whether the biomechanical changes during running in different shoe types of differing mass are the result of the structural de- sign or mass of the shoe. To address this, the current study was conducted using four identical types of shoes that dif- fered only in mass to study the effect of shoe mass on run- ning biomechanics in isolation. A standard, traditional run- Figure 1. Footwear used for each condition. A) 175g condi- ning shoe was selected for this study as it provided an av- tion, B) 255g condition, C) 335g condition, and D) 415g con- erage amount of cushioning that would not influence run- dition. ning mechanics due to excessive or inadequate cushioning. It was hypothesized that greater shoe mass would result in increased vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) and a change to MFS running patterns. Methods Participants Twenty collegiate male physical education students volun- teered for this study and provided written informed con- Figure 2. Experimental set up. sent. The participants’ mean age, height and mass were 21.8 years (SD=1.2), 1.72 m (SD=0.03) and 68.00 kg Biomechanical measurements (SD=4.32), respectively. None of the participants had a his- An eight-camera motion analysis system (Qualisys Track tory of lower extremity injuries during the six months prior Manager [QTM], Oqus 100, Gothenburg, Sweden) was to the experiment. The runners were previously familiar- used to collect whole-body motion data with a total of 40 ized with shoes of different mass a minimum of four times reflective markers placed on bony landmarks (19 mm in at the test site, where they ran one time along the 10 meter diameter) according to the Helen Hayes Marker set. runway in each shoe on four different days in one week.