Effect of footwear on high and low arched runners’ mechanics during a prolonged run

doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.09.015

Gait & Posture

Volume 26, Issue 2, July 2007, Pages 219-225

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.09.015 Get rights and content

Abstract

Introduction

Running shoes are designed specifically for different foot types in order to reduce injuries. Running in the correct footwear matched for foot type may have a greater influence on mechanics when runners become exerted. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate changes in kinematics and kinetics over the course of a prolonged run when low (LA) and high (HA) arched runners wear motion control and cushioning shoes.

Methods

Twelve HA and 12 LA recreational runners were recruited for this study. Subjects ran in a motion control (MC) and cushion trainer (CT) shoe. Lower extremity kinematics and tibial accelerometry were collected while the runners ran at a self-selected training pace. The data were analyzed using a two-way (footwear × time) repeated measures ANOVA (p = 0.05) for each arch type.

Results

Low arched runners: Peak tibial internal rotation decreased in the MC shoe and was increased in the CT over the course of the prolonged run. However, no interactions or main effects were noted for peak eversion or eversion excursion. High arched runners: No shoe by time interaction was observed for tibial shock. However, there was a main effect for shoe, with lower tibial shock associated with the CT shoe.

Conclusion

In LA runners, MC shoes decreased tibial internal rotation compared to CT shoes over the course of a prolonged run. In HA runners, running in the CT shoes reduced tibial shock compared to the MC shoes.

Introduction

Running shoes have evolved dramatically over the past few decades. While there are many types of shoes on the market, the three primary categories are motion control, cushion trainers, and stability shoes. Motion control shoes are developed to control excessive rearfoot motion, which is typical of low arched runners [1]. Cushion trainer shoes, on the other hand, are developed to attenuate lower extremity loading, which is elevated in high arched individuals [1]. Stability shoes are designed for the runners with a relatively normal arch structure and mechanics, who may benefit from a balance of cushioning and motion control. Cushioning and motion control characteristics of a shoe are deemed important, as most running injuries are thought to be caused by excessive motion or impact shock during stance [2], [3].

It is believed that when shoes are matched to the correct foot type, injuries can be reduced. Wearing the correct shoe type may especially be beneficial for high and low arch runners. These runners are reported to have a greater incidence of overuse injuries compared to individuals with normal arch structure [4]. This is thought to be due to high and low arched individuals exhibiting increased loading and increased eversion, respectively [1]. One study recently examined the effectiveness of matching running footwear to arch type [5]. These researchers provided incoming recruits at a military base with a footwear recommendation following an initial arch screening by a physical therapist or physical therapist assistant. Those with high arches were recommended a cushion trainer while recruits with low arches were recommended a motion control shoe. Those with normal arches were recommended a stability shoe. Injury rates were compared for the 6 months prior and following the implementation of a footwear recommendation program. The authors reported a 50% reduction in all lower extremity injuries upon the implementation of the program. It was suggested that the injury reduction was most likely due to biomechanical improvements in gait. However, these mechanisms were not examined.

Midsole properties of the running shoe have a large influence on foot motion. Running in shoes with stiffer midsoles has been shown to reduce peak eversion and eversion excursion [6], [7]. The midsole can also be altered by wedging. Perry and Lafortune [8] compared lower extremity mechanics when subjects ran in shoes with a 5° varus (typical of a motion control shoe), a 5° valgus wedge and a neutral midsole condition. The varus wedge condition decreased rearfoot eversion. However, it also increased tibial shock, the impact peak and the vertical loading rate compared to the other conditions. Therefore, reducing motion may also be associated with increasing shock.

Most footwear studies are conducted while running in a non-exerted state. However, shoes may have a more important effect when runners become exerted, since this is when most overuse injuries are thought to occur. Exertion associated with a prolonged run is related to voluntary strength decrements [9], [10], [11]. These strength decrements may lead to increased joint motion. Derrick et al. [12] noted that peak eversion and peak knee flexion increased during a 2 mile run at a maximal effort. Therefore, motion control shoes may be especially important as runners become exerted during a training run.

While joint motion increases with exertion during running, there are also changes in running kinetics. Peak vertical (impact and propulsive) and anterior–posterior ground reaction forces have been shown to decrease over a prolonged run [13], [14], [15]. As well, tibial shock has been shown to increase with exertion [12], [16], [17], [18]. Since higher shock has been shown to be related to stress fractures the intervention of cushioning footwear may be beneficial to reduce elevated tibial shock levels when runners become exerted [3], [19].

Based on the literature to date, it appears that running footwear can influence lower extremity kinematics and kinetics. Since rearfoot motion and impact shock increase during a prolonged run, running in the correct footwear for arch type may have a greater effect at the end of a run compared to the beginning. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine changes in kinematics and kinetics when low arch and high arch runners wear motion control and cushioning shoes over the course of a prolonged run. It was hypothesized that, in low arch runners, rearfoot and tibial motion would not increase in the motion control shoe, but would increase in the cushioning shoe over the course of the prolonged run. Conversely, in high arch runners, it was hypothesized that tibial shock would not increase in the cushioning shoe, but would increase in the motion control shoe over the course of the prolonged run.

Section snippets

Methods

Based on a priori sample size estimates (α = 0.05, β = 0.20), using variability from Derrick et al. [12] and a 15% difference between means, 6–10 subjects were needed to provide sufficient power for this study [20]. Twelve high arch (HA) and 12 low arch (LA) recreational runners were therefore recruited for this study. All runners were between 18 and 40 years old and running a minimum of 10 miles/week. Subjects were excluded from the study if they had a history of cardiovascular problems. In

Results

The average arch height index value was 0.296 (1.7 S.D. below the reference mean) for the LA runners and 0.390 (1.8 S.D. above the reference mean) for the HA runners (Table 1). In addition, HA runners’ arches were over twice as stiff as the LA runners. No differences were noted in any other of the subject's characteristics including age, height, mass, and miles run per week (Table 1). The average length of the run for the LA runners was 47 ± 24 min while the HA runners ran for an average of 52 ± 25

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine whether running in the recommended shoe for arch type had a differential effect on running mechanics over a prolonged run. Since LA and HA runners are thought to exhibit different mechanisms of overuse injury, excessive rearfoot motion in LA runners and excessive loading in HA runners, the discussion of the results will focus on these specific areas. While differences in the footwear conditions had an effect on the variables of interest, these

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by the American College of Sports Medicine Doctoral Student Research Grant. The authors would also like to acknowledge New Balance Athletic Shoes for donating the footwear used in the study.

References (29)

S.D. Perry et al.
Influences of inversion/eversion of the foot upon impact loading during locomotion
Clin Biomech
(1995)
J. Mizrahi et al.
Effect of fatigue on leg kinematics and impact acceleration in long distance running
Hum Movement Sci
(2000)
A.S. Voloshin et al.
Dynamic loading on the human musculoskeletal system-effect of fatigue
Clin Biomech
(1998)
R. Ferber et al.
A comparison of within- and between-day reliability of discrete 3D lower extremity variables in runners
J Ortho Res
(2002)
B.M. Nigg et al.
Effects of the arch height of the foot on angular motion of the lower extremities in running
J Biomech
(1993)
D.S. Williams et al.
Lower extremity kinematic and kinetic differences in runners with high and low arches
J Appl Biomech
(2001)
S. James et al.
Injuries to runners
Am J Sport Med
(1978)
C. Milgrom et al.
A prospective study on the effect of a shock-absorbing orthotic device on the incidence of stress fractures in military recruits
Foot Ankle
(1985)
K.R. Kaufman et al.
The effect of foot structure and range of motion on musculoskeletal overuse injuries
Am J Sport Med
(1999)
J.J. Knapik et al.
Evaluation of injury rates during implementation of the Fort Drum Running Shoe Injury Prevention Program
US Army Center Health Promot Prev Med
(1999)

B. DeWit et al.

The effect of varying midsole hardness on impact forces and foot motion during foot contact in running

J Appl Biomech

(1995)

J. Hamill et al.

Timing of lower extremity joint actions during treadmill running

Med Sci Sport Exerc

(1992)

N.P. Gleeson et al.

Influence of acute endurance activity on leg neuromuscular and musculoskeletal performance

Med Sci Sport Exerc

(1998)

R. Lepers et al.

The effects of a prolonged running exercise on strength characteristics

Int J Sport Med

(2000)

Cited by (69)

Differences in the center of pressure movement during standing with running shoes of different constructions: A cross-sectional study
2023, Journal of Orthopaedics
This study examined the differences in the center of pressure movement in a one-leg standing position with bare feet, thin-soled shoes, and thick-soled shoes.
In total, 21 male university students participated in this study. The task involved standing on one leg with the dominant foot for 30 s, and the center of pressure movement was measured using a grab coder (G-620; ANIMA, Tokyo, Japan). Three shoe-wearing states, including bare feet, thin-soled shoes, and thick-soled shoes, with the eyes closed and open in each condition. Statistical analysis was performed, with the significance level set as 5%.
In the multiple comparison results, the anteroposterior (AP) locus length, AP locus length per second, and maximum amplitude in the AP direction were significantly larger with thick-soled shoes than with bare feet in the closed eyes state. The locus length per unit area was significantly smaller with the thick-soled shoes than with the barefoot condition. Other items did not differ significantly between the shoe-wearing states.
Thick-soled shoes caused a greater center of pressure movement in the AP direction in the static one-leg standing position than did the barefoot state. Our findings suggest that the condition with thick-soled shoes was more unstable in static environments.
The effect of wear on slip-resistance of winter footwear with composite outsoles: A pilot study
2022, Applied Ergonomics
Falls on icy surfaces are among the top causes of injuries for workers exposed to the outdoor environment. Our recent field study showed that a new generation of winter footwear incorporating composite outsoles was able to reduce slips and falls on icy surfaces by 68% and 78%, respectively. The widespread adoption of this type of footwear may lead to substantial reductions in pain, suffering and costs of fall-related injuries. However, these composite materials are sensitive to wear and abrasion, which makes it likely that their slip-resistance performance may degrade with use. The goal of this pilot study was to determine the extent to which the slip-resistance of two types of winter footwear with composite outsoles changed as they wore down with real-world use. Seven participants were recruited for this study and were asked to walk 100K steps with their assigned footwear. Tread depth and slip–resistance performance (using the Maximum Achievable Angle test) were measured at baseline and again after each 25K-step interval up to 100K. Our results showed that the slip-resistance performance of the test footwear dropped significantly after the 75K and 100K step intervals compared to baseline. In addition, significant changes in tread depth were found after only 25K steps. These findings indicate that the performance of this type of footwear degrades relatively quickly with real-world use. Therefore, larger scale study of the slip-resistance of winter footwear with composite outsoles is needed and members of the public should be made aware of the potential loss of slip-resistance of these products.
The relationship between static and dynamic foot posture and running biomechanics: A systematic review and meta-analysis
2019, Gait and Posture
Citation Excerpt :
No evidence was found relating medial longitudinal arch characteristics to sagittal ankle kinematics, only very limited evidence for tibial acceleration or tibial shock. However, after a prolonged run in footwear, HA runner showed reduced tibial shock in cushioned running shoes without motion control [41]. The interaction of foot type and footwear regarding biomechanics [40] and injury epidemiology [46,47] is likely only one part of the multifactorial etiology of running related injuries [48,49].
Medial longitudinal arch characteristics are thought to be a contributing factor to lower limb running injuries. Running biomechanics associated with different foot types have been proposed as one of the potential underlying mechanisms. However, no systematic review has investigated this relationship.
The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic literature search and synthesize the evidence about the relationship between foot posture and running biomechanics.
For this systematic review and meta-analysis different electronic databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane, SportDiscus) were searched to identify studies investigating the relationship between medial longitudinal arch characteristics and running biomechanics. After identification of relevant articles, two independent researchers determined the risk of bias of included studies. For homogenous outcomes, data pooling and meta-analysis (random effects model) was performed, and levels of evidence determined.
Of the 4088 studies initially identified, a total of 25 studies were included in the qualitative review and seven in the quantitative analysis. Most studies had moderate and three studies a low risk of bias. Moderate evidence was found for a relationship between foot posture and subtalar joint kinematics (small pooled effects: −0.59; 95%CI −1.14 to − 0.003) and leg stiffness (small pooled effect: 0.59; 95%CI 0.18 to 0.99). Limited or very limited evidence was found for a relationship with forefoot kinematics, tibial/leg rotation, tibial acceleration/shock, plantar pressure distribution, plantar fascia tension and ankle kinetics as well as an interaction of foot type and footwear regarding tibial rotation.
While there is evidence for an association between foot posture and subtalar joint kinematics and leg stiffness, no clear relationship was found for other biomechanical outcomes. Since a comprehensive meta-analysis was limited by the heterogeneity of included studies future research would benefit from consensus in foot assessment and more homogenous study designs.
Sex differences in lower extremity coordinative variability during running
2019, Gait and Posture
Differences in coordinative variability have been previously reported between healthy and injured runners. Many running-related injuries have a sex bias, particularly patellofemoral pain (PFP), as female runners are approximately twice as likely to develop PFP compared to males. However, very little is currently known regarding sex differences in coordinative variability during running.
Are there sex differences in continuous relative phase (CRP) variability for pelvis-thigh and thigh-shank couplings during the stance phase of running?
Pelvis, thigh, and shank segment kinematics were collected on 15 female and 15 male subjects during overground running at a self-selected easy pace (2.39–3.56 m/s) using a 10-camera 3D motion capture system. Continuous relative phase (CRP) variability was calculated between the pelvis-thigh and thigh-shank, and averaged during four distinct stance sub-phases. A mixed effects linear model compared CRP variability between sexes at each stance sub-phase.
Compared to males, females displayed significantly lower pelvis-thigh CRP variability in the transverse plane during the loading response phase, and significantly lower thigh-shank CRP variability in the sagittal plane during the loading response and pre-swing phases.
Lower coordinative variability in females during the loading response for two couplings may provide additional insight into the sex bias for developing certain running-related injuries. However, any injury implications from these results are speculative and should be interpreted with caution.
The measurement of tibial acceleration in runners—A review of the factors that can affect tibial acceleration during running and evidence-based guidelines for its use
2019, Gait and Posture
Impact loading in runners, assessed by the measurement of tibial acceleration, has attracted substantial research attention. Due to potential injury links, particularly tibial fatigue fractures, tibial acceleration is also used as a clinical monitoring metric. There are contributing factors and potential limitations that must be considered before widespread implementation.
The objective of this review is to update current knowledge of the measurement of tibial acceleration in runners and to provide recommendations for those intending on using this measurement device in research or clinical practice.
Literature relating to the measurement of tibial acceleration in steady-state running was searched. A narrative approach synthesised the information from papers written in English. A range of literature was identified documenting the selection and placement of accelerometers, the analysis of data, and the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic factors.
Tibial acceleration is a proxy measurement for the impact forces experienced at the tibia commonly used by clinicians and researchers. There is an assumption that this measure is related to bone stress and strain, however this is yet to be proven. Multi-axis devices should be secured firmly to the tibia to limit movement relative to the underlying bone and enable quantification of all components of acceleration. Additional frequency analyses could be useful to provide a more thorough characterisation of the signal.
Tibial accelerations are clearly affected by running technique, running velocity, lower extremity stiffness, as well as surface and footwear compliance. The interrelationships between muscle pre-activation and fatigue, stiffness, effective mass and tibial acceleration still require further investigation, as well as how changes in these variables impact on injury risk.
Electromyography comparison of the effects of various footwear in the activity patterns of the peroneus longus and brevis muscles
2018, Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
Citation Excerpt :
This method is usually utilized to analyze muscle activity. Previous studies showed movements variations regarding the relationship between footwear and running gait (Butler et al., 2018b; Chuter and Smith, 2018; Cheung et al., 2018). Based on these antecedents, the proposal of this research is to evaluate the effects of five types of footwear compared to the barefoot condition and analyze the activity patterns of PLB muscles in healthy subjects during the gait cycle.
Peroneus longus and brevis (PLB) disorders are commonly in people with lateral ligamentous instability, ankle pain, lateral hindfoot pain and structures of the proximal compartment of the lower legs and their muscle activity is believed to be influenced by different footwear types. The proposal of this research is to evaluate the effects of five types of footwear with respect to the barefoot condition and analyze the activity patterns of PLB muscles in healthy subjects during the gait cycle.
Thirty healthy subjects were recruited in a laboratory in this cross-sectional research design. While walking, electromyography (EMG) activity was measured from PLB via surface electrodes in six experimental conditions: 1) barefoot, 2) minimalist, 3) pronated control, 4) air chamber, 5) ethyl-vinyl-acetate (EVA) and 6) boost. These data were obtained and compared.
The peroneus brevis showed significant reductions in the peak amplitude of the five footwear types (minimalist, pronation control, air chamber, EVA and boost) with respect to the barefoot condition in the propulsion phase of the gait cycle during walking (P = 0.034; P < 0.001; P < 0.001; P < 0.001; P = 0.006) and running (P = 0.004; P < 0.001; P = 0.001; P < 0.001; P = 0.001), respectively. Furthermore, peroneus longus showed significant reductions in the peak amplitude of these five footwear types with respect to the barefoot condition in the propulsion phase of the gait cycle during running (P = 0.005; P = 0.038; P = 0.019; P = 0.025; P = 0.021).
The EMG activity patterns of the PLB muscles may depend on the use of different types of sport shoes such as minimalist, pronation control, air chamber, EVA and boost footwear with respect the barefoot condition in different phases of the gait cycle during walking and running.

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

Effect of footwear on high and low arched runners’ mechanics during a prolonged run

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Introduction

Section snippets

Methods

Results

Discussion

Acknowledgements

Clin Biomech

Hum Movement Sci

Clin Biomech

J Ortho Res

J Biomech

Lower extremity kinematic and kinetic differences in runners with high and low arches

J Appl Biomech

Injuries to runners

Am J Sport Med

A prospective study on the effect of a shock-absorbing orthotic device on the incidence of stress fractures in military recruits

Foot Ankle

The effect of foot structure and range of motion on musculoskeletal overuse injuries

Am J Sport Med

Evaluation of injury rates during implementation of the Fort Drum Running Shoe Injury Prevention Program

US Army Center Health Promot Prev Med

The effect of varying midsole hardness on impact forces and foot motion during foot contact in running

J Appl Biomech

Timing of lower extremity joint actions during treadmill running

Med Sci Sport Exerc

Influence of acute endurance activity on leg neuromuscular and musculoskeletal performance

Med Sci Sport Exerc

The effects of a prolonged running exercise on strength characteristics

Int J Sport Med